Acts of Good Neighborliness as Pathways to Social Cohesion in South African Communities

Abstract

Cohesion among individuals reflects the quality of relationships and interpersonal interaction within a community. Elements such as social connections, trust, and a sense of belonging serve as key indicators of societal cohesion and are often rooted in acts of good neighborliness. Despite this, limited knowledge exists regarding perceptions and behaviors related to good neighborliness within South African society. The present study examines how perceptions and practices of good neighborliness contribute to the development of cohesive communities. Research was conducted in four South African communities: Philippolis, Lambert’s Bay, Caledon, and Grabouw. Utilizing an interpretivist approach, the study adopted a qualitative methodology involving interviews with 25 participants, including family members and community stakeholders. Data were collected through in-depth interviews, and thematic analysis facilitated the identification of recurring patterns and key themes. The principal themes identified were everyday mutual support and practical assistance, moral norms and values of care, social familiarity and community connectedness, trust and good neighborliness, and intergroup relations and cohesion across diversity. The findings demonstrate the crucial role of good neighborliness in advancing social cohesion. For communities and families to thrive, it is vital that members experience safety and cultivate trusting relationships, which often requires openness about their vulnerabilities and needs.

1. Introduction

Social cohesion is defined as the degree of relational ties, shared values, and mutual trust that connect individuals within communities and broader society [1,2]. It is widely regarded as an indicator of the strength of the social “glue” that binds members of society together [3]. Societies with high levels of social cohesion are typically more resilient, better able to withstand external shocks and crises, and tend to experience greater economic growth [4]. Prosocial behavior remains a fundamental aspect of human interaction, evident in everyday actions such as providing support, sharing resources, expressing solidarity, and cooperating with others [5]. These behaviors are universally acknowledged as essential for building supportive networks and protecting individuals from stressful situations [6,7]. Within local communities, such prosocial behavior is often conceptualized as good neighborliness—a set of actions that foster interpersonal trust, strengthen social bonds, and promote positive social outcomes [8].

Good neighborliness serves as a fundamental foundation for inclusive and supportive communities [9]. It is associated with mutual assistance, community participation, and emotional well-being, and aligns closely with core pillars of social cohesion, such as trust, belonging, and social connectedness [10]. Consequently, everyday acts of good neighborliness have the potential to enhance social cohesion within local communities and, by extension, in the broader society.

The term Ubuntu signifies a profound African humanistic philosophy that emphasizes the importance of relational identity, mutual support, and ethical interconnectedness [11]. The phrase “Umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu,” which translates to “a person is a person through other people,” illustrates how Ubuntu transcends cultural values to function as a foundational social ethic [12]. In everyday interactions, this philosophy promotes principles such as reciprocity, shared responsibility, empathy, and social harmony [11].

Ubuntu is frequently referenced in South African academic discourse to elucidate concepts such as neighborliness, solidarity, and informal social support, particularly in contexts characterized by inequality, historical divisions, and scarce resources [12]. At the micro level, Ubuntu is manifested in daily practices such as greeting others, caring for neighbors, sharing resources, and responding to community needs. These behaviors, in turn, encourage local communities to actively engage in fostering social cohesion [13].

To gain a deeper understanding of how everyday neighborly interactions contribute to the development of cohesive communities, social capital theory offers a valuable interpretive framework. It defines social capital as the resources embedded within social networks, emphasizing the critical roles of interpersonal trust, reciprocity, and collective responsibility in sustaining social life [13,14,15]. Through mutual support and solidarity, neighborly relationships generate bonding capital that strengthens close interpersonal connections, while the extension of these interactions across diverse social groups produces bridging capital—a crucial element for enhancing collective cohesion and social integration [14,16].

In line with this perspective, social bond theory emphasizes the vital relationships that underpin social stability, arguing that adherence to community norms arises from individuals’ connections to their families, friends, and societal institutions [3]. These relational bonds cultivate a sense of belonging, moral alignment, and shared responsibility, all of which serve to strengthen the social fabric [17]. Conversely, when these connections weaken, the likelihood of social disengagement and deviant behavior increases, thereby demonstrating how the erosion of relational bonds can undermine community cohesion and societal stability.

