Diversity and Cohesion
36th Congress of the German Society for Sociology
October 1st-5th, 2012 in Bochum and Dortmund

Diversity and Cohesion Complete eng.
Diversity and Cohesion Summary eng.

The 2012 DGS Conference:
Diversity and Cohesion: Challenges of Increasing Social Complexity

The Bochum/Dortmund Organising Committee, October 2011

The 36th Conference of the German Sociological Association (DGS), to be held at the Ruhr- University Bochum and the Dortmund University of Technology from October 1 to 5, 2012, will explore the theme of “Diversity and Cohesion”. The Conference will provide an excellent opportunity for professionals in the field of sociology and interested members of the public alike to discuss the challenges, as well as the opportunities, of increasing social complexity in the light of recent research.
In sociology, terms such as „individualization‟ and „diversification‟, „multi-option society‟ and „multicultural society‟, „inclusion‟ and „exclusion‟, „fragmentation‟ and „post-traditional communitization‟ (Vergemeinschaftung) are used to focus on various aspects of contemporary social change. Various traditional sociological approaches are used to specifically address the diversity of normative orientations, of living conditions and lifestyles, of newly emerging and ever-changing social contexts, and of ethno-cultural communities and sexual orientations, not only in terms of the threat such diversity may pose to social cohesion, but also in terms of the opportunities it may provide for creative progress and social innovation.
In the public discourse, the diversity of expressions and forms of social life, a phenomenon regarded by many as increasingly significant, is often construed as a threat to the „ties that bind us together‟, but it is also viewed as an essential condition for, and the fundamental mechanism that drives, the creation of new social ties. From a sociological perspective, the expansion of figurations associated with social diversity inevitably brings about a wide variety of new forms of social cohesion. This complicated and fraught relationship between diversity and cohesion in contemporary social life will be the focus of the 36th DGS Conference.

