As a nation built on a meritocracy (Young 1958; Quah 1998), Singapore has produced a notable amount of social integration. In the early years, for example, it brought the bright children of all family backgrounds into the best schools, facilitating a social mixing along both class and racial lines (Siu 2019).
But the meritocracy is also a sorting mechanism with the potential to segregate. Whether in schools or workplaces, meritocracy seeks to identify the ‘best and brightest’ (Tan 2019). This produces class segregation because students are put into different educational tracks, and this, in turn, translates into distinctive trajectories and unequal life chances.
Over time, social mobility has given way to social reproduction (Chua et al. 2019). With a system already unequal (due to earlier periods of meritocratic sorting), staying the course in meritocracy merely preserves the lead of those with a head start (Tan 2018). Commenting on the Singaporean reality, Tharman Shanmugaratnam says:
What you see in other advanced countries could easily happen here, which is that while you retain some mobility in the middle of society, the top and the bottom tend to be become encrusted… The top tends to preserve its ability to succeed in meritocracy, and the bottom tends to get stuck at the bottom end of the ladder. It is happening in many societies, and we are beginning to see it happen here.
(Teng 2019)
The social segregation of class groups, of elites versus non‐elites, will threaten the fabric of Singaporean society not least because it breeds a politics of envy, and for those at the lower end, including the young, feelings of helplessness and marginalization (Mills and Blossfeld 2006). Sometimes, the losers of the meritocratic race end up blaming themselves (Mijs 2016).
The future city – any future city – needs a healthy mix of social relationships between diverse groups. In the rest of this chapter, I discuss three ways to mitigate patterns of social polarization. The first is the mobilization of common frames of reference to unite diverse groups. The second is the promotion of voluntary associational life to contribute to conviviality and sociability. The third is the intentional building of personal communities based on the principles of diversity to create a shared sense of national belongingness.
Strategies for Inclusion
Common Frames of Reference
Singaporean national identity, by which I mean the sense of belonging to the Singapore nation, has remained high over the years (Ooi et al. 2002). Altercations between racial/ethnic groups are few and far between, with racial riots a thing of the past. A peaceful society boosts collective social capital and is associated with such desirable outcomes as low crime rate (Putnam 2000; Quah 1998).
In Singapore, national identity serves as a superordinate identity over other smaller group‐based identities. It allows members of the various racial groups to view members of other groups, not as outgroup but as ingroup members. This occurs via the process of social recategorization, whereby former outgroup members are now part of the ingroup, with the national identity marker serving as a third‐party common denominator (Reeskens and Wright 2013). With boundaries blurred between in‐ and outgroups, a national identity increases the likelihood that we trust our fellow citizens, with their colour, creed or economic background posing fewer barriers to a sense of solidarity (Reeskens and Wright 2013).
In global cities, a potential source of conflict is the gulf between locals and foreigners, such as migrants, for example. The site of threat is typically in the economic domain, especially the fear that foreigners (both high‐end and low‐end) are taking away the jobs of locals (Koh 2003). Feelings of threat can be more pronounced when economic resources are scarcer, such as during an economic downturn (Olzak 1992). If newcomers are able to offer the same labour for a much lower price, feelings of threat and intergroup hostility seem inevitable (Bonacich 1972). At the other end of the spectrum, newcomers can also include high‐wage workers, for example, ‘transnational elites’, whose presence can make locals feel the best positions are being usurped (Beaverstock 2002).
The challenge, then, is to find common ground between the competing groups. This is not an easy task, as local‐foreigner differences often overlap with class differences, including spatial differences, such as the rich living in gated communities. This amplifies the notions of difference (Pow 2011).
The challenge of future cities, open as they are to the world, is to ensure that globalization's flows of talent and inequalities do not make individuals or specific groups feel they are excluded. The search for shared national values is one potential solution, especially the search for those national values emphasizing a shared humanity.
Voluntary Participation as a Source of Diversity and Social Learning
Voluntary associations, including religious centres, hobby clubs, sport clubs and the like, are major sources of contact diversity. When a person joins an association, the probability of meeting new friends and contacts increases significantly (Kalmijn and Flap 2001). Members of an association share some kind of common interest, but at the same time, members may differ in their occupations and other social positions, making it easy to form ties to people different from themselves.
An association cannot add much to network diversity if the association is homogenous, as many are (McPherson and Smith‐Lovin 1987). Large associations are likely to include many people similar to the focal person, who can follow the homophily principle and make new ties with similar others instead of adding to diversity (McPherson and Smith‐Lovin 1987).
Smaller, more active, and more socially mixed groups are the best sources of diversity. Associations with more member activities give members more chances to get to know each other. Within organizations, the activities designed by leaders create a context for friendships to form: for example, when childcare organizations make it mandatory for parents to help organize excursions, parents invariably meet other parents. Since different kinds of associations recruit from different demographic categories, the richest of all sources of social capital is membership in multiple kinds of associations (Erickson 2004). When associations are themselves linked with other associations, members in both get a chance to meet one another. In short, institutional links foster individual links (Small 2009).
Some might argue that associations are usually interest‐based and therefore cannot be inclusive. But all associations, even homogeneous ones, draw on an ethos of cooperation, focus on accomplishing objectives together and treat fellow members with decency. Therefore, an association is simultaneously a site for social learning and a training ground for relational skills. Gerometta, Haussermann and Longo (Gerometta et al. 2005, p. 2019) put it well when they say:
The theoretical construction of a civil society, that could play an important role in fighting exclusion, remains paradoxical to a certain extent: self‐help and associations are usually built on common interests of the group members and, in such a perspective, they represent particular interests. But they all have to refer to a common frame of mutual respect and acknowledgement, and this means in the last instance a reference to the overall constitution of a coherent society, sharing some common values of non‐violent cooperation and social cohesion (Gemeinwohl). So each particular group also has non‐particular interests and orientations, which must be stressed in forming an integrated civil society.
In a sense, associations are similar to guilds. Guilds are sites of craftsmanship, with members investing in training and learning to relate to each other. They gain mastery in their craft over time. Their knowledge is ‘experience‐based rather than propositional or objectified’. It is tacit knowledge. By the same token, associations offer ‘numerous small workshops’ where members hone their civic skills. Each member is an apprentice. The primary impact of associational life is local, with ‘tacit knowledge transferred from person to person’ (Epstein and Prak 2008, pp. 5, 6, and 11).
Research on Singapore suggests associations play a substantial role in generating diversity.