What Faiths Bring to Wider Society

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:

• Social capital
• Contact theory

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.

Faith & Social Capital

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:

• Co-presence in urban areas
• Connecting frameworks (infrastructure)
• Use of their buildings
• Spaces that their associational networks open up between people
• Engagement in governance
• Work across boundaries with others in the public domain

On the other hand there are also difficulties and obstacles identified including:

• Misunderstanding and suspicion of faiths amongst partners
• Financial barriers
• Inappropriate buildings
• State managerialism and regulation
• Bridging and linking is undertaken by a small minority within faith communities

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:

• National faith, interfaith and multifaith structures (e.g. Inter Faith Network for the UK; FCCC; Faith Based Regeneration Network UK; Council of Christians and Jews; informal dialogue groups for Muslims and Jews, Christians and Muslims)
• Regional and local structures (e.g. faith representatives on regional groups; faith forums and councils; friendship arrangements via informal associations for discussion and action)
• Linking with the wider voluntary and community sector
• Participation in formal governance structures (eg LSPs and Regional Assemblies on which regional faiths forums have seats), which promotes linking social capital.
• Partnerships and projects at community level - this is where most faith based bridging and linking takes place (as the case studies, below, show)

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.

Contact Theory

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

• equal status
• common goals
• institutional support
• a perception of similarity between the two groups.

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.

A Key Related Idea: Community Cohesion

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:

• People from different backgrounds having similar life opportunities
• People knowing their rights and responsibilities
• People trusting one another and trusting local institutions to act fairly

And three key ways of living together:

• A shared future vision and sense of belonging
• A focus on what new and existing communities have in common, alongside a recognition of the value of diversity
• Strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds

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.