Social Cohesion Research and Early Warning
The Department
 
Social Cohesion Development and Research  
Social Security
Access to Social Rights
Social Policy for Families and Children

Activities
Dialogue platform on ethical and solidarity-based initiatives for combating poverty and social exclusion
Awareness raising seminars
Methodological tool to develop co-responsibility for social cohesion
Annual Forums
Newsletter
Publications
Series Trends in social cohesion
Methodological Guides
Contacts
Background remarks for the discussion
 
  What lies behind the feeling of insecurity prevalent in a society becoming increasingly more globalised?
A phenomenon linked to social transition, a symptom of structural weaknesses or both?
Is there confusion between the genuine and apparent causes of insecurity? If so, how does this come about and how do we overcome it?
What new proposals should be adopted to guarantee security whilst promoting social cohesion?
Asking the right questions
Why does a strong sense of collective insecurity exist in our society, which is nonetheless relatively safe? What is the specific nature of the insecurity currently felt in Europe? What are its real causes, and what are its by-products or the false assumptions made about it?

Which solutions are genuinely able to deal with such a complex problem and which ones are based on superficial or even false interpretations and end up deepening this sense of insecurity? What is the origin of these distortions? (cf. Session II on the media influence on feelings of insecurity)


Developing an analysis that explains and corrects false assumptions
While it is true that the source of this insecurity can be found in the profound changes our society is undergoing, and more specifically in the context of continuing globalisation, it is also evident that, quite apart from the everyday dangers and challenges in our lives (unemployment, flexibility of labour markets, deregulation and privatisation of public services, new sources of poverty, intercultural conflict), a more subjective source of insecurity exists because we lack the means to deal with this new situation.



Why do we find it difficult to galvanise individual concerns into a shared vision of society? And what are the consequences of this in terms of social cohesion, community initiatives and approaches to diversity? If this problem is not addressed will we end up in the paradoxical situation of a society underpinned by fear rather than solidarity?


Arriving at a comprehensive solution
In the light of this analysis and the risks of misrepresentative solutions to this problem, what changes in approach are necessary to ensure that these sweeping transformations can guarantee the cohesion and security essential to any society?

What forms of public participation should be encouraged and what resources are already available to bring about this change?
     
Session II: Informing or alarming? The impact of the medias on collective feelings of insecurity   Could the global media system per se become a factor of insecurity for a democratic society?
 How and why do the media tend to alarm the public instead of informing them, thus creating false perceptions of insecurity rather than an awareness of its real causes?
In which circumstances could the media become a basic factor of social cohesion?
 
Analysing the interrelationship between the media and globalisation and identifying its multiple consequences
Although there is a wide range of opinion on globalisation, the new perception of time and space that globalisation has produced is generally considered one of its constituent elements, since the time needed to cover certain distances has been remarkably reduced by the worldwide development of the media. In various respects the world has become smaller and above all more integrated, so that certain events or decisions, even if local, may have instant global effects.



Moreover, the socio-economic system arising from this process in turn seems to have changed the usual context in which the media work: whether traditional or new-generation, they are today increasingly rooted in a knowledge-based society that makes information sharing and exchange one of its key activities, entailing both new opportunities and new risks.


Examining the potential insecurity that the media per se can instil in a democratic society
When trying to understand and manage current insecurity in the context of these changes, we must first and foremost consider:



The way in which the media help to create individual and collective identities, opinions and fears, even through the new technologies which they now have;
The weight of economic and strategic interests � increasingly entwined with the media � in the representation and construction of reality.

Specifically in the case of the new technologies it would be useful to ask:

Whether the growing technical capacity to gather and use personal data has effects that are incompatible with the principles of a democratic society;
How, in this context, the concept of privacy has changed from traditional preservation of privacy to data protection and to what extent legal instruments are based on this change;
How this enhanced idea of privacy can be addressed so that it is recognised as a factor of individual and collective security rather than an obstacle to introducing anti-terrorism measures, for example, or any other use of data.

