Early traces of the social cohesion concept can be found in the work of historians, philosophers, sociologists, and economists. They all were concerned with the idea of holding society together “as one” and fostering social cooperation. This is very much in line with the present-day understanding of cohesion; it literally means, “sticking together” (cf., ^{Chan, To, & Chan, 2006}). The study of social cohesion, thus, amounts to the quest for forces that make social atoms form a society characterized by a “we-feeling” and solidarity. This is not the place to delve deeply into the history of the concept, which can at least be traced back to the French Revolution with its three mottos, “liberté, egalité, fraternité,” where the latter addresses the issue of social cohesion. A brief look into the most prominent contributions, however, seems in place.

^{Durkheim (1952)} described the maintenance of social order in societies based on two very different forms of solidarity, mechanical and organic. Mechanical solidarity is a characteristic of traditional and small-scale societies, where cohesion and the integration of individuals stems from their homogeneity- individuals are connected by similar work, education, religious background, and lifestyle. Contemporary industrial capitalist societies, in contrast, are kept together by organic solidarity. It is a form of social cohesion based on the interdependence of individuals because of specifics of the division of labor. Durkheim argues that the advancement of the division of labor could also bring about disorder and anomie, which he considers to be pathological aspects of modernity. However, once an advanced stage has been reached successfully, societies become much stronger, and the social bonds are more flexible than in a context of mechanical solidarity.

^{Tönnies (1957)} proposed a basic distinction between Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society) to describe the type of social ties among people. In a Gemeinschaft, social ties belong to personal social interactions, and the roles, values, and beliefs that originate from these interactions. A Gesellschaft exhibits indirect interactions, impersonal roles, formal values, and corresponding beliefs. In response to Tönnies, ^{Weber (1978)} wrote of Vergemeinschaftung (community formation) and Vergesellschaftung (society formation). Weber saw community rooted in affectual or traditional feelings, and society rooted in rational agreements by mutual consent, e.g., a commercial contract.

Drawing heavily on Durkheim, ^{Parsons (1971)} saw a necessity for value-normative integration in modern societies. According to him, a society can be integrated in substantive and functional terms only if social interactions are centered around a set of ultimate values, which are shared visions on the desirable state of affairs. For Parsons, common values internalized during the socialization process therefore, are key for holding together the societal community-the integration function which this subsystem plays to maintain the entire society as a social system.

Although it is focused on the centuries-old question of what keeps a society together and what motivates individuals to cooperate, social cohesion as an applied concept in empirical research did not gain much prominence until the 1990s. Then, however, it increasingly received attention. Currently social cohesion is a “hot topic” in academia, public policy, and mass media. The reasons for this can be found in the growing concerns that megatrends such as increasing ethno-cultural diversity (immigration), a widening gap between rich and poor, technological progress, and recurrent financial crises weaken the social fabric of present-day societies.

A review study by ^{Schiefer, van der Noll, Delhey, and Boehnke (2012)} screened the relevant academic and institutional sources on theories behind the concept of cohesion (see also ^{Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017}). They, first, point to a consensus among scholars that cohesion is a characteristic of a social entity. While individuals’ values and behaviors do affect (and are affected by) social cohesion, cohesion itself is not a characteristic of individual members of a society. Scholars also agree that cohesion is a graduated phenomenon: There are different degrees of cohesion and social entities can, thus, be more or less cohesive. Next, the level of cohesion is reflected in the attitudes and behaviors of individuals and groups in a given society. Its manifestations encompass the micro, meso, and macro levels of human interaction. Finally, there is consensus that social cohesion is a multidimensional construct (cf., ^{Dickes, Valentova, & Bor­ senberger, 2010}).

^{Schiefer et al. (2012)} do not stop here; they ascertain that there is something like a core meaning of cohesion. From the various definitions that have been proposed, Schiefer et al. identify a small number of domains consensually seen as components of social cohesion, namely intact social relationships, high connectedness to the social entity at stake, and an overarching orientation towards the common good. The authors then formulate a definition in line with the core consensus of current research on social cohesion, which was adopted with slight modifications in the Social Cohesion Radar series of comparative studies on social cohesion of Bertelsmann Stiftung (cf., ^{Dragolov et al., 2016}; Arant, Larsen & Boehnke, 2016; Arant, Dragolov & Boehnke, 2017; Delhey et al., 2018). For the purposes of the present article, we apply this concept, as elaborated below.