In South Africa, efforts to strengthen social cohesion remain crucial given persistent socioeconomic inequalities, including poverty, unemployment, and limited access to basic services [18,19]. These structural conditions may strain social relations and limit sustained neighborly engagement [20]. Nevertheless, traditions of collective care and Ubuntu continue to emphasize mutual responsibility, shared humanity, and communal welfare [21]. Although neighborliness is often constrained by limited resources and shaped by selective trust and social boundaries, these cultural principles highlight its ongoing importance as a protective factor.

Against this backdrop, this study investigates how everyday acts of neighborliness strengthen social cohesion within South African communities. It stresses the significance of small gestures in fostering trust and a sense of belonging, particularly amid prevailing inequalities. The values of Ubuntu and trust-building practices play a critical role in promoting community cohesion in South Africa. By exploring how residents experience, negotiate, and practice neighborliness, the study offers insights into how routine interactions and cultural norms shape the potential for a cohesive community life.

Research Objective

This study aims to investigate how everyday acts of good neighborliness strengthen social cohesion within South African communities. It focuses on small yet meaningful gestures of support, care, and mutual responsibility that foster trust, a sense of belonging, and shared commitment in daily life. In a context characterized by persistent inequality and social tension, neighborliness often functions as a practical means for individuals to build connections and promote collective well-being. By exploring how residents perceive and practice neighborliness, the study seeks to demonstrate how ordinary interactions can contribute to more cohesive and inclusive communities.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Conceptual Foundations of Social Cohesion

Social cohesion encompasses the attributes that unite individuals and groups, enabling societies to function harmoniously and pursue collective goals [21]. While widely recognized as a multidimensional construct, scholars typically identify three core elements: strong interpersonal relationships, a shared sense of belonging, and a collective orientation toward the common good [22,23,24,25]. These elements form the foundation for trust, cooperation, and mutual accountability within communities [26]. Notably, cohesion is not solely a macro-level societal phenomenon; it is also rooted in the microstructures of daily life, particularly within the family [27]. As the primary unit of socialization, the family shapes early patterns of trust, reciprocity, and emotional support, which subsequently influence broader community dynamics and collectively shape the social fabric [16,28,29].

Although the concept of social cohesion is well established, the diversity of definitions across disciplines contributes to its conceptual complexity. Its origins can be traced to the classical sociological work of Emile Durkheim (1893), who argued that cohesion emerges from solidarity, shared loyalty, and interconnectedness [30]. Durkheim’s distinction between mechanical and organic solidarity provides an early theoretical framework for understanding cohesion in different types of societies [31]. Mechanical solidarity is characterized by homogeneity and shared norms, whereas organic solidarity is based on interdependence, specialization, and complementary social roles [32,33]. These forms of solidarity illustrate how cohesion promotes social order and strengthens bonds across social groups [34].

Contemporary scholarship expands the conceptualization of social cohesion beyond its foundational theoretical origins. Fonseca et al. [21] describe cohesion as a process by which individuals come to see themselves as part of a collective endeavor, fostering a shared identity and reinforcing the significance of confronting common challenges [35]. This broader perspective highlights belonging, mutual support, and collective responsibility as central elements in building cohesive communities [36,37]. Similarly, Burns et al. [38] characterize cohesion as a “phenomenon of togetherness” that promotes unity and societal harmony. Nevertheless, as Fonseca et al. [21] observe, there is still no universal consensus on the definition of the concept.

Several scholars conceptualize cohesion as a set of desirable societal attributes, including strong social relationships, shared values, common interpretive frameworks, collective identity, trust, and minimal inequalities [39,40,41,42]. The Organization for Co-Operation and Development (OECD) further emphasizes the importance of reducing inequalities and broad citizen engagement as essential to achieving cohesive societies [43]. Conversely, some researchers define cohesion in terms of its absence. Shayegh et al. [44] argue that incohesive societies are characterized by mistrust, conflict, violence, and marginalization.

