of social cohesion: key accents of contemporary scientific discourse in three social spaces

. The article is devoted to the analysis of key concepts related to the interpretation of the contents of the “social cohesion” phenomenon in three social spaces — North-American, European and Ukrainian. Attention is focused on the works of researchers from the middle of the 20th to the first twenty years of the 21st century. It is emphasized that the discourse of this period is characterized by two trends in the statements of Western researchers: a) opinions are expressed that the phenomenon remains in the center of research attention; b) sometimes research attention to the phenomenon decreases. The authors present the most generalized and most widespread definitions of the concept of “social cohesion” in the scientific discourse, analyze certain new trends in its interpretation in comparison with previous periods, drawing attention to the fact that recently there has been a tendency to increase the operationalization of the concepts in the discourse. The article contains an analysis of the development of a large pool of researchers of social cohesion from the countries of North America and Europe, as well as the basis for the development of scientific discourse in the Ukrainian social space and the possibility of its inclusion in the global discourse.


Actuality and state-of-the-art
The issue of social cohesion today is one of the most urgent problems of social development for all countries of the modern world. According to David Schiefer (German Center for Integration and Migration Studies) and Jolanda van der Noll (University of The Hague, Netherlands), in the last 20 years the issue of social cohesion has attracted extraordinary attention both in academic circles and in the political sphere [42,579]. Such a statement, in our opinion, is connected with dynamic processes of social differentiation both within countries and on the international arena -between countries. The actualization of the problem of social cohesion is evidenced by the attention given to it by the management bodies of world, continental, regional and local territorial Judith Maxwell, Talcott Parsons Bertram Raven, Stanley Schachter, Joseph Stokes [27] etc. Each of the named researchers (represented and represent different socio-humanitarian, technical, natural sciences and medicine and different countries) to one degree or another developed (and continues to develop) the principles of studying social cohesion, primarily its contents.
It is important to note that "Scholars of social cohesion argue, however, that -beyond the emphasis on social cohesion as a desirable characteristic of a community, and the common narrative of social cohesion being in declinethere is little agreement on what social cohesion precisely entails. Subsequently, various authors suggested new definitions and frameworks of social cohesion, which in turn were picked up and criticized by other protagonists in the field" [42]. For example, Canadian researcher Paul Bernard described social cohesion as a "quasi-concept, that is, one of those hybrid mental constructions that politics proposes to us more and more often in order to simultaneously detect possible consensuses on a reading of reality, and to forge them" [19]. However, despite this kind of situation in statements about the phenomenon of "social cohesion", it remains in the list of urgent problems of social development in almost all countries of the world, and, therefore, the relevance of its research remains. True, researchers of the modern stage are trying to focus attention on the dynamics of its current contents. David Schiefer and Jolanda van der Noll stated in this context that "Despite the lack of consensus, recent decades have seen an inflationary use of the concept by scientists and policy makers as an instrument to monitor societal development and to adapt policies to face societal challenges, such as globalization or diversity" [42].
Speaking about the peculiarities of research of the phenomenon of "social cohesion", we should emphasize the interdisciplinary factor of its study, since social cohesion itself is a multidimensional phenomenon; for this, in the text, we present the field of socio-humanitarian knowledge developed by this or that discourse actor.

Definition of social cohesion
In order to find out (at least, in the most generalized sense) the content of the phenomenon of "social cohesion", we used three groups of sourcesdictionary publications, official documents of international and regional organizations that focus on issues of social cohesion, and research by experts on this issue . So, social cohesion, according to dictionary editions, is "The interdependence between the members of a society, shared loyalties, and solidaity" [43], "The bonds or "glue" that maintain stability in society" [20].
The determinate feature of the second group of sources (and it is represented by official documents of such organizations as the UN, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank, etc.) in the definition of the concept of "social cohesion" is primarily the emphasis on the potential of its use as "as a policy framework". For example, the OECD recommended social cohesion as a policy objective to its member states in a high-level conference "Beyond 2000: The New Social Policy Agenda in 1996". The European Union (EU) declared eco-nomic and social cohesion as a main policy goal in the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992 and the Lisbon Agenda in 2000" [44]. The Council of Europe, in our opinion, has advanced the most comprehensive definition of social cohesion as a policy framework. In its New Strategy for Social Cohesion, it defines social cohesion as "the capacity of a society to ensure the welfare of all its members, minimizing disparities and avoiding polarization" [24]. The Strategy identifies four main areas of welfare: equity in access to rights, the dignity and recognition of each person, autonomy and personal fulfillment, and the possibility of participating as a full member of a society [17].
