How should social mixing programmes be done?

The recent discourse on emerging divides in Singapore has led to proposals arguing for measures to promote increased social mixing across all classes.

Proponents argue that such mixing will be useful in fostering togetherness among Singaporeans, regardless of their socio-economic status (SES), thus preventing a stratified social system from emerging.

On the other hand, others, such as sociologist Teo You Yenn, have questioned the utility of social mixing, and have instead contended that direct measures to address the issues at hand, such as school equality and our arguably imperfect system of meritocracy, will be more effective in addressing the fundamental causes of social stratification in Singapore.

Notwithstanding conflicting views on this matter, schools such as Raffles Institution (RI), which has been under the spotlight and portrayed as an exemplar of the elite, have been reported to conduct programmes that aim to promote social mixing and, hopefully, break stereotypes that characterise elites and non-elites.

The reaction to media reports of the RI programme, however, was negative.

Many argued that getting RI students to interact with those from Crest Secondary actually accentuated their differences.

Against this backdrop, one pertinent question is how should social mixing be done, if ever?

In order to achieve the immediate objectives of social mixing – which is to enhance relations between groups and to dispel negative stereotypes - the following principles ought to be adhered to when designing any such programme.

First, visible equal status among group members needs to be established so that they perceive themselves as equals in the interactive context.

Regardless of the background knowledge that one may come from a different SES, the interactive context must ensure that it does not make that identity salient, lest it governs relations between the different groups.

In the RI example, it sent senior students to interact with junior ones from Crest, clearly reflecting the difference in status between both sides.

It would have been more effective to have senior students from both schools come together in a mixed team to coach junior ones.

In this case, one’s background as coming from a more “elite” school would not be the basis of the interaction, but rather, it is one’s experience and competencies as a more senior boy scout that guide such mentoring sessions.

The second principle is this: the groups must have shared, superordinate goals.

As Aristotle aptly put it, “a common danger unites even the bitterest enemies”.

This is exemplified in the formation of coalitions for social causes (e.g.the #metoo movement united people from all walks of life for a common cause) as well as international collaboration against trans-boundary threats, such as the multinational naval task force known as Combined Task Force 151, which engages in counter-piracy missions in the Gulf of Aden.

There are existing programmes, such as those at the Outward Bound Singapore (OBS), which continue to be an effective tool for social mixing.

At OBS, students from various schools come together to form mixed teams to complete various tasks, and the success of teams hinges upon the cooperation of the team members.

More such programmes can be implemented, especially in the sports and performing arts domain, which are avenues with great potential for effective social mixing.

For example, mixed sports teams comprising students from various schools can be formed, and friendly competitions can be held that pit mixed teams against one another, instead of the traditional school vs school competition.

Similarly, performing arts groups can also comprise students from different schools.

Community involvement programmes can also be designed on a mixed team basis with a shared superordinate goal of cooperating to contribute to society.

These activities do not amplify any existing class differences among individuals, but attenuate and unite them towards a shared goal.

Last but not least, it is crucial for those who are in positions responsible for group interactions, such as team leaders, facilitators, workshop coordinators, competition or event planners, to play an active role in endorsing and advocating equal intergroup relations.

The primary role of these persons of authority is to design the rules of the game based on the earlier two principles of equal status and sharing superordinate goals.

Such deliberate efforts in designing the interactive context is necessary in overcoming people’s natural tendencies to group themselves together based on their most salient, or comfortable, characteristics – be it race or class.

For example, a facilitator in a team-building event needs to be keenly aware of group dynamics and know how members are associating with one another (e.g. the formation of cliques, ostracisation of certain others) and intervene when required, such as by adjusting group membership.

Beyond understanding the principles behind designing social mixing programmes, one practical challenge that implementers of such programmes may face is the skills and knowledge in addressing group dynamics.

When do we know that certain unhealthy norms are beginning to form and how should we address them?

In this light, it is necessary to “train the trainers”, so that they may be equipped with the knowledge of intergroup relations and skills required to facilitate effective interactions.

The University of Michigan, for example, inaugurated its Program on Intergroup Relations way back in 1988, and many other institutions have followed suit, recognising the importance of establishing a pool of expertise that serves to design, advise and provide training in the management of intergroup interactions not just in schools, but also government organisations .

Perhaps it is also timely for us to consider similar approaches in our education institutions as a start, so as to develop a core expertise that can inform practical social mixing programmes at various education levels, and ultimately, provide policy recommendations at the national level.

At the same time, hopefully these (properly designed) interactions that students engage in at various education levels through their formative years will also enable them to forge lasting relationships beyond the school domain.  

Singapore has had some success in engineering social mixing.

The challenge now is to design better ones for this day and age.

As Assoc Professor Teo said, it is the design of systems, and not people’s tastes and preferences, that is fundamental to the presence or lack of social mixing.

Ultimately, social mixing can be useful to the extent that it facilitates the initiation of contact among individuals of different SES. But it cannot stop there.

Deliberate effort and planning to design social mixing systems is needed to ensure effectiveness.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Mike Hou is a PhD candidate in Psychology at the National University of Singapore.