This perspective is particularly relevant in the South African context. Ahmad [45] observes that neighborhood cohesion in South Africa differs markedly from patterns seen in the Global North, where theories of cohesion and collective efficacy were originally formulated and extensively tested. Although social cohesion in South Africa is still an emerging and evolving field, it has become integral to the national project of nation-building [45]. Despite rising inequality and the persistent effects of historical divisions, gradual progress continues to inform new understandings and practices of cohesion within local communities.

2.2. Global Perspectives on Social Cohesion

International analyses of social cohesion reveal a wide range of methodologies employed in diverse global contexts. Worldwide, social cohesion has emerged as a critical concern for societies undergoing rapid change [20,46,47]. In regions such as Europe, North America, and parts of Asia, factors such as increased migration, political polarization, and growing economic inequality have revived debates about how communities foster trust and develop a shared sense of belonging [36,48,49]. These dynamics have also affected neighborly interactions, thereby hindering social cohesion within communities [50].

In the Global North, research on social cohesion has traditionally focused on established welfare states, where strong institutions, active civic engagement, and redistributive policies are seen as enhancing collective solidarity [51,52,53]. These environments have developed key frameworks by integrating concepts such as collective efficacy, social capital, and the distinctions between bonding and bridging, which continue to shape global discourse [54].

Nevertheless, recent research suggests that these conventional frameworks may not be universally applicable in contexts marked by structural inequities, cultural diversity, and fragile political systems [55,56,57]. For instance, studies in Latin America highlight the importance of community resilience, informal social networks, and deeply rooted local norms as key facilitators of cohesion in environments affected by violence and weak institutional structures [58,59]. In certain regions of Asia, communal values such as collectivism, filial piety, and neighborhood interdependence are central to fostering belonging and collective action [60,61]. Similarly, scholarship from Africa emphasizes Ubuntu-inspired relationality, inclusive participation, and mutual care as essential for promoting community cohesion, offering alternative perspectives that challenge Western individualistic models [62,63].

Global evidence consistently demonstrates that while societies universally aspire to trust, unity, and mutual support, the pathways to achieving cohesion differ markedly based on cultural norms, historical experiences of conflict or cooperation, and socioeconomic conditions [1,64]. This variability highlights that social cohesion is neither a universal nor a static construct; rather, it is a dynamic process shaped by the ways in which community members navigate differences, confront challenges, and collaboratively work toward collective well-being [65,66].

2.3. Understanding Neighborliness and Its Social Significance

Neighborliness refers to the relationships through which residents interact, communicate, and share aspects of daily life [60]. It reflects the understanding that individuals do not exist in isolation; rather, they derive their identity and sense of belonging from the communities in which they reside [47]. Consequently, neighborliness plays a significant role in fostering social integration and strengthening community ties [67].

Neighborly relations are typically characterized by familiarity, friendliness, trust, and reliability [68]. These qualities often promote feelings of attachment, loyalty, and satisfaction with one’s neighborhood [69]. While neighborliness encompasses these underlying relational qualities, neighboring refers to the actions through which residents provide one another with emotional, practical, or informational support [70]. In this context, neighborliness is regarded as an element of social capital, rooted in informal social connections that enable individuals to build supportive networks and enhance their social well-being [60,71,72].

In South Africa, the meaning and practice of neighborliness are inextricably linked to the country’s spatial history. Apartheid policies enforced legal divisions between racial groups and neighborhoods [73], and the end of apartheid did not immediately dismantle these patterns [74]. While some local communities, including informal settlements, often display strong internal cohesion [36], broader patterns of exclusion, inequality, and spatial separation continue to undermine cohesion at the societal level [46].

These spatial realities illustrate that neighborhoods are neither neutral nor naturally occurring spaces; rather, they reflect deliberate political design and entrenched inequalities [62]. As a result, ongoing spatial and social fragmentation contributes to weak relationships, mistrust, conflict, and marginalization among communities [75].