1. Summary

There is a near consensus among both the general public and sociologists that our current society could be perceived as increasingly diverse. The increase in religious diversity is evident not only in the growing number of religious denominations and their sacred buildings (most of which are Islamic, though there are also a variety of Buddhist, free church and Pentecostal denominations), but also in fashion attributes such as cross pendants and headscarves. Existing forms of labour and employment are becoming more flexible and are increasingly diversified in terms places of work, numbers of working hours, periods of employment and commitment to an organization. Someone‟s social situation is no longer determined solely by their level of income, educational attainment, social background or gender, but also by an increasingly diverse range of other factors such as communication skills, social networks, intercultural experience and personal interests and passions. Cultural orientations are becoming increasingly diversified as well, as is evident in the debate over the (recently proclaimed) „death of multicultural society‟, the necessity of having a national „defining culture‟ (Leitkultur), and (imagined) „parallel societies‟. The same is true for lifestyles and sexual orientations, as is reflected in the broad range of sociological terms that are used to describe social contexts („post-modern‟, „liberal-intellectual‟, „conservative-technocratic‟, „hedonistic‟, „working class‟), as well as in the increasing public attention given to activities of the gay, lesbian and queer communities. Finally, and no less important, neologisms such as „googling‟, „twittering‟, „blogging‟, „texting‟, „chatting‟ and „skyping‟ are clearly indicative of an increasingly diverse range of information and communication methods.
As a science that is concerned with the structures and processes of sociation (Vergesellschaftung), social action, social orders and social change, this presents sociology with a number of fundamental questions: Which of these forms and patterns of diversity are actually new? Is what we are witnessing now, at the beginning of the 21st century, actually the emergence of an increasingly diverse range of expressions of human life and social relations? Could the notion of increasing diversity be largely the result of heightened awareness? Could it simply be the result of an increasing number of different modes of perception? Have previously rarely seen lifestyles really become more prevalent in society, or are they simply becoming more prominent in the public eye?
It is difficult enough to make any reasonable assumptions about the actual and/or perceived degree and forms of social diversity, but there are at least as many unanswered questions concerning the various relationships between social diversity and social cohesion: Does
social diversity (or the growing perception of increased diversity) promote or threaten social cohesion? Are there any forms of „diversity‟ (such as racism and certain forms of ethno-religious fundamentalism or extreme social inequality) that challenge social cohesion? To what extent does cohesion depend on social diversity? Could it be that the emergence of new forms of diversity leads to a wider range of opportunities to develop cohesion?
There is a general consensus across all paradigmatic positions and branches of sociology that all the various forms of individual and collective diversity are expressions of diversity which are themselves the result of social processes. It is, therefore, far from obvious that diversity and social cohesion should be fundamentally at odds for structural reasons. Rather, it is true that diversity which is perceived as relevant by society is always produced and reproduced through systems of social symbols, practices, groups of actors and technical artefact structures. For this reason alone, the social production of diversity inevitably leads to the emergence of new ways of producing cohesion. However, difficulties and problems in sociation processes arise when the degree of social diversity in some areas or dimensions of social life is not consistent with, and thus cannot be „integrated‟ with, the degree of social diversity in other areas or dimensions.
Over the past two decades, sociologists as well as interested members of the public have become increasingly aware of an increase in social diversity, be it in terms of personal choices, aspirations and trajectories, group- and organization-related modes of sociality or institutional-national forms of sociation. However, the general awareness and understanding of the increasing range of opportunities and ways to develop social cohesion are still low. To address this situation, the 36th DGS Conference will give particular attention to the reciprocal relationship between diversity, cohesion and newly emerging mechanisms which may promote cohesion. Do modern communication technologies (including the „social networking‟ services such as Facebook that emerge around them) and the eventization of recreational and marketing activities create new opportunities for „post-traditional communitization‟? Could these developments help increase the potential of „weak ties‟ to serve as strategic links that promote social cohesion between social circles in the world of everyday life? What is the contribution of modern for-profit and non-profit organizations to sociation and communitization? What are the interdependence effects of transnational and global social spaces that transcend the onion-layer model of local, regional and national spheres, and what new forms of transnational diversity (and of social inequality) are emerging in the process?
In order to focus the discussion of the obviously contentious issue of diversity and cohesion somewhat, a number of key arguments and counterarguments can be formulated which allow for a more systematic exploration of the theme of 36th DGS Conference.

