Creating a "better world" by developing communities where people of different social, economical and religious status not just live close but also interact with each other freely may be a lost cause, researchers find.
Remember Michael Jackson's famous number "Heal The World"? For decades now, people have been talking of a "better world" and many have tried in their own small way to make this world a better place to live in. But what exactly is a better world? To answer this question another very famous song by John Lennon comes to mind - "Imagine."
For some a better world means no poverty or hunger, while others think of it as a place where there's no greed or enmity. For women it may mean a safer society while for children it may mean no studies! Everyone has a different definition for what a better world should be like.
In a broader context, studies conducted on this topic define the term as a scenario where people forget caste, religion, social and economical status to live as one. However, a new study conducted by researchers from Michigan State University found that working towards creating this "better world" may be a lost cause and also provided an explanation for this.
"Is a better world possible? Unfortunately, these findings show it may not be possible to simultaneously create communities that are both fully integrated and fully cohesive," Zachary Neal said in a press release. "In essence, when it comes to neighborhood desegregation and social cohesion, you can't have your cake and eat it too."
The chief reason behind this has got to do with how people form relationships. It was observed that people tend to build bonds with people closer and similar to themselves. This similarity includes race, religion and social class.
After running several models of fictitious neighborhoods through a computer, researchers concluded that the more integrated a neighborhood is, the less socially cohesive it becomes, and vice versa.
The researchers suggest that instead of just trying to create communities where people live in harmony, they should instead try to find the right balance between integration and cohesion, which may differ from community to community.
"It's not that local leaders and policymakers aren't trying hard enough," Neal said. "Rather, we now think it's because the goals of integration and cohesion are just not compatible with each other."