In the case of the press it should also be asked:

 Whether its current structure (concentration, financing, etc.) affects public access to full and reliable information, a prerequisite for any democratic society;
Whether the greater quantity of information has been matched by an increase in quality and the development of its recipients' critical faculties (in terms of transparency, pluralism and other methods of assessment);
Whether the absence of such safeguards does not make the media, per se, a factor of insecurity and, if this is the case,
What experience do we already have and which new methods should be developed for a new �information ecology� (Ramonet) to safeguard the democratic potential of the media.


Identifying the part played by the media in creating routine fear
The power of the media in contemporary society naturally leads us to examine their specific role in the short-circuit between the underlying causes and the secondary phenomena, and even the false perceptions of insecurity, that we are trying to analyse (cf. Session I).

We must therefore consider more specifically:

Whether, in the light of migration and crime statistics, we find a justifiable proportionality between the growing feeling of insecurity and the actual rise in crime or migrant entry into Europe;
Whether figures on insecurity are generally reliable, who collects them and the criteria used;
Whether, on the other hand, we find a link between certain high-profile media events and a rise in collective insecurity
Whether it is possible therefore to infer that irresponsible use is made of statistics and the media: a use which adds to public fears, makes it harder for citizens to recognise the real sources of insecurity and thus sows confusion in public debate.


Decoding the devices that lock the media and public into a circle of fear and sensationalism
If the media are thus likely to alarm the public instead of informing them and developing their involvement, it will be expedient for us to:



Identify the media devices (subject selection, balance of opinion, rhetorical techniques, etc.) that produce misrepresentations of crime, migration, and the real sources of insecurity;
Explain the success of such practices among the public in relation to anxieties about globalisation (need for the State perceived in terms of law and order, need for a recognised social identity experienced in terms of nationality, etc.).

Managing media risks and using media power to develop social cohesion

This analysis of the links between globalisation, the media and insecurity should be the prerequisite for a blossoming awareness of good practice. In theory nothing prevents the new global communication resources from becoming a factor of confidence and future social cohesion. To manage the risks just mentioned and to regulate the power of the media and thus take advantage of the opportunities they offer, we might in particular develop:

Media monitoring by transnational or even global observatories;
Transparency and pluralism of information, guaranteed by a broader offering from the independent press and, in general, by competition guided by quality rather than market demand alone;
Involvement in programme production of groups usually marginalised or without a voice.

At all events, we must again assert that an information culture is a global public good. This would remind all stakeholders of the responsibilities entailed by the technologies and practices that they authorise or introduce and enable us to ask quite frankly what type of economic and financial management would be consistent with the proposed democratic information society.
     
Session III: The right to live in security - What programmes and legal instruments to combat collective insecurity?   Do the legal instruments drawn up to combat collective insecurity take into account the real causes?
 What are the risks of policies too focused on domestic security and on the localised dimension of insecurity?
Which public measures introduced at local level have contributed to the long-term reassurance of citizens?
 
What is the relationship between the perception of insecurity and the choice of means and levels of public action to respond to this?
It is a common view that the need for security should be urgently addressed at local level where physical safety is endangered by petty crime, urban violence and incivility etc. To assess the validity of this viewpoint the following questions should be asked:




does a localised perception of insecurity take into account the multiple dimensions of the problem ?
does a law and order response address the underlying causes?

Since the policies of globalisation risk systematically increasing insecurity in society (to the extent that it weakens the local dimension and decentres the nation-state�s economic and financial integration), a localised focus on the problem of insecurity cannot escape the global deregulation of power. Rather than offering a real response, this sort of focus is in itself part of the problem. Thus it is necessary to analyse its effectiveness and its impact, even negative.




What are the desirable and undesirable consequences attributable to domestic and localised security measures?



The application of adopted legislation should be revised in relation to:

the limitations or the protection of individual freedoms and rights of the people concerned;
the gain or the loss of confidence (due to abuses) in those democratic institutions responsible for bringing the state and citizens closer;
the withdrawing into itself of communities (ethnic, religious or socio-cultural) or the construction of a pluralist society, tolerant and self critical;
dealing with insecurity at a private level or through citizen commitment to a safer society for all.

