It is clear that faiths contribute significantly in terms of social action through projects and initiatives at local level, through social enterprise, and, as the 'regional forums' section of this report shows, in governance and extended forms of participation.
But there are other more intangible but no less practical and important dimensions to what faiths bring.
NCVO shows that “faith based organisations are integral to civil society; that is they are part of associational life, they are part of the space and place for dialogue within civil society, and they contribute to negotiating collective notions of what a 'good society' might look like” (NCVO 2007:53). They also often provide and participate in spaces for argument and deliberation (e.g. dialogue groups/inter faith councils) as well as participating in external deliberative activities (e.g. through participation in governance structures such as LSPs).
In addition, there are two key concepts which are also useful in exploring the relationship between faith based social action and wider society.
These are:
These are pertinent because evidence suggests that faiths are particularly effective agents of social capital and that contact between faiths, and between faiths and others, has the potential to promote community cohesion.
Field (2003) offers a useful definition of social capital. At the heart of the concept is the idea that relationships matter. “By making connections with one another, and keeping them going over time, people are able to work together to achieve things that they either could not achieve by themselves, or could only achieve with great difficulty. People connect through a series of networks and they tend to share common values with other members of these networks; to the extent that these networks constitute a resource, they can be seen as forming a kind of capital” (Field, 2003:1).
Different types of social capital can be identified (see Furbey, Dinham et al 2006:7):
Bonding: “based on enduring, multi-faceted relationships between similar people with strong mutual commitments such as among friends, family and other close-knit groups”
Bridging: “Formed from the connections between people who have less in common, but may have overlapping interests, for example, between neighbours, colleagues, or between different groups within a community”
Linking: “Derived from the links between people or organisations beyond peer boundaries, cutting across status and similarity and enabling people to exert influence and reach resources outside their normal circles”
The Gujarat Hindu Society of Preston illustrates the progression from bonding social capital, to bridging and linking. It was first necessary to build up the confidence of the Hindu community in Preston, and secure a base from which they could inter-act with the wider community. This path has taken many years, and is one that is increasingly being followed by the faiths that are newer to Britain. A forthcoming report from the Community Development Foundation examines the issue of single identity funding. The authors of the current report agree with the findings of the CDF report that; funding should depend on an organisation's ability to deliver outcomes and not on its identity, single faith or other and; single identity groups need support to develop diverse leadership, provide culturally appropriate services to their communities, link with other communities, and engage with the public agenda.
A major Joseph Rowntree Foundation study on faith and social capital in 2006 found the following:
Faith communities contribute substantial and distinctive bridging and linking social capital through:
On the other hand there are also difficulties and obstacles identified including:
The evidence shows that women and young people participate less in bridging and linking forms of social capital and more in bonding, probably because of issues of power and the role of women (and young people)
It is also noted that faith buildings stand as physical markers of faith presence and diversity and in many cases they become places where community activity is focused.
At the same time, it is observed that some faith communities can bond so tightly, within their buildings and more widely in their associational spaces, that they never move on to bridging and linking and in fact resist attempts to do so. This has been called the 'dark side' of social capital.
Examples of social capital connection include:
Baker and Skinner (2006:4-5) develop the idea of social capital by talking about spiritual and religious capital:
Religious capital: “is the practical contribution to local and national life made by faith groups”. This relates to the practical actions and resources FBOs contribute in the spaces of civil society.
Spiritual capital: “energises religious capital by providing a theological identity and a worshipping tradition, but also a value system, moral vision and a basis of faith.” This relates to the motivation of FBOs to act in civil society.
Of great importance to faiths is that government and other partners take seriously the relationship between their spiritual and their religious capital. One is often grounded in the other and there is very strong feeling amongst faiths about the importance of policy nurturing both rather than 'taking' the social or religious capital without acknowledging or understanding the spiritual capital that underpins it.
Whilst there is much evidence and data concerning the role of social capital in relation to faith, there is very little in relation to contact theory.
In his 1954 volume, The Nature of Prejudice, Allport proposed that under certain conditions, bringing together individuals from opposing groups could reduce intergroup prejudice. This clearly has potential in terms of government's agenda for community cohesion, particularly as it relates to faiths. At the same time, Allport warned that superficial contact between members of different groups would, in fact, reinforce stereotypes.
The basic formulaic version of the contact hypothesis has four elements: that those in contact with each other should have
There are three practical approaches associated with how contact works:
The decategorization model (Brewer & Miller, 1984) proposes minimizing the use of labels altogether, and instead interacting on an individual basis (focusing on relationships between people of different traditions).
The recategorization model (e.g., Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989) suggests that intergroup contact could be maximally effective if perceivers reject the use of “us” and “them” in favour of a more inclusive, “we” category (giving a focus on acting together aside from differences in faith traditions).
The categorization model (Hewstone & Brown, 1986), points out practical problems with personalized, as opposed to group-based, interactions and instead promotes keeping group boundaries intact during intergroup encounters (eg faiths remain highly identified with their traditions and engage with one another from within them).
The research presented here thus suggests that ignoring or overlooking group membership during contact may not necessarily result in better intergroup attitudes and relations. Rather, it is suggested that clear but co-operative assertion of different faith identities in inter faith interactions is helpful in promoting better relations between the different groups. This has very important implications for inter faith working.