Regarding the third group of sources, it is almost the most significant in our context, based on the statement of the question declared in the title of the article. In this story, we dwell on the general fundamental characteristics of the concept of "social cohesion", and further on we will reveal the peculiarities of its functioning in specific socio-cultural contexts: we will be talking about three dimensions of scientific discourse in relation to the specifics of social spaces (geographical and regional units) -North-American, European and Ukrainian. At the same time, we will emphasize the three most important features that make it possible to reveal the essence of the phenomenon and which can be used as the basis of searches for determining its content: 1) social cohesion focuses on the adaptation of new groups -members of large collectives, in other words, social cohesion encompasses attention of all groups -members of these collectives; 2) social cohesion is a process that does not end with the achievement of a result; 3) social cohesion covers various spheres of social life, such as economic, political and socio-cultural [46]. For an operationalized use of the definition of the concept of "social cohesion", you can use the definition proposed by the authors of the research project, carried out by a group of German researchers with the support of the Bertelsmann Foundation in 2012, and the proposals of the participants of the seminar "Dimensions of Social Cohesion. A New System of Indicators" (2013): "We, thus, define social cohesion as the extent of social togetherness in a territorially defined geopolitical entity. Social cohesion is a characteristic of the 'collective' residing in this entity, rather than of individual members. A cohesive society can be characterized by reliable social relations, a positive emotional connectedness of its members to the entity and a pronounced focus on the common good. Each of these three domains unfolds in three dimensions, which can be measured separately" [26,5].
To this we will add two more (actually, descriptions of characteristics), which, according to some researchers, should constitute the essence of social cohesion: 1) "social cohesion involves the construction of common values and commonality in interpretation, the reduction of differences in wealth and income, and, usually, the formation of people feel that they are involved in a common enterprise, that they face common challenges, and that they are members of the same community" [35]; "the willingness of members of society to cooperate with each other in order to survive and thrive" [46].
We agree with the opinion that "although different approaches stress different elements of social cohesion based on certain ideologies or concerns of agents from particular policy fields, the majority of the approaches eventually capture similar core dimensions. In other words, there is in fact more overlap between the approaches than (...) disagreement implies". There are "three core dimensions of social cohesion that the majority of social cohesion approaches agree on: social relations, sense of belonging, and orientation towards the common good. Three other, often incorporated, components of social cohesion-(in)equality, quality of life, and shared values-we argue, should however be treated as antecedents or consequences of social cohesion, rather than inherent essential components" [42].

Three spatial dimensions of scientific discourse
Introducing remarks: general objectives impacting the contemporary interpretations of social cohesion's contents Focusing on modern concepts of the content of social cohesion, we are aware that the principles of defining the phenomenon itself are rooted in time starting from Émile Durkheim and Gustave Le Bon and the work of their followers until the middle of the 20th century. We note that even then different interpretations appeared, and in modern conditions they are strengthened and more than before, correlated with specific socio-cultural circumstances in which the phenomenon of social cohesion functions and in which the actors of scientific discourse are included (meaning the social space of that or that country).
We assume that the narratives of the study of certain aspects of social cohesion in the period we have determined were influenced by statements that were spread in the North -American and European social spaces, that the supposed decrease in the level of social cohesion has recently been recorded [42]. The reasons for such a situation, according to many Western researchers, were: a) the process of globalization and its associated economic changes (profes- Perhaps the most characteristic feature of the discussions in the North-American space, as well as in the European space, by the way, was that "contemporary approaches to social cohesion are more strongly circled around its operationalization and usability for policy makers" [42], for example Jane Jenson . Researchers of the course of scientific discourse in various social spaces noted that "although different approaches stress different elements of social cohesion based on certain ideologies or concerns of agents from particular policy fields, the majority of the approaches eventually capture similar core dimensions" [42].
The complexity of the trajectory of the dynamics of social cohesion and the influence of external factors on it prompted Western researchers to intensively develop measurement models of its contents [18,26,27,39,40,41], which is quite a noticeable trend in the modern scientific discourse regarding this phenomenon.
As to the third spatial dimension (Ukrainian), its formation is influenced by the search for optimal ways of developing social cohesion in connection with the pro-European (pro-Western in the broad sense of the word) choice of Ukraine, and, therefore, it involves the effective use of Western experience in this area.