2.4. Neighborliness as a Driver of Community Cohesion

Neighborliness is closely aligned with the principles of social cohesion [69]. While cohesion is often associated with unity and shared values, it is fundamentally rooted in the quality of social relationships rather than in formal institutions [70]. Social cohesion is demonstrated through strong interpersonal bonds, reciprocal support, and the sharing of resources among residents [66]. When these bonds are present, individuals tend to feel more connected to their communities, which in turn strengthens neighborhood attachment and discourages antisocial behavior [47,60].

Neighborhood social cohesion has consistently been linked to the development of trust, a sense of belonging, and supportive social ties [65]. Insights from community and social psychology further indicate that connected communities benefit from greater access to shared resources, more equitable opportunities, and a stronger capacity for collective action [37]. Cohesive neighborhoods also promote better social and mental health outcomes. For example, Gocer et al. [68] found that individuals residing in highly cohesive neighborhoods reported fewer community-related problems and higher levels of psychological well-being.

Good neighborliness is therefore a key contributor to positive social behavior and stable community life [67]. It fosters prosocial values such as cooperation, empathy, and mutual responsibility, all of which are essential for building harmonious and cohesive communities [71].

Within the African context, these concepts closely align with the philosophy of Ubuntu, which emphasizes shared humanity, trust, selflessness, and collective action for the benefit of the community [11]. Research across Africa demonstrates that neighborliness grounded in Ubuntu values can reduce discrimination, strengthen social bonds, and alleviate social isolation [72]. Ajitoni [76] associates Ubuntu with social capital, illustrating how interpersonal relationships and civic engagement can foster social and economic development in sub-Saharan regions.

Similarly, Danielsen et al. [77] argue that Ubuntu offers an important resource for strengthening social cohesion; however, sustained effort is required to embed its values in everyday neighborly practices such as mutual assistance, trust building, collective responsibility, shared caregiving, conflict resolution, and collective responses to hardship.

Despite its benefits, neighborliness does not flourish in all contexts. Structural factors in South African communities, particularly social and economic inequalities, continue to undermine social cohesion and overall well-being [73]. Communities experiencing poverty, exclusion, and marginalization are less likely to sustain consistent neighborly practices [78,79]. Evidence indicates that individuals who perceive widening inequality are less willing to engage in interracial interactions compared to those who believe inequalities are narrowing [80,81]. Social challenges such as unemployment, crime, and persistent exclusion contribute to distrust, alienation, and diminished opportunities for cohesive community life [47].

Although research has examined the influence of neighborhood factors on mental and physical well-being, there remains limited attention on the protective aspects of collective neighborhood context including cultural and ethnic dimensions that could further strengthen social cohesion [1,19,67].

2.5. Theoretical Framework: Ubuntu, Social Cohesion, and Neighborliness in South African Communities

This study is underpinned by social capital theory and social bond theory, which together provide a strong foundation for understanding how everyday neighborly practices enhance social cohesion, particularly within South African communities where spatial segregation, inequality, and fragmented social relations continue to influence daily life.

Social capital theory highlights the importance of social networks, shared norms, and reciprocal exchanges in building resilient communities [82]. Simple, everyday actions—such as greeting neighbors, sharing food, offering assistance, or responding collectively to emergencies—generate and preserve social capital [83]. These micro-level interactions offer emotional, informational, and material support, which can be vital in contexts characterized by hardship and exclusion [84,85]. In South African neighborhoods, such mutual care is often rooted in the principles of Ubuntu, emphasizing generosity, compassion, and shared humanity. The openness fostered by Ubuntu further strengthens the trust and reciprocity upon which social capital depends [11].

Social bond theory complements this approach by examining how individuals become integrated into their communities through bonds of attachment, commitment, involvement, and shared beliefs [2,86]. When residents look after each other’s children, come together in times of mourning, or provide assistance during difficulties, these actions reinforce the relational ties that bind individuals to the collective [87]. Ubuntu values also reinforce the belief component of social bonding by shaping norms around care, helpfulness, and mutual responsibility [12].

Together, these theories illustrate how acts of neighborliness function both as valuable resources and as relational glue [88]. In South Africa’s diverse and historically divided communities, such interactions contribute to rebuilding trust, bridging social divides, and fostering a shared sense of identity [89]. This conceptual framework positions everyday supportive behaviors not merely as interpersonal gestures, but as essential mechanisms through which communities sustain cohesion, enhance resilience, and promote collective well-being amid persistent structural challenges.