That said, the faith based evidence for contact theory is very limited. Though it may have application to faith based contexts, and potentially promise much for strengthened and resilient communities, the evidence currently needs to be built up significantly. A programme of research would be required prior to an effective application of contact theory to faiths and community cohesion policies and this would be a beneficial part of an inter faith framework.
Embedded in the idea of social capital, and contact theory as a mechanism for promoting it, is the related notion of community cohesion. The CLG response to the report of the Commission on Integration and Cohesion adopts the Report's vision and definition of an integrated and cohesive community as being based on three foundations:
And three key ways of living together:
Faith based social action, emerging from the needs and realities of community life, can be an important contributor to many of these aspects of community cohesion, as the case studies below show. Cohesion is a particularly important concept for faith communities as faith is increasingly acknowledged to be a marker of identity along with race and ethnicity and it is along these 'fault lines' that cohesion is ensured, or fractures emerge.
At the same time, it is crucial that faith and ethnicity are not confused. Whilst they may often overlap, ethnicity cannot be taken as a predictor of faith, nor vice versa. To do so risks forming a framework which does not reflect the real diversity and local contingencies of faiths, and therefore to alienate rather than to engage.
Leeds 11 is home to around 170,000 people living in 7,761 households, 20% of whom belong to ethnic minorities – an area suffering from multiple deprivation and social exclusion, reflected in high levels of unemployment and crime. It is an area where poor health and bad housing go with living in the most deprived ward in Leeds and well within the 5% most deprived wards nationally. It was against this background that this unique grassroots partnership of Christian Churches and Muslim and community organisations took shape.
A team of staff and volunteers provide a range of services for the local community that are sensitive to the cultural backgrounds of the people involved. For example, the luncheon club takes into account differences in diet, languages and customs, open to different groups on each day. In 2003 a £1.5 million Hamara Centre was completed with backing from the Single Regeneration Budget, the Community Fund, local churches and community fundraising, Church Urban Fund, Methodist Multi-Racial Projects Fund and Tudor Trust. This encompassed a Healthy Living Centre, Community Hall and Parenting Centre which aims to meet the project’s objective of ‘improving educational attainment and reducing crime and the fear of crime by tackling some of the longer-term social and economic factors that contribute to it.’
During a visit in February 2006, Archbishop Sentamu praised local people for working together.
Based on an extract of Angels and Advocates: Church social action in Yorkshire and the Humber published by Churches Regional Commission for Yorkshire and the Humber www.crc-online.org.uk.
The Intercultural Communication and Leadership School (ICLS) is a programme of residential seminars for young adults (generally aged 20-30) from diverse cultures and backgrounds. In West Yorkshire it is run by the Active Faith Communities Programme (AFC) - an independent, multi-faith infrastructure support organisation with a specific focus on building the capacity of the faith sector to engage in social action and community cohesion.
Since 2002 AFC has organised 10 seminars with over 100 participants. Each seminar runs for five days and is held at Scargill House, near Kettlewell in the Yorkshire Dales. In the last two years seminars have also been held in other cities in the UK, including Leicester, Peterborough and the West Midlands.
The content of the seminar includes:
Just as important as the programme content is that participants have a chance to learn about each other and from each other in a space where they are able to ask difficult questions and have honest discussions. After the seminar, all participants become members of a growing network of people who are active in their own communities and committed to developing healthy and positive relationships between com- munities. Many of the participants to date have demonstrated the effectiveness of the programme through community projects they have set up or engaged in, and by the life choices they have subse- quently made.
The ICLS in West Yorkshire is part of an international programme with links in Europe and Asia. Recently a UK-wide ICLS organisation has been formed and is currently seeking funding to develop the programme nationally.
The community centre and temple with its portico of carved marble is a remarkable sight in a Preston suburb. Founded in the early 1960s by a small group of Hindus, GHS was set up to serve the religious and cultural needs of the Hindu residents of the area.
At first the funding came from the faith community members, and they bought and refurbished an old school building. When this became too small, grants, further community efforts and a loan made the new building possible. The smart new, well equipped premises are well managed and used, providing an income stream as well as benefitting of the community.
"Other organisations like to use our Centre because it’s in the right place, it’s convenient for the town centre and
the station, it’s well equipped and there’s plenty of parking."
Ishwer Tailor, President of GHS
"It is also about the type of building, it’s about relationship. Lancashire County Council sees GHS as a faith
organisation that has achieved a great deal against the odds. They are proud to be associated with a Hindu faith
organisation that has raised the profile of the area."
Vijayanti Chauhan, External Relations Policy Officer, Lancashire County Council
For local people the Centre provides: Jobs information and advice IT Training A youth development programme A lunch club run by elders Sports activity for all ages A worship centre Over the years it has established itself as one of the major community organisations in the borough, and worked in partnership with Social Services to provide services for older people, the Youth Service to train leaders and support youth work, the Learning and Skills Council, and, with the North West Lancashire Health Promotion Unit, has set up a Gujarat Health Users Forum.
GHS has thrived and grown because, while remaining rooted in its own community, it has had the vision to make a place for itself in the wider world, and has never been afraid of a challenge.