Contemporary interpretations of cohesion' contents in North-American social space
The analysis of the literature on issues related to the phenomenon of social cohesion provides an opportunity for the statement that in the North-American pool of scientific space, the names of such researchers were the most notable: The key accents of the discourse of researchers from the countries of North America in determining the contents of social cohesion were their socio-cultural, economic and to some extent political aspects. At the same time, it became noticeable that the discussions were tied to what can be achieved in societies under the conditions of the formation of stable foundations of social cohesionan unconditional conflict-free political and social situation and the prejudice of counter-resistance in the interaction of different layers of the population, especially from the point of view of its multi-ethnic (multi-cultural) composition.
Analysis of the works of the listed researchers currently working in the North-American social space makes it possible to find several important interpretations of the "social cohesion" phenomenon, which differ to some extent from such researchers of previous periods. First of all, this concerns the opinions of the Canadian researcher and practitioner in the field of social cohesion, Judith Maxwell, who believes that the content of social cohesion is determined by shared values and a common understanding of this phenomenon, the level of differences in wealth and income, and a sense of involvement in joint entrepreneurship [35]. Actually, we can emphasize the importance of the factor of creation of common values and common interpretations of social phenomena by group members.
It becomes obvious that, if in the previous periods of scientific discourse, American and Canadian researchers clearly tied the content of the phenomenon of "social cohesion" to the social characteristics of groups and relationships in their environment, then contemporary interpretations of the content of social cohesion are to some extent shifted to the evaluation of findings the effects of social and psychological factors in the process of interaction of various actors. For example, Talcott Parsons emphasized the fact that the stability of social cohesion is significantly influenced by norms and values (actually, moral and behavioral norms) generated by politics, religion, family, education, and the economy, since the latter should function for the good of society. Obviously, the presence of such factors becomes the basis for the creation of a certain community, the members of which engage in interpersonal interaction [27].
Caroline Beauvais and Jane Jenson propose to consider social cohesion as an ongoing process, which, in our opinion, is quite logical in the environment of defined groups, emphasizing the importance of the level of internal solidarity and values shared by group members. Ultimately, researchers emphasize that such a process is a kind of compromise of the interaction of five factorsbelonging to a group, inclusion in a group, participation in group activities, recognition by other group members, legitimacy of actions regarding the course of the process [18].
Interesting, in our opinion, is the conclusion of the American social psychologists Albert Lott and Bernice Lott that the degree of sympathy is an indicator of group cohesion; they put forward a new definition of social cohesion as a group attribute , which is determined by the amount and strength of mutual positive attitudes between people in the group [34]. Obviously, taking into account this definition of social cohesion, the American sociologist from Stanford University Mark Granovetter, to some extent adjusts his theory of primary groups with regard to the degree of strength of internal ties. Social cohesion, according to the researcher, is influenced by the extent to which the friendship networks of people of different groups overlap [28], we would add, coincide. Actually, this is also about the importance of individual interaction of members of this or that community in the formation, and even more so, in our opinion, of the stabilization and dynamics of social cohesion.
Canadian researchers Fernando Rajulton, Ravanera Zenaida, and Roderic Beaujot proposed an effective model for measuring the level of social cohesion based on six components that were once discovered by a professor at the University of Montreal (Canada) Jane Jenson [31]. These components are: inclusion/exclusion, equality/inequality, legality/illegitimacy, participation/passivity, recognition/rejection, belonging/isolation [40].
Note that the dynamics of scientific discourse is ensured by the discovery of new properties of this or that phenomenon, or at least by its new interpretations based on the accumulated material and techniques of their analysis. An example of such an approach can be the continuation of the search for the interpretation of Judith Maxwell's definition of social cohesion, which is significant for the second period of the discourse, by the researcher Sharon Jeannotte. She, clarifying the functioning of the phenomenon in Canadian conditions, singles out the following features: the continuous process of community development with shared values, shared challenges and equal opportunities in Canada is based on a sense of trust, hope and reciprocity between all Canadians [30]. The latter characteristics is a really important foundation for the formation and functioning of social cohesion, especially in the psychological dimension. Talcott Parsons views social cohesion as levels of order and stability held together by shared norms and values in a society, given that politics, religion, family, education and the economy must function for the good of society. They enable people to identify common goals and contribute to their achievement, as well as to share moral and behavioral norms that are the basis for interpersonal relationships [27].
As we can see, in this period of discourse, special attention is paid to the role of socio-psychological factors in the formation of social cohesion and its development, in particular, interpersonal interaction of members of groups, communities, societies, in particular, the level of collective mentality, which plays an important role in interaction in any community, and which, according to Herbert Schneider, forms the basis of social cohesion of the group. It is about an inner collective mentality with different levels of reciprocity and a common way of feeling and thinking [27]. As we mentioned above European researchers suggest to consider the content of social cohesion in its three main dimensions: (1) the quality of social relations (including social networks, trust, acceptance of diversity, and participation ), (2) identification with the social entity, and (3) orientation towards the common good (sense of responsibility, solidarity, compliance to social order) [42].