Any response to insecurity which entails withdrawing into oneself or into ones home creates a vicious circle. Whilst the underlying source of insecurity is the lack of tools to manage an increasingly complex social environment, differentiated and multicultural, any policy aiming to reinforce identity based on territorial, ethnic or cultural grounds and aiming to increase control of populations only deepens an inaptitude for living with difference and ends up by increasing collective insecurity. Furthermore, any increased feelings of insecurity can feed racism and xenophobia and can be exploited politically.

It is for this reason that the right of citizens to a safe life should be in harmony with all the other rights and principles of a democratic society. In other words, policy makers should address local policies in the field of security with the most global and thorough approach possible.


Identify public actions initiated at local level which have effectively increased citizens' security
The legislative tools and the public programmes presented in Session III illustrate all the elements, either ideal or strategic, which try to demonstrate this vision of the right to a safe life. It is therefore useful to compare the experiences developed in the past five years (Local councils for security and crime prevention in 1997, Tuscany region law in 2001, Social city federal programme in 1999) and take into account:



the complexity of the territorial diagnostic (needs and sensitive issues, subjective and objective sources of feelings of insecurity felt at local level etc.) upon which the intervention was based;
the tools put in place to elaborate and update data on insecurity (use of statistics and opinion polls, observatories etc.) and to monitor measures adopted;
the real success of partnerships between different elements involved (political, social and economic) and, in general, cooperation between the state and local and regional authorities;
the balance envisaged between the fight against crime (rationalisation of law and order forces) and structural prevention (improved quality of urban life, access to forms of conflict mediation, citizenship education and all activities which increase effective participation and a feeling of responsibility).

With a participative approach in mind regarding problems of security it is important to further encourage debate on the integration of migrants and the right of foreigners to vote in local elections and the impact of this on social cohesion. The Dutch legislation on this issue (1985) constitutes an example that should be considered with interest with a view to extending this practice throughout Europe.
     
Session IV: The right to live in security - What policies to ensure confidence and future social cohesion?   Is Europe aware of the challenge that social change and globalisation present to government legitimacy and social cohesion?
 Are the policies implemented hitherto appropriate to the situation or do they ultimately aggravate feelings of insecurity?
What kind of economic governance is necessary in order so to reform the welfare system that Europe reinforces its identity as a society capable of balancing development, citizen participation and social cohesion?
 
Assessing the economic strategies transforming our society
In the last twenty years, the notions of an employment-based society and the Welfare State whose development it made possible have undergone profound structural changes.

In this context, the feeling of insecurity has spread, notably due to:

certain systemic phenomena (high unemployment, falling tax revenue, government budget deficits, etc);
the prevailing consensus with regard to these transformations (pre-eminence of the market and individual initiative);
the development strategies often prompted by this outlook (flexibility of labour markets, privatisation of public services and assets, cuts in social spending etc).

This analysis (cf. Session I) forces us to consider:

whether current economic policies are the only or, more importantly, the most suitable strategy for dealing with the structural problems in our society;
whether these policies correspond with the changing needs of society and are in line with the democratic nature and need for cohesion of an ever-modernising society;
how to devise policies of sustainable development in the context of globalisation.


Globalisation: the risks and opportunities facing Europe
Globalisation is replicating these changes on a worldwide scale. But how much room does it allow for public participation in decision-making? And how important is state sovereignty when global markets encourage deregulation? What means do states still have to stimulate sustainable growth, now that they have relinquished control over monetary policy (once an essential element of their social and economic policy)? And what is the business sector's response to this climate dominated by purely financial considerations?

The desire for ever closer European integration is now an important factor in this critical context. If this results in a common political area conducive to collective social initiatives, then we will truly be able to say that it has surmounted the many-faceted crisis facing nation-states. However, if it does not, can the lack of identity, solidarity and legitimacy be replaced by commercial or monetary union, by a strengthening of public security measures or other initiatives more or less overtly designed to distinguish �us� from �the rest�?


