When “Social Cohesion” Stops Meaning What It Says

Photo credit

If words matter, then public words matter most.

Context: For American and International readers, the current Australian Labor government is fond of using this term to justify the use of excessive force on peaceful protestors objecting to the platforming of the president of Israel. No doubt you will find examples in your own countries.

Confusion over words is the beginning of quiet tyranny.

Epictetus says philosophy begins by learning what words mean. Not using them. Not repeating them. Not feeling strongly about them.

Understanding them.

Because using a word and understanding a word are different things. That warning lands heavily in modern political language — and “social cohesion” is a prime example.

At face value, social cohesion suggests something reasonable, even desirable:

• A society that functions together

• Citizens who cooperate despite disagreement

• Institutions that maintain stability

• A shared commitment to peaceful coexistence

No serious person opposes cohesion in that sense. A society constantly fracturing into hostile camps cannot endure. But here is where Epictetus would slow us down:

What do we mean by “cohesion”?

Does it mean:

• Shared civic rules?

• Mutual respect across differences?

• Freedom to disagree within a stable framework?

• Or conformity to approved opinion?

Those are not the same thing.

If “social cohesion” quietly shifts from peaceful pluralism to ideological compliance, then the word is being used without being understood — or worse, being used strategically while meaning something else.

Epictetus’ warning about words applies precisely here. He says people confidently speak about “good,” “evil,” and “God” without testing what they mean. Likewise, governments and institutions can speak about “unity,” “safety,” or “cohesion” without clarifying the criteria.

And once a word becomes emotionally loaded but conceptually vague, it becomes powerful.

If “lack of social cohesion” comes to mean:

• Public disagreement,

• Moral dissent,

• Policy criticism,

• Cultural difference,

• Or resistance to prevailing narratives,

then cohesion no longer describes peaceful coexistence — it describes obedience. And obedience is not the same as harmony.

A Stoic lens asks two questions immediately:

1. Is the term being defined clearly and consistently?

2. Does the definition respect what is within citizens’ proper sphere — namely, judgment and assent?

Epictetus would insist that no ruler has authority over another person’s rational faculty. They may regulate action for public order — but belief and judgment belong to the individual. If cohesion demands inner conformity rather than outward civility, it crosses that boundary.

True cohesion in a Stoic sense would look different:

• Citizens free to disagree without fear.

• Laws applied impartially.

• Stability grounded in justice, not unanimity.

• A shared commitment to reasoned discourse rather than compelled agreement.

Cohesion grounded in fear of social or institutional penalty is not cohesion. It is managed silence.

Now, to be fair — governments do have a legitimate interest in preventing violence, civil breakdown, and destabilisation. Stoicism is not anarchic. Order matters. Civic roles matter. We are, as Epictetus says elsewhere, parts of a larger system.

But the system functions properly only if the rational faculty remains free.

If public language becomes imprecise — if emotionally positive terms conceal ideological enforcement — then citizens must do exactly what Epictetus demands:

Bring the word forward. Test it. Clarify it. Ask what it truly permits and what it prohibits.

The danger is not disagreement about policy. The danger is the erosion of conceptual clarity. Because once words become elastic, power fills the gap.

Epictetus would not tell us to rage. He would tell us to define. And to refuse assent to vague language until it is made precise. Then act from there

---

Reader Question

When you hear the phrase “social cohesion,” what concrete behaviors and boundaries do you think it includes — and where do you believe it crosses from civic order into ideological conformity?

---

Tip / Donation/ Appreciation

We are all living in a cost-of-living crisis, and I find Substack’s paid scheme too much of a hassle. If you feel inclined to throw cash appreciation my way, you can buy me a block of chocolate through my Kofi link here.