2. Systematic Approaches

The relationship between diversity and cohesion has been one of the central questions and fundamental issues of sociology since its establishment as an independent science. In the aftermath of the French Revolution and the dramatic social upheavals in many (European) countries, sociology was established to find answers to a number of questions regarding the effects of industrialization, individualization, rationalization and urbanization: „What is it that actually holds societies together despite the erosion of traditional living conditions?‟„How is society possible?‟„What is required to ensure social cohesion and preserve the social structure of (national) societies?‟ It was questions such as these that inspired the founding fathers of sociology to develop their central concepts and theoretical assumptions. This is as true for Émile Durkheim‟s „mechanical‟ and „organic solidarity‟, Ferdinand Tönnies‟ Community and Society, and Herbert Spencer‟s concept of differentiation and specialization in the course of organic evolution, as it is for Max Weber‟s terms „communitization‟ and „sociation‟ and Georg Simmel‟s forms of human social life and the relationships between them.
One could say that one of the most significant contributions of sociology to the understanding of human social life is that its various schools have invariably pointed out the inseparable connection between the diversity and cohesion of all forms and expressions of life. From the perspective of differentiation theory, diversity has been one of the fundamental factors in the development of modern society. According to Spencer, the transformation of the homogeneous into the heterogeneous is the principle of differentiation. Durkheim‟s distinction between „mechanical‟ solidarity and „organic solidarity‟ follows the same line of reasoning, and raises questions about the connection between differentiation and integration or, more to the point, diversity and cohesion. The modern individual is inconceivable without a variety of social relations; according to Simmel, individuality is the result of an “intersection of social circles”. There is no denying that diversity is a potential source of conflict, but, as Simmel pointed out, social conflict helps to develop cohesion within communities, and conflict theory in sociology even regards conflict as a driving force behind social development. Dahrendorf observes that it is not conflict itself that threatens social cohesion, but rather the denial of conflict and the failure to find ways to resolve it and balance the interests of all parties involved. To him, acceptance of diversity is a defining characteristic of modern civil society. However, one should also remember Elias‟ dictum that social diversity inevitably leads to processes of inclusion and exclusion, as well as imbalances of power, which indicates that diversity and cohesion are forever in potential conflict with one another.
The relationship between diversity and cohesion first became a major focus of attention in the 1980s. „What is it that holds society together (at least for now)?‟ is a question that is debated by scientists, politicians and civil society associations alike, and often with great concern. Recent assessments of the present indicate that society is becoming increasingly diverse. The various attributes that are used to describe societies, such as „individualized‟, „post-traditional‟, „pluralist‟, „network‟, „multi-option‟, „multicultural‟ and „globalized‟, all focus on different aspects of this process, namely the diversity of normative orientations, lifestyles, newly emerging and ever-changing social contexts, and socio-ethno-cultural social spaces. Equal attention is given to centrifugal and centripetal forces which may impinge on cohesion, to factors which have been reliable sources of cohesion (sometimes surprisingly so), and to ever-new forms of social cohesion. There appears to be a general consensus that the traditional (Parsonian) notion of social cohesion as being maintained primarily by normative integration is insufficient. Recent sociological assessments cover a wide spectrum of perspectives, ranging from serious doubt as to whether individuals who are unable to handle the multitude of options available to them can find ligatures which ensure social cohesion and offer points of reference that help them negotiate the vast array of options, to confidence that an emergent, active civil society will be able to develop rich and varied cohesive forces that are at the same time local and transnational. And then there are also other sociological positions which run transversely to the direction of those at the extreme ends of the spectrum, as it were, and which provide yet another way to address the relationship between social diversity and social cohesion by switching from a semantics of „integration‟ to a semantics of „inclusion‟.
Generally speaking, diversity can manifest itself as a diverse variety of living conditions and social groups which coexist in conflict and opposition, or alongside one another, or in harmony. In welfare state systems, where the claim rights of the individual guarantee individualistic inclusion, serious social tensions have largely been avoided in the past. Given the widespread dismantling of the welfare state system and the continuation and upgrading of at most a few selected social services, the question of whether this will be possible in the future is of utmost relevance for the relationship between diversity and cohesion. A particular case in point are the noticeable exclusion trends which have been affecting certain social groups, such as people of the Islamic faith in many Western European countries and Romani people in some parts of Eastern Europe (as well as in France), which are usually characterized by a mixture of „traditional‟ forms of social inequality and new socio-ethno-cultural differences. It will also be interesting to see how the struggle of ethnical groups for collective representation and the transition from individualistic to collective „inclusion‟ that accompanies it will change the conditions for the organization of social cohesion.
In recent years, processes of social differentiation which promote what could be called the „natural‟ development or evolution of diversity have been complemented by coordinated efforts to generate diversity and use its potential. Concentrated mainly in the areas of economics and education, these efforts emphasize the productive function of diversity. In economics, „diversity‟ and „diversity management‟ are used to conceptualize diversity as a way for organizations to keep pace with rapid social change, while in the educational field, a new „pedagogy of diversity‟ has been on the rise for some time that makes the acknowledgement of learning group heterogeneity the guiding principle of teaching. Decidedly positive views of diversity such as these regard diversity not only as a source of individual options, but also as an option for people to actively shape areas of social life.
In consideration of these different and often incompatible views of diversity and the fears and hopes associated with it, the 36th DGS Conference will address the question of whether or not the 21st century will see a fundamental transformation of the traditional relationships
between diversity and cohesion:
Which of the forms and patterns of diversity under discussion are genuinely new? Is what we are witnessing basically just a change in the frequency distributions of diversity phenomena, or the growing perception of increasing diversity? Could it even be that the only thing that has increased is the diversity of perceptions of diversity? How is diversity produced as a societal practice of self-observation and as an expression of power relations? Which forms of social diversity are considered desirable by mainstream society, and which are regarded as problematic? Are new mechanisms to control diversity and new patterns of social and societal cohesion emerging? Or is it primarily existing forms of cohesion that become the object of attention and reflection? What patterns of social cohesion are created by efforts to specifically address issues of societal impact, such as in the areas of social welfare and social policy? What forms of social cohesion emerge as unintended consequences of purposeful action „behind the backs‟, so to speak, of the actors involved? What is the role of sociology as an observer (and facilitator or agent) of real or perceived societal diversity?
A major objective of the Conference is to provide an analytical perspective to discuss the interplay of reproduction and innovation, and of process continuity and structural breaks in the relationship between diversity and cohesion. To this end, the discussion will evolve around the following three key assumptions:

