(Queensland, Australia) — Although it remains a confusing and somewhat vague idea, across the Australian political spectrum we have recently seen the rise of a newly favored phrase: “social cohesion.” Because Australian politicians are now using it with such regularity, it is helpful to understand what it means to the ruling class, how they propose to achieve it, and how it is measured.
Broadly speaking, social cohesion has been described as the “glue” that binds society together. Or, if you desire a more robust definition, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, social cohesion is present when: “A cohesive society works towards the well-being of all its members, fights exclusion and marginalization, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust, and offers its members the opportunity of upward social mobility.”
Although social cohesion is clearly now a fixture in modern political vernacular, it remains a concept which researchers still can’t agree on how to measure. Nevertheless, the independent, not-for-profit research institute, The Scanlon Foundation Research Institute, measures social cohesion based on five factors:
- Belonging: the sense of pride and belonging people have in Australia and in Australian life and culture, and the belonging they feel in their neighborhoods.
- Worth: the degree of emotional and material wellbeing.
- Social inclusion and justice: perceptions of economic fairness and trust in government.
- Participation: involvement in political activities and participation in social, community, and civic groups.
- Acceptance and rejection: attitudes to immigrant diversity, support for minorities, and experience of discrimination.
The Scanlon Foundation Research Institute has only been measuring social cohesion since 2007, but even in that short time, the results are telling. For example, applying data across the last eight years, Australia’s overall score in 2018 was 82, peaking at 92 in 2020 before crashing to, and remaining at, 78 for 2023, 2024 and 2025.
But while the increase in social tension has pushed the term to the forefront of national security and political agendas, achieving resilient social cohesion is clearly out of reach, particularly when very few political leaders are capable of seeing the role that identity politics plays in the ongoing fragmentation of Western society. Although Australia vocally claims its national identity is founded upon multiculturalism, the fact is that the more that identity politics is tolerated, the more illusory social cohesion becomes. So, while social cohesion initiatives are viewed as potential pathways to restore a sense of belonging, identity politics presents a significant, albeit largely ignored, roadblock.
For the uninitiated, identity politics is an expansion of the Marxist analysis of class, where society is seen through a battlefield paradigm resulting in a contest for power between the privileged and the oppressed, with the oppressed usually categorizing themselves by race, sex, preferred gender, or some other analogous affinity. Social cohesion and identity politics cannot co-exist because the ideas of identity politics promote social conflict, ultimately rejecting civility in favor of confrontation and conflict.
However, removing identity politics from mainstream discourse in Australia will be a difficult feat. An article in the Australian Financial Review dated 13 February 2025 stated, in part: “In a 2020 review of courses in Australian universities, the Institute of Public Affairs found that of 1181 subjects comprising English literature, history, political science and studies in society (anthropology, sociology, philosophy and gender studies), 572 subjects had identity politics as a major theme, and 380 had critical race theory as a major theme.”
Based on that data, perhaps it should not have come as such a surprise that after October 7, antisemitism flourished on university campuses. You see, we have politicians who believe they are able to design a framework to manage moral disagreement through tolerance and policy. However, the ancient hatred of antisemitism refuses to remain within its socially and politically mandated boundaries. Rather, what history shows us is that antisemitism adapts and changes in order to colonize new ideological spaces. We cannot manage hatred out of existence because the reality is that it is a problem of the sinful human heart. So, while unrestrained enmity remains the ideological engine of the masses, social cohesion is a mirage.
When mankind spurns the knowledge of God, He gives them over to a reprobate mind—a mind which is stamped with a very telling Greek word: adokimos (Romans 1:28). The term “adokimos” was commonly used of metals that were rejected by refiners because of impurities, hence worthless. So far as the human mind is concerned, the mind that finds God worthless becomes worthless itself. The “adokimos” mind is a mind so clouded by sin that it is no longer capable of making sound moral judgments. Politicians may lament the lack of social cohesion, but they are blind to its origin. Man, through his rejection of God, has lost the ability to think clearly, and many, even esteemed politicians, academics, and social leaders, don’t even realize it.
