Buiten kerk en moskee

three possible challenges (amongst others) at different levels: at the level of the individual,
at intergroup level (between social groups) and at the level of society as a whole.
1) A greater mental (existential) stress on the individual, who will increasingly have to give
meaning to their life themselves, if they are seeking meaningfulness.
2) Ideological tensions and cleavages between the numerically dominant secular majority
and believers, including a growing number of orthodox and other Muslims. These tensions
may manifest themselves in and be fed by increasing inequality, reduced representation,
mistrust and conflict.
3) The disappearance of churches may be accompanied by a reduction in the number of
volunteers.
8.3.1 Religious diversity and social cohesion
A common concern – throughout most of history – is the question of whether society is
slowly but surely falling apart and becoming less and less a community of citizens who feel
a connection with each other. Worst-case scenario, this will result in a disconnected whole
of individuals and groups, each living in their own world, without any solidarity with each
other. In public and academic debate, concerns are regularly expressed about possible
cleavages and dichotomies. For example, between rich and poor, the lower and higher
educated, people who participate and those who stand on the sidelines, people with and
without a migration background, but also between people with different ideological or
religious positions (see Bovens et al. 2014, for example). Where social cleavages are concerned,
three dimensions can be distinguished: differentiation, identification and representation
(Tiemeijer 2017). Differentiation refers to the extent to which differences exist
between groups, identification is the extent to which people identify with one of the
groups distinguished, while representation relates to the extent to which the distinction
between these groups is also presented as such politically and in the media. The higher a
distinction between groups ‘scores’ on these dimensions, the more reason there is to
speak of a cleavage. Others identify other dimensions too, such as Deegan-Krause (2007),
who names social structures, attitudes and institutions. Are there social contradictions and
social groups that can clearly be distinguished from each other? Are there differences in
attitude, views and political preferences between the groups? Do the social groups organise
themselves into separate social and political institutions? Associations and political
parties, for example?
In literature on the subject, it is assumed that the boundaries between groups become
more rigid the more a number of dimensions of distance converge. For example, the consequences
of mutually reinforcing cleavages are more problematic for social cohesion than
cross-cutting cleavages are (Bovens et al. 2014). The stronger the accumulation, the deeper
the cleavage and the greater the possible consequences. Cleavages are regarded as undesirable
for a number of reasons, one of which is the possibility for them to go hand in hand
with inequality of opportunity, limited freedom, mistrust and conflict, the reduced representation
of certain groups and a society that is less cohesive (Tiemeijer 2017). In this sub-
158 c o n c l u d i n g r e m a r k s o n t h r e e r e p o r t s