The above assumptions are to be reassessed primarily through a thorough exploration of the five major streams which will provide the general structure of the plenary sessions during the Conference, and which will not only address the issue of social cohesion under conditions of ethno-cultural diversity, social inequality and diversified lifestyles, but will also attempt to identify new forms of cohesion and discuss the theoretical challenges associated with the theme of the Conference with which sociology is faced.

3. Challenges and Opportunities: Assessments of the Present and the Prospects They Offer

In addition to taking a systematic analytical approach to explore the issue of diversity and cohesion, the DGS Conference will address the complex relationship between the challenges and opportunities associated with the fundamental changes that are (purported to be) affecting the traditional relationships between diversity and cohesion. This is another issue which opens up potential new areas of investigation.
The economic globalization of value chains, the cross-border activities of for-profit and non-profit organizations, massive migration movements and modern communication and transportation technologies have led to a significant increase in the size and number of places and (geographical) spaces people can experience, that is, see and reach. At the same time, these trends of social change also bring about new forms of social diversity in certain social spaces (like cities) and national societies. Some of these forms of diversity of social spaces, and diversity in social spaces, provide more effective opportunities for the development of cohesion, such as transnational social spaces that extend across great distances, although they also pose potential challenges associated with borough- or locality-based segregation in cities, national separatism, and confrontation between different civilizations and cultures.
In the past few decades, social structure analysis has provided various models that can be used to represent the complexity of social space in terms of the reciprocal dynamics of vertical and horizontal differentiation, as well as in terms of various and diverse spatial relations (local, regional, national, supranational, transnational, global) and dimensions of temporality(biographical and life-stage-related).However, the challenge remains to develop a technical terminology and a set of methodological tools that are suitable for the description and representation of the relationship between similarity (e.g., class-related) and difference (lifestyle-related).Given the widening gap between the rich and the poor (or those segments of the population threatened with declining social status), between those „on the sunny side of life‟ and those „in the dark‟ (the „superfluous‟, the „troublesome‟, the „awkward‟, the „embarrassing‟), it is not unlikely that the disparity of the social structure may eventually grow to a point where it poses a serious threat to social cohesion. One of the questions that arise from this is whether society will be able to maintain (or achieve in the future) a broad consensus without doing so at the expense of excluding certain „third‟ groups, and if so, in what form. Another is whether cohesion can be strengthened even if social structures are becoming increasingly inhomogeneous (such as those of the societies of many other nation-states, especially in the Global South).
Given that it is primarily the institutional framework of the social security systems of the welfare state that has helped maintain a broad social consensus in the past, it does not appear unlikely that the reorganization or dismantling of the welfare state will give rise to new forms of antagonism. Whether and to what extent underprivileged social groups will be able to make themselves heard in an organized way within the framework of civil society is a question that must be considered in relation to the diversification of social contexts and lifestyles. While attachment to political parties is declining and membership in traditional organizations such as trade unions and employers‟ associations is stagnating, there are other relatively stable forms of company-level communitization and interest representation (e.g., works councils) as well as newly emerging forms of collective political and sub-political activity that are indicative of an increasing diversification of social contexts and forms of political expression(ATTAC, the gay pride and EuroMayDay movements, but also Wutbürger, „angry citizens‟, in Germany).
While traditional institutional frameworks of greater societal relevance (Christian churches, single-income families, traditional forms of work based on full-time employment)are being challenged by increasing diversity, new, sometimes locally organized forms of organizational and network-based solidarity are emerging. Many of these sociation opportunities develop in response to specific interests or living conditions and can be interpreted as socially innovative forms of „living together in diversity‟. Examples include share housing, ridesharing, carpooling, multi-generational living, theme-based action networks and social networking services.