Social cohesion is the quality of social cooperation and togetherness of a collectivity, defined in geo-political terms, that is expressed in the attitudes and behaviors of its members. A cohesive social entity is characterized by resilient social relations, a positive emotional connectedness between its members and the community, and a strong commitment toward the common good.

Social relations are understood as the horizontal network that spans individuals and groups within a society. Connectedness refers to the positive vertical ties among individuals and their social entity of belonging and that entity’s key institutions, respectively. A commitment to the common good, finally, is reflected in the actions and attitudes of the members of society that demonstrate solidarity, responsibility for others, and engagement for the community as a whole. These are the three core aspects (in the following called domains) of cohesion.

Each of these three domains, in turn, unfolds into three dimensions: Social relations are measured by the strength of social networks, the degree to which people trust each other, and the extent to which diversity is accepted. Connectedness is measured in terms of the strength of people’s identification with their residential social entity, the degree to which they trust that entity’s major institutions, and their perception of fairness in it. A focus on the common good manifests itself in the level of solidarity and helpfulness, people’s willingness to abide by social rules, and civic participation.

Compared to other academically well-received approaches to cohesion, the concept that the present article uses strengthens one important aspect, the focus on to the common good, as it is neither entirely “horizontal” nor entirely “vertical;” it rather connects or complements the two. Figure 1 offers a graphic display of the conceptual approach.

Figure 1 The Bertelsmann Social Cohesión Concept 

One advantage of using the above-outlined Bertelsmann definition of cohesion is that it deliberately excludes material wealth, social inequality, values, and well-being, despite the fact that these factors may play an important role in other authors’ definitions (cf. ^{Janmaat, 2011}). Grounded in substantive conceptual reasons (cf. ^{Dragolov et al., 2016}), this streamlining focuses the concept on the key aspects of social cohesion only, thereby enabling a systematic empirically driven differentiation with respect to conditions, components, and consequences of social cohesion. Particularly in light of the aims of the present article, the application of the Bertelsmann concept makes it possible to investigate which values affect (and are affected by) social cohesion.

The relationship between values and cohesion has not been explained in depth yet. Although researchers agree that individual values and behavior affect (and are affected by) social cohesion, it is debatable whether social cohesion in modern, diverse and complex societies needs indeed homogeneity of values. The evidence provided in this paper cannot answer the question. It only attempts to shed light on (a) the relationship between value preferences of individuals and the-perceived-level of social cohesion in their residential social entity, and (b) the aggregate value climate in that social entity and the degree of social cohesion measured for it. We do so by analyzing data from a representative survey conducted in Mexico, which encompasses data on social cohesion and on value preferences assessed within the theory of values introduced by ^{Schwartz (1992)}. Figure 2 depicts the classical Schwartz Value Circumplex model for individual-level values.

Figure 2 Schwartz Value Circumplex (Individual-Level-Values) 

How do people’s values interact with social cohesion? Do the guiding principles people follow in their lives (i.e., their value preferences) preform (perceived) social cohesion, or does the degree of social cohesión experienced in a geopolitically defined social entity shape people’s value preferences? We approach the response to this preliminary research question by conducting two types of analyses, one on the individual level, and the other on the aggregate level of the 31 Federal States of Mexico plus the Capitol District. On the individual level, we relate value preferences to perceived levels of social cohesion. On the aggregate level, we relate the average value climate in a federal state to the level of social cohesion in the state.

^{Boehnke et al. (2016)} related social cohesion scores to value preferences for European countries based on data from the European Social Survey (ESS). They showed that high preferences of self-enhancement and of conservation values were typically associated with low levels social cohesion. High levels of social cohesion were positively associated with self-transcendence and openness values. We now enlarged the scope of ^{Dragolov et al.’s (2016)} study of Anglo and European OECD countries to Mexico, one of the only three Latin American OECD members (Chile and Colombia being the other two member states). To assess value preferences, the present study employed Schwartz’s Portrait Values Questionnaire as used in the European Social Survey (ESS). Thus, our research can be seen as a test whether findings from the Dragolov et al. study generalize to Mexico.

In summary, our hypotheses-regardless of level of analysis-read:

Social cohesion is positively related to openness and to self-transcendence values. These values stand for openness towards others and engagement for their interests, both being integral parts of social cohesion.

Social Cohesion is negatively related to conservation and self-enhancement values. These values stand for outperforming others and preserving one’s own lot, both standing against solidarity and helpfulness as well as interpersonal trust.