The book sets out to explore what is labelled the turn to cohesion in European politics. The three cases analysed are France (1995-2005), Germany (1999-2004) and UK (2001-2007). Jan Debbernack's (JD) main contribution is to describe and analyse how the politics and the policies rhetorically linked to the notion of social cohesion are embedded in deeper “social imaginaries”.
The book is divided into seven chapters. The first chapter positions the book in a social constructivist tradition, which emphasises the importance of describing and analysing the political rhetoric, in this case the widespread rhetoric about social cohesion, rather than “buying” the idea that social cohesion is something objectively given that can be measured. In the introduction JD elegantly describes how the references to Durkheim – often used to demonstrate the naturalness of being concerned about social cohesion – are full of ambiguity. Durkheim was concerned about social cohesion. But in contrast to the rhetoric in the three countries he did not propose a retreat to former common values; on the contrary. JD builds his conceptual framework on Charles Taylor, Corneclius Castoriadis and Ernesto Laclau but adds many useful links to social constructivist arguments in the policy analysis literature, e.g. the idea that problems need to be perceived/constructed and positioned on the political agenda before any governmental action can be taken.
In chapter two JD argues that the idea of an “active society” has become an important part of the social imaginaries, not only in the three countries (analysed in the next chapters), but in general. It describes how the notion of “active society” is linked to liberalism (again elegantly pointing to the ambiguities), social cohesion and new governance ideas. In terms of concrete policies the rhetoric of “active society” often boils down to “activation” policies targeted at unemployed. The chapter describes this as a general European trend and summarizes the critique these policies have met.
In the next three chapters, JD analyses the countries one by one. In France the analyses are focused on the notion of “Cohésion Sociale”, which started with the rhetoric of Chirac and his notion of a “fracture sociale”. In Germany the analyses are focused on the notion of “Bürgergesellschaft”, which started with the rhetoric of Herzog and his notion about the need for a “Ruck durch Deutchland” (Germany needs to pull itself together). In the UK, the analyses are focused on “community cohesion”, which started with the interpretation of the riots in Oldham, Burnley and Bradford, especially the interpretation provided by Tony Blair. In the three chapters, JD describes how rhetoric about social cohesion is not only linked to current events (policy analysts would call it focus events) but also linked to deeper national narratives; in the French case the narrative of the republic, in the German case the narrative of economic growth and in the UK case the narrative of being a multicultural society. Thus, the book describes how the politics of social cohesion is embedded in a notion of failure, or even crises, of the former successful social models.
In chapter six JD summarizes the national-specific findings and describes similarities across the three countries. One of the great strength of the book is the sensitivity to the national context (see below), but JD convincingly argues that similarities can also be found. In all three countries there was rhetoric of disintegration, a vision of cohesion, a demand for social activity and in the end a policy targeted at particular vulnerable subgroups (despite an initial rhetoric of broad societal problems and demand for broad societal action). JD finishes the book with a conclusion that discusses the fact that the rhetoric of social cohesion got curtailed in all three countries and in Europe in general. In the moment of writing around 2009 – 2013, the economic crises occupied the politics and the policy agenda. This sudden decline of cohesion rhetoric nicely underlines that what we experienced was indeed “social imaginaries” at play. The book ends with a clever discussion about the impossibility of escaping “social imaginaries”; this after all might not be a bad thing – social imaginaries, besides having obvious uses as tools for legitimation, also contain a potential for critical thinking about the injustice of society. According to JD the aim should be to democratise the “social imaginaries”.
In my opinion, JD has written an extremely useful book that offers a new perspective on something that has already been the substance of much research and debate. Media scholars might miss a more rigorous tracking of the media content, comparativists might miss a better argument for the country selection and hardcore theoreticians might miss a more coherent theoretical framework. However, the book benefits from a deep understanding of various theoretical traditions. In my opinion, it is a strength that the empirical evidence is not forced into a simple theoretical framework. The book also benefits from a deep contextual knowledge about each country's case; especially considering “the terms”. One of the best passages is the description of what “bürgerlig” (bourgeois) means in German. It is not easy to find a language to write about the language. But JD manages to write a book that scrutinizes difficult concepts using standard academic language. Finally, the book benefits from the comparative perspective that enables JD to distinguish between the common and the country-specific.
The real challenge for the book is whether the politics of social cohesion could be given a simple structural explanation. Low economic growth would be the obvious candidate to explain the feeling of decline in all three countries. The supply-side policies that followed aimed at the labour market, rhetorically sold as part of an active society, could be caused by the inability to pursue classic demand-side Keynesian policies. The book could also be challenged on a middle ground. It could be the dominant economic ideas of what the economy needed, especially in the case of France and Germany, rather than broader “social imaginaries” that mattered. This discussion is at the very heart of social science and the book does not take a hard anti-structural stand. The fruitful approach is to use this constant tension in our work as a tool to sharpen analyses. In my opinion, JD has written one of the best books to enable us to see the elephant from the non-structural perspective.