Some reflections on social cohesion in europian social space
A team of European authors (Delhey Jan, Boehnke Klaus, Dragolov Georgi, Ignácz Zsófia S., Larsen Mandi, Lorenz Jan, Koch Michael), having studied the effect of various factors in the context of constructing social cohesion, came to the conclusion that "H1-universalistic: The level of social cohesion in a society is positively influenced by economic development, low income inequality, liberal democracy, and secularization/post-materialist values. H2universalistic: The subjective well-being of a population is positively influenced by a society's level of social cohesion" [25].
M. Alaluf, for example, believes that social cohesion is the meaning of the identity of the nation, which consists of various (different from each other) traditions, cultures, languages [27]. In our opinion, this statement requires a more detailed elaboration, in particular, in view of the latest trend in the research of social phenomena in modern Western societies. This refers to the opinion of the Canadian political philosopher, a well-known researcher of multiculturalism from "Queens" University William Kymlicka that in multinational states, people primarily profess citizenship, and not national identity [32,256]. Sociological surveys of Ukrainian researchers to a certain extent confirm the thesis put forward by William Kymlicka: in many cases, the number of those who define themselves primarily as citizens of one or another state significantly exceeds the number of those who identify themselves through national identity [12,350]. This opinion may be relevant to a number of European countries, where a considerable number of people from other countries live; they, adapting to the socio-economic and socio-cultural conditions of the countries of settlement and integrating into this or that society, become citizens of these countries of residence, and for them citizenship as a factor of belonging to their community is brought to the fore.
In the development of scientific discourse, the idea of David Lockwood, which revolves around the role of social networks in the dynamics of social cohesion, may be productive. Positive interaction, a researcher of primary groups, let's recall, he was Charles Cooley (groups formed on the basis of family ties and ties with others), and secondary networks (voluntary associations, family organizations, active associations of civil society), strengthens degree of social cohesion [27].
In a similar vein, the degree of group cohesion is interpreted by other participants of the discourse. Thus, the Norwegian professor of psychology Leif Braaten (1928-2018) defined group cohesion as the equivalent of good relationships for an individual, which, if present, can help an individual become the person he/she aspires to be. By the way, L. Braaten, taking into account positive relationships in the middle of the group, created a multidimensional model that supports the establishment, development and achievement of a high level of cohesion [21].

Social cohesion in ukrainian social space: prospects of investigation
As to measuring the contents of social cohesion in the Ukrainian research space, it is just beginning, since part of this space, related to the study of the phenomenon, is in the stage of formation. It is worth saying that today's social circumstances force Ukrainian scientists to be more intensive and more carefully about the importance of social cohesion in social processes. Here we are talking about the circumstances caused by military actions on the territory of Ukraine, which require a high degree of social cohesion. We note that the development of topics related to the issue of social cohesion took place even before the mentioned circumstances; the latter motivated both theorists and practitioners to intensify efforts in this direction.
In recent years, several works have appeared in Ukraine that allow us to talk about the fact that a research environment is beginning to take shape here, the focus of which is on the functioning of social cohesion [1,2,7,8,9,10,11,15] . Among the topics that provide grounds for the development of certain conceptual approaches to the understanding of the phenomenon of "social cohesion" and in particular its contents are social processes and their regional features, regional aspects of socio-economic development, social policy, processes of social cohesion in youth in general and in school and student environments in particular, the issue of immigrant integration in the Ukrainian social space [4,36].
Related to the discourse on social cohesion in the Ukrainian scientific space are topics concerning the tolerance in the relations of different strata of the population and inter-ethnic tolerance in particular [3,13,14]. An important moment in the development of the scientific discourse is the study of the experience accumulated by foreign researchers [1,6,8]. The latter helps Ukrainian scientists to form their positions regarding the role of social cohesion in social development, to make comparisons in order to formulate the concepts of understanding social cohesion as adequately as possible, by the way, the peculiarities of its content in Ukrainian society.
The basic source for formulating an evaluation of the state of social cohesion and researching its prospects is the monitoring of social changes in Ukraine, which has been carried out by the team of the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine for almost thirty years, publishing its findings in the special publication "Ukrainian Society: Monitoring of Social Changes". Of special interest in the context of our presentation are the following sections: "Economic situation", "Social well-being and public attitudes", "Social changes", "Inter-ethnic relations and the language of communication." Working out the monitoring data and articles related to it, it is possible to draw certain conclusions about the possible state of social cohesion in Ukrainian society and its dynamics in the future. For example, by 2020, Ukrainians assessed the economic situation at the level of an average score from 1.3 (1998) [12,443].