3. Methods

3.1. Research Design

Guided by an interpretivist paradigm, this study employed an exploratory qualitative design to develop a nuanced understanding of how participants experience and interpret neighborliness within their communities. Interpretivism emphasizes that social reality is constructed through everyday interactions, shared meanings, and collective understandings [90]. This perspective facilitated the exploration of neighborliness not as a fixed concept, but as one shaped by context, history, and lived social relationships [91].

An exploratory qualitative approach was particularly appropriate, as the study sought to uncover the subtle and often unspoken ways in which neighborly support, trust, and Ubuntu-inspired values are expressed in daily life [11]. This design enabled participants to articulate their own experiences, perceptions, and interpretations without being constrained by predetermined categories. As Roller notes [92], in-depth interviews are especially effective for generating rich, detailed narratives that capture the complexities of human behavior.

Through the interview method, community members described how they navigate shared spaces, respond to one another’s needs, and build relationships amid the broader social and spatial challenges characteristic of many South African neighborhoods. This approach was well suited for examining good neighborliness as a lived social practice, grounded in personal meaning-making and shaped by broader historical and communal dynamics.

3.2. Study Location

The study was conducted in South Africa across four rural communities located in two provinces. Philippolis in the Free State province represented the central interior context, while Lambert’s Bay, Caledon, and Grabow in the Western Cape province provided coastal and semi-rural perspectives. These diverse settings served as a valuable context for examining neighborliness and social cohesion within communities characterized by distinct cultural histories, socioeconomic conditions, and spatial arrangements.

All four communities are characterized by intersecting socioeconomic challenges common to many South African urban and peri-urban settings. These include high levels of unemployment and underemployment, reliance on informal and low-income livelihoods, and limited access to stable economic opportunities [17]. Many households face income insecurity, with residents frequently depending on social grants, informal work, or sporadic employment to meet basic needs [18].

Infrastructural conditions across these communities are uneven. Although basic services such as electricity and water are generally available, residents reported difficulties related to housing quality, overcrowding, limited recreational spaces, and inconsistent access to community amenities [93]. Public facilities including clinics, schools, and social service points are present but often overstretched, shaping everyday interactions between residents and local institutions.

Socially, these communities comprise a blend of long-term residents and more recent arrivals, resulting in diverse household structures and varying degrees of social familiarity among neighbors [19]. Despite pervasive economic hardship, daily life is strongly influenced by interpersonal relationships, informal support networks, and collective survival strategies. Practices such as mutual assistance, information sharing, and everyday neighborly interactions provide a critical foundation for the negotiation of trust, reciprocity, and social cohesion.

Providing this contextual background is essential for understanding participants’ accounts in the Results section, particularly narratives concerning trust, neighborliness, resource sharing, and skepticism regarding the return of lost items. These accounts reflect broader socioeconomic constraints rather than individual moral dispositions.

3.3. Participants

The study included 25 participants, all aged 18 years or older, representing a diverse cross-section of individuals engaged in neighborhood life in various capacities. This group comprised parents, community members, and professional stakeholders who were involved with families and neighborhood structures in meaningful ways. Recruiting participants from both the Free State and Western Cape provinces provided an opportunity to compare experiences across distinct cultural and geographical contexts. The inclusion of multiple rural communities from different provinces introduced variation in cultural practices, community histories, and socio-spatial conditions. This diversity enriched the findings by illustrating how neighborliness is shaped by differing local realities. Linguistic inclusivity was a key component of the research process; interviews were conducted in English, Afrikaans, or IsiXhosa according to each participant’s preference, ensuring both linguistic comfort and cultural sensitivity throughout the study.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of study participants (N = 25).