In the field of gainful employment and production, the gradual blurring of the line between work life and home life has led to the emergence of a variety of new work patterns and types of employment which transcend traditional work arrangements and present new challenges to people who have to learn to adapt and reorganize their daily lives, as well as to organizations which represent the interests of employees. Flexible working-hour and working-location arrangements (for example, in the form of telecommuting), fixed-term projects as a new form of work organization, outsourcing, the rise of self-employment and many other similar phenomena all contribute to the (further)de-collectivization of labour. However, new forms of cohesion and even new transnational textures of employment regulation also emerge in this field, one example being virtual networks that are used by all those who are in a similar situation despite increasing diversification of employment, or who pursue similar goals independent of their physical location, or both.
The membership base of organizations is becoming increasingly heterogeneous, not least as a result of globalization, transnationalization, recent trends in the migration of labour (which also includes a growing number of „high potentials‟) and ever-increasing female employment rates. This will lead organizations to develop new strategies to respond to this new level of diversity. The emerging „managing diversity‟ discourse, which defines diversity as a resource and an opportunity for innovation rather than a problem, is currently the most favoured (and the „politically correct‟) response to this challenge. In a sense, it could be considered as a paradigm for a positive view of diversity that promotes inclusion and, at the same time, makes use of the potentials of diversity (e.g. in the concept of „managing diversity‟).Still, all of this leaves the question of the limitations of inclusion and the forms of exclusion produced by this very discourse, such as have been observed in the debates surrounding(the need for) highly skilled immigrants and the implicit, if not explicit, exclusion of low-skilled immigrants. All forms of diversity are not equally desirable and appreciated. A closer examination of the prevailing market logic is needed which distinguishes between desirable forms of diversity and undesirable difference that is perceived as problematic.
The diversification of family forms has led to the emergence of a variety of patterns of how people live together. Just how cohesion in families in general and cohesion between generations in particular can be maintained under these circumstances is a question that is raised with unfailing regularity by concerned circles. Given the dismantling of the social security systems of the welfare state and a growing sense of uncertainty among the general public – just think of the debate over the decline of the middle classes, whether real or imagined – the question arises of how and to what extent the family, as an institution, can become relevant (again) by providing flexible solutions to the new variety of real-life issues, particularly in its role as a diversified relationship of reciprocity and solidarity. In addition to analyzing new forms of family life, we must also examine other communitization processes which are occurring under conditions of increasing social diversity. Where diversity is the result of the blurring of boundaries, post-traditional community forms can be regarded as a typical feature of heterogeneous societies. These community forms not only contribute to diversity, but also provide a new sense of cohesion (temporary and partial, as well as event- and experience-related) that is consistent with the conditions of boundary blurring. The normative pressure to conform is generally lower in these communities than in traditional communities, which allows individuals to benefit from the positive aspects of diversity in living their lives. At the same time, post-traditional communities provide opportunities for temporary integration based on shared experiences, consumption styles and affiliations to micro-cultures or subcultures.
