One could be forgiven for thinking that “social cohesion” is the new state-sponsored zeitgeist in Australia. But all is not necessarily well when the political class green-lights a catch-all phrase that ticked the right focus group boxes.
The term Zeitgeist refers to the defining spirit, mood, or dominant cultural and intellectual attitudes of a particular period in history. Derived from German Zeit (time) and Geist (“spirit”), it captures the prevailing, collective “vibe” or consciousness of an era. “Social cohesion” is arguably becoming entrenched as the zeitgeist among the ruling class in Sydney and Canberra, and more broadly among Western democracies. That is not a bad move, depending on what it refers to and achieves.
But what is social cohesion? The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development helpfully defines social cohesion as:
The capacity of a society to ensure the well-being of all its members, minimising disparities and avoiding marginalisation; a cohesive society is a mutually supportive community of free individuals pursuing common goals by democratic means.
For many Australians, social cohesion is the new multiculturalism, a social policy from the Fraser era that has recently groaned under the political burden it is obliged to carry. The rise of xenophobia and racism in large sections of Australian society, combined with Increasingly shrill political rhetoric pandering to marginal electorates, have brought the noble ideals of multiculturalism into disrepute. Social cohesion is where it’s at, mate.
The phrase sounds like a warm, self-evident good, but in Australian political rhetoric today it has a particular history and a strategic function. It serves as the glue that holds a plural postcolonial society together, and it is invoked when that glue seems under strain.
How politics appropriated the term
The intellectual roots of social cohesion arose with the birth of modern sociology. For example, Émile Durkheim examined the key factors that bind a society together, such as shared norms, mutual dependence, and the “collective conscience” that makes settled social life possible. Contemporary overviews still point to Durkheim as a key origin point, while noting that the term has since broadened and become harder to pin down as societies grew more diverse.
Once it moved from sociology into public policy, “social cohesion” took on the role of a bridging term. In different contexts, it can mean “belonging” (feeling at home), “participation” (civic and community involvement), “trust” (in neighbours and institutions), or “equity” (a fair go, and protection from discrimination).
Australian political and social institutions now routinely appropriate and operationalise the notion of social cohesion. For example, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare tracks cohesion and connection indicators, and flags pressure points such as falling trust and pessimism about the future. The Scanlon Foundation Research Institute’s long-running “Mapping Social Cohesion” project reports seek to measure belonging, participation, and attitudes to diversity year by year.
In Australia today, politicians, policy analysts and media commentators often invoke social cohesion in four recurring and interrelated contexts:
- Migration and multiculturalism. Parliament’s own research service frames “diversity, migration and social cohesion” as a central policy concern in a nation shaped by migration and ongoing debates about integration, discrimination, and national identity.
- Countering hate and vilification. Governments increasingly link cohesion to anti-discrimination measures and social “guardrails,” especially amid heightened community anxiety about racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, and online harassment. For example, Victorian reforms described as anti-vilification and “social cohesion” laws explicitly present tougher penalties as a primary means of protecting community harmony.
- National security and democratic resilience. In Australia, the federal government has formalised a linkage between promoting security and ensuring public safety. The Department of Home Affairs established an Office, now framed around community/social cohesion, whose remit includes “democratic resilience.” Operating environment statements of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet tie cohesion work to countering discrimination, hate, and “harmful and divisive information.” Once created, such links take on a life of their own.
- Managing polarisation in symbolic controversies. “Cohesion” is also rhetorical shorthand for “please don’t let this tear us apart.” Such rhetoric is used around contested commemorations, identity debates, and high-emotion protest politics such as we have seen in recent weeks in Sydney, Melbourne and other population centres.
Rhetorically, then, we might say that social cohesion is a diagnosis and a prescription. It refers to a desired or preferred social condition, and it justifies programs aimed at trust-building, inclusion, and reducing hate.
What “social non-cohesion” looks like
The absence or inversion of social cohesion may be demonstrated by the experience of fractured belonging, a collapse in social trust, and a politics of suspicion. Examples include:
- Normalising collective blame (treating entire ethnic or religious communities as security problems), which corrodes the mutual recognition that social cohesion requires to be effective.