Protecting established social advances in an ethical blueprint for the future


In the light of these observations, it is our duty to decide:

if it is necessary to continue defending advances made in social legislation without questioning the status quo, therefore running the risk of ignoring the causes of insecurity;
or, conversely, if it is necessary to envisage an alternative system of governance under which the Welfare State no longer attempts retrospectively to repair damage done by the economic system but aims instead proactively to organise work to benefit society.

If this blueprint gains widespread approval, it will then be necessary:

for states accepting globalisation to share power with the community of the people and not uniquely with the markets;
for this community to order the actions of states and international markets on the basis of their social consequences, or even in accordance with an updated code of public ethics.


Combining work and citizenship in a society no longer boasting full employment
Full employment is generally seen as a primary element in social cohesion and social welfare, but it is becoming more and more difficult to achieve in Europe. However, as modern citizens are, above all else, defined by their occupation (see U. Beck), a democratic society should think long and hard about these difficulties in order to establish whether they are caused by:

the specific nature of unemployment in post-industrialised societies;
the lack of planning geared to new forms of consumption and even new social needs;
the lack of coherence between employment policy, social policies and the macro-economic context.

In the light of these analyses we can better evaluate:

the effect of current policies on employability and job quality, and especially of those focussing too heavily on rigidities of job supply (flexibility, corporate cost-cutting measures etc);
the prerequisites for creating a new way of organising labour with positive social effects (see the model of a socially responsible company), but which would also be feasible in the current global context.

If globalisation provokes an imbalance between capital (which is mobile and global), the workforce and public institutions (more static and local), it will be necessary to reinforce:

the contribution of social dialogue to sustainable development at the national and European levels;
the role of states and their strategic co-operation in the spheres of employment, consumption (income and inflation) and public services (health, education, policing etc);
the ability of society (consumer organisations, community groups, third sector organisations) to act on a European level and co-operate with traditional social stakeholders.


Guaranteeing the full exercise of citizenship, irrespective of employment status
After the Second World War, a system of social protection was developed in Europe guaranteeing acceptable living conditions for all, regardless of their income, in the conviction that a democratic society could no longer tolerate a percentage of its population being effectively excluded from citizenship.

The evolution of labour markets and changes in the structure of the family unit, combined with demographic trends, would appear to challenge the financial viability and relevance of this system. Since the Welfare State is fundamental to the cohesion of our society, we must make sure that any reform plans:

are based on universalist principles guaranteeing all members of society acceptable living standards from the cradle to the grave (which implies catering for new forms of employment and exclusion from employment);
set out equitable criteria by which costs and benefits can be balanced;
encourage, if necessary, further development of non-public pillars of social protection, while maintaining inter-generational solidarity;
are the object of consensus amongst all concerned, and take care to ensure this remains the case by regular consultation and, if need be, revision.

In order for a lasting restructuring of the entire economic system to be possible:

welfare benefits in other fields (unemployment, healthcare, housing, family allowance, social exclusion, disability etc.) must be modernised in accordance with the same principles;
there should be closer European cooperation on social policy (to enhance autonomy and voluntary workforce mobility, put an end to practices of dumping etc.).


Financing sustainable development to further social cohesion
In order to protect established social advances in the framework of a policy of sustainable development such as the one just outlined, the necessary resources must be found. To this end we will need to ask:

to what extent the current macro-economic framework is compatible with, or facilitates or impedes, these policies;
whether, in particular, current policies on inflation and interest rates, despite the resulting improvements in balance sheets, risk aggravating insecurity (with negative consequences on salaries policies, the distribution of welfare surpluses, state welfare budgets, etc);
under what conditions reform of this framework might be envisaged in order to finance the extensions of rights that are required for sustainable development?

In any analysis of these problems it is impossible to ignore certain global phenomena such as the free circulation of capital and all monetary policy subsequent to the end of the fixed exchange rate system. Nonetheless, trials should be carried out of alternative forms of:

monetary policy (focussing on transparency and dialogue with social stakeholders);
tax policy and public spending (focussing on investment in social and employment initiatives);
financing enterprises working in the public interest (ethical finance, micro-lending programmes etc.).