In the context of reflections on the prospects of social cohesion in Ukrainian society, it is worth considering the tension indicator. According to domestic sociologists, "for Ukrainian society, which is constantly in a process of transformation, social tension has become its "background" characteristic. At the same time, the social situation is destabilizing in various spheres due to the loss of balance in the social system, and therefore, the risk of both loss of controllability of the system (systemic tension) and an increase in the population's experience of tension (subjective tension), which may ultimately turn into protest behavior, increases" [5,95]. In 2020, the tension index was 6.28 points on a 10-point scale; in several previous years, these indicators ranged from 6.79 (2017) to 7.25 (2019) points. We remind you that 1.00 points is a "calm situation" and 10.00 points is a "critical situation" [5,95].
As for such an important indicator as the index of social well-being of Ukrainians, taking into account more than thirty indicators, from 1996 to 2020 it ranged from 33.7 percent (1998) to 40.9 percent (2019), in 2020 it was 40.0 percent. Note that this is the average value (conditional zero); the very range of the social well-being scale is measured from 20 to 60 points [12,494]. Ukrainians' assessment of the social changes that took place during the period in various spheres of social life, which was studied in the monitoring, was on the borderline below the average indicator (5.0): for example, the material conditions of the family -from 1.8 in 1994 to 2.3 in 2020 [12,526].
In the complex of problems that significantly affect the state of social well-being of the population, which is directly related to the state of social cohesion, there is the problem of personal security of the citizen in the living environment (in the broad sense of the word, society), "since the phenomenon of security and security itself permeates all levels of social life" and "this phenomenon is present in all spheres of human activity" [16,423]. According to domestic researchers, the set of numerous problems inherent in Ukrainian society "contributes to people's state of uncertainty, lack of confidence, hopelessness and causes them to experience their insecurity in society. The key that opens the way to overcoming this complex socio-psychological problem is in overcoming crisis phenomena in all spheres of society, stabilizing the everyday life of citizens" [16,440].
To determine the state of social cohesion and the parameters of its prospects in Ukrainian society, it is necessary to take into account such a factor as the polyethnicity of its population (to a certain extent). In this context, the index of social distance plays a decisive role in the interaction of carriers of various ethno-cultural traditions. Let's reproduce the situation with regard to some representatives of the immigrant pool: for those from Arab countries, the average score was (1992-2020) from 5.1 (1992) to 6.1 (2012); 5.9 (2020); for Turks, this index varies from 4.9 (1992) to 5. Based on the listed publications, it can be stated that a platform is being formed in the Ukrainian scientific space for the study of the phenomenon of social cohesion, and specific social studies such as the monitoring of social changes provide a data base for their deployment in various directions.

Conclusion
The analysis of modern studies of the phenomenon of social cohesion in different countries allows us to single out several main trends: 1) social cohesion continues to be the focus of attention of scientists of many countries (we focused on three social spaces, although research has recently intensified in the Asian social space and in Australia [22,45]), 2) a notable feature of modern scientific discourse, according to some researchers, is its weakening, but this does not mean a loss of interest in the phenomenon; 3) the search for the reasons for the modern dynamics of its content is tied to those socio-economic and political situations that are characteristic of the residence country of certain researchers; 4) modern research is characterized by a large degree of practicality associated with the thesis "what does social cohesion provide for the social development of this or that country"; 5) the emphasis on interdisciplinarity (because a phenomenon itself) is more noticeable than in previous periods, and therefore in this direction of its study; 6) for the specified three social spaces, the fundamental principles of the formation of the "social cohesion" construct remain constant in the scientific discourse, but there is a noticeable shift in the interest of researchers towards the study of the influence of individual and psychological factors on the dynamics of the contents of social cohesion and challenges to the development of policies for managing these dynamics; 7) an important component of the research of a certain pool of Western scientists is the effort to build effective models for measuring the content of social cohesion; 8) the inclusion in the context of the article of the possibilities of forming social cohesion in the Ukrainian social space showed that: a) the latter in the context studied by us is a component of the modern global space, and here too the problems of social cohesion are quite acute; b) to a large extent, the concepts of both the content itself and its study are built taking into account historical experience and the latest modern trends of Western scientific discourse, primarily researchers and practitioners from North-American and European countries.