- Vilification and intimidation (from practices such as incidental street-level harassment to doxxing and threats). This transforms public space into a contest of fear rather than shared citizenship, which is why contemporary law and policy increasingly connect cohesion to anti-vilification efforts.
- Risk management of identity politics driven by polarising rhetoric. Even well-intentioned attempts to avoid conflict can backfire. Controversy over the display of political or religious symbols (flags, slogans, etc.), and the use of incendiary phrases such as “Asians out” and “From the river to the sea…” illustrate how institutions sometimes treat social identity as inherently problematic. Such actions deepen interpersonal resentment and erode social trust, and “cohesion” becomes increasingly difficult to foster or re-establish.
At an ideological level, social cohesion is undermined by “totalising” political visions that divide society into irreconcilable binary oppositions (pure/impure, oppressor/oppressed, friend/enemy). In such situations, compromise is often viewed as betrayal of the “heartland” or hegemonic community. Cohesion does not require uniformity, but it does require the civic discipline of peaceful coexistence. At its best, a policy of social cohesion seeks this goal.
Why cohesion matters biblically
As a follower of Jesus who takes seriously the moral authority of the Bible, it is important for me to reflect on how the “doctrine” social cohesion is either reflected in, or critiqued by, the social teaching of the church, as shaped by considered reflection on what the Bible teaches. Scripture does not use the modern policy phrase “social cohesion,” but repeatedly affirms the moral and spiritual conditions that enable community life to flourish.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, Israel’s covenant life is shaped by social bonds expressed in practices of justice, truthful speech, and protection of the vulnerable. The command to love the sojourner/stranger “as one’s self,” on the ground that Israel once experienced profound alienation (e.g., Lev 19:33–34) offers a broad foundation for belonging and hospitality. The prophets of Israel insist that worship without justice deeply fractures the community (e.g., Isaiah 1; Amos 5); for the prophets, exploitation and contempt for the poor are not merely “private sins” but examples of public non-cohesion, and as such deserve critique and reform.
In the New Testament, Jesus’s understanding of the purpose of the Jewish law, summarised as love of God and neighbour (Mark 12:29–31), is a blueprint for “thick” social trust. The early church embodied a multi-ethnic, classless, reconciled community where inherited status hierarchies are relativised (Gal 3:28), hostility is named and dismantled in Christ (Eph 2:14–16), and communal care becomes a lived witness (Acts 2:42–47). Paul’s image of “one body, many members” (1 Cor 12) amounts to a theology of interdependence whereby difference is not erased but celebrated and coordinated toward the goal of mutual flourishing.
Taken together, an embodied faith drawn from the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and the classic Judeo-Christian tradition, frames social cohesion as the social fruit of truth, justice, mercy, and reconciled belonging in community. These are precisely the virtues toward which political rhetoric reaches when it senses that the bonds of common life are fraying and civilisation is potentially approaching a point of collapse.
An enlightened zeitgeist?
The notion of “social cohesion” highlights shared practices, values, and relationships that enable people to see one another as neighbours rather than rivals. This is always a good development. When communities cultivate belonging, mutual responsibility, and participation, marginalised voices are heard and public life is shaped by concern for the vulnerable.
Such cohesion does not erase difference but commits diverse groups to support and enhance the operation of fair institutions, restorative responses to conflict. It also helps to promote generosity toward those in need. Understood in this way, social cohesion reflects a moral framework that champions justice in public policy, mercy in legal judgment, and compassion in everyday encounters.
Seen in this frame, social cohesion is arguably an instance of a morally enlightened zeitgeist. Policies and practices that directly promote social cohesion strengthen the common good for all people everywhere together, and deserves strong support. Those that do not should be opposed and abolished.
Rev Dr Rod Benson is General Secretary of the NSW Ecumenical Council and a minister of the Uniting Church in Australia serving at North Rocks Community Church in Sydney.
Image source: Build Australia
iDigress 