In the wake of the constructivist and deconstructivist turns and the rise of queer theory, gender research has abandoned the idea of „true‟ femininity or masculinity and even questioned the validity of the heteronormative interpretation and classification model itself. At least two major questions arise from this. How and to what extent does the diversification of gender identities observed on the level of symbolic representation manifest itself in the way people live their everyday lives? And how, from a perspective of social structure analysis and with regard to the concept of intersectionality, do different gender positions emerge as a result of belonging to multiple or intersecting social categories such as class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and generation? The theoretical discussion of the analytical value of the dichotomy of „woman‟ and „man‟ not only poses a challenge to sociological theory building; it also has implications for identity politics. One question that could be asked is how to create interest in gender policy issues in a society with a high degree of gender diversity. At the same time, questions of sexual orientation will become increasingly important as well, not only in terms of discourse, but also in terms of identity building and, thus, cohesion building.
On the performative level, various cultures of diversity have emerged in the Bunte Republik Deutschland (a pun on Bundesrepublik, meaning „Colourful Republic of Germany‟), including lifestyle communities, subcultures, brand communities and cultural movements. A medium of expression that has been increasingly important is the human body. It has become the preferred vehicle of self-expression for what has been referred to as Existenzbastler („people who lead a do-it-yourself existence‟). A particularly noteworthy aspect is the blurring of traditional lines (such as between unambiguously bipolar sexes; nature and culture in cosmetic surgery, and what is and what is not considered a living organism in the context of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and assisted suicide) which will lead to an almost irreducibly complex system of „intermediate layers‟. Some of these forms of transgression are also reflective of a general trend, not only toward greater social uniformity (due in part to the promotion of ideal, „healthy and beautiful‟ body images through the media, accompanied by the exclusion of „non-conforming‟ bodies) but also toward the mobilization of the specific values and interests of those concerned by such issues, which generates new forms of partial cohesion (such as between people who share a common bias for or against preimplantation genetic diagnosis or assisted suicide).
However, the increase in diversity does not only affect people‟s personal lives, social situations and contexts, work and production contexts and social inequality structures. The ways and methods to develop knowledge, skills and innovations (in private companies and research institutions, public universities and new civil society networks such as Wikipedia) have become more diverse as well. Knowledge is not only an essential resource in our current society; shared knowledge could even be regarded as the glue that holds the foundations of social action together. On the other hand, changing forms of knowledge also lead to the diversification of knowledge, which raises the question of which forms of knowledge are sufficiently consensus-based, or which will become the prevailing, most commonly accepted forms of knowledge.
Knowledge is subject not only to increasing diversification, but also to continuous reappraisal with regard to contexts of knowledge production in society, with a distinction made between theoretical and practical knowledge; between knowledge relevant to the natural and technical sciences and knowledge relevant to the social sciences and the humanities; between economically productive and economically unproductive knowledge, and so on. The widely accepted concept of science as a reliable source of knowledge is called into question, and scientific knowledge finds itself competing with other forms of knowledge. This raises the important question of how the various forms of scientific knowledge interact (or how they are considered in relation to one another) and what is the relationship between scientific knowledge and other forms of knowledge and belief: What kinds of cohesion effects does the increasing diversification of both knowledge itself and the forms of knowledge cause? What centrifugal and centripetal effects does the growing awareness of the diversity of paradigmatic views, research findings and concepts of knowledge and science have?
For obvious reasons, the 36th Conference of the German Sociological Association cannot be expected to give definitive answers to any of the questions raised here. However, it will provide an excellent occasion and a collective medium for professional academic knowledge production and exchange. It will explore the questions outlined above from the perspectives of the various branches of sociology, the different paradigmatic positions and the varied national and international experiences. In doing so, it will also strengthen cohesion within the sociological profession – thanks to the diversity, and occasional clashes, of analysis results and findings which, while likely to be divergent, will always remain focused on questions and issues that concern us all.