Participant Category	Participant Code	Community/Site	Life Stage/Generation	Role in Community	Province
Parent	CGP1	Caledon/Grabouw	Young–middle adulthood	Primary caregiver, household member	Western Cape
Community Member	CGP2	Caledon/Grabouw	Young adulthood	Resident, informal community actor	Western Cape
Community Member	CGP3	Caledon/Grabouw	Young adulthood	Resident, informal community actor	Western Cape
Community Member	CGP4	Caledon/Grabouw	Young adulthood	Resident, informal community actor/Student	Western Cape
Community Member	CGP5	Caledon/Grabouw	Middle adulthood	Resident, informal community actor	Western Cape
Parent	CGP6	Caledon/Grabouw	Middle adulthood	Primary caregiver, household member	Western Cape
Stakeholder	CGP10	Caledon/Grabouw	Middle adulthood	Social worker	Western Cape
Stakeholder	CGP1-SW	Caledon/Grabouw	Middle adulthood	Social worker	Western Cape
Stakeholder	CGP5-DH	Caledon/Grabouw	Middle adulthood	Health worker (day hospital)	Western Cape
Stakeholder	CGP1-POL	Caledon/Grabouw	Middle adulthood	Police officer	Western Cape
Community Member	LBP3	Lamberts Bay	Middle adulthood	Resident, informal community actor	Western Cape
Community Member	LBP4	Lamberts Bay	Older adulthood	Long-term resident, community elder	Western Cape
Stakeholder	LBP5	Lamberts Bay	Middle adulthood	Social services provider	Western Cape
Stakeholder	LBP6	Lamberts Bay	Middle adulthood	Pastor/religious leader	Western Cape
Parent	LBP4-P	Lamberts Bay	Older adulthood	Parent, community elder	Western Cape
Parent	PP2	Philippolis	Middle adulthood	Parent, attorney	Free State
Community Practitioner	PP3	Philippolis	Middle adulthood	Community development practitioner	Free State
Stakeholder	PP4	Philippolis	Middle adulthood	Social services provider	Free State
Stakeholder	PP6	Philippolis	Middle–older adulthood	Pastor/religious leader	Free State
Stakeholder	PP7	Philippolis	Middle adulthood	School principal/pastor	Free State
Stakeholder	PP8	Philippolis	Middle adulthood	Health worker/medical personnel	Free State
Stakeholder	PP9	Philippolis	Middle adulthood	NGO representative	Free State
Stakeholder	PP10	Philippolis	Middle adulthood	NGO representative/principal	Free State
Parent	PP8-P	Philippolis	Middle adulthood	Parent, unemployed	Free State
Community Member	PP7-C	Philippolis	Middle adulthood	Community participant (crisis support)	Free State

in the study included adult participants (18 years and older) from different life stages, encompassing young, middle-aged, and older adults. Parents, community members, and professional stakeholders contributed perspectives shaped by their varied social roles and lived experiences. However, participants were not explicitly stratified by age chart, and generational differences were therefore not systematically examined. This represents a limitation of the study and indicates a need for future research to explore generational dynamics in perceptions of neighborliness and social cohesion.

3.4. Sampling Strategy

A combination of convenience and purposive sampling was used to recruit participants [94]. Convenience sampling involved door-to-door and face-to-face interactions, enabling the researcher to directly identify and invite willing residents [95]. Purposive sampling complemented this method by intentionally selecting key community stakeholders, such as NGO representatives, social workers, school principals, and medical personnel, whose perspectives were essential for understanding broader neighborhood dynamics. Additionally, several stakeholders referred other community members, further enhancing the diversity of viewpoints represented in the sample.

This study employed a hybrid methodology that combined purposive and convenience sampling strategies. Purposive sampling was used to select professional stakeholders directly involved in promoting family and community well-being, including social workers, representatives from NGOs, religious leaders, educators, and healthcare practitioners. This approach enabled the intentional selection of key individuals with relevant knowledge and expertise on neighborhood dynamics and community cohesion. These participants were identified based on their professional roles and ongoing engagement with families and community structures in the designated study areas. This methodological approach ensured the inclusion of information-rich perspectives essential to addressing the study’s research objectives.

Convenience sampling was employed to recruit community members through door-to-door and face-to-face interactions, based on their accessibility and willingness to participate. This approach was chosen due to the lack of formal community registries, the rural nature of the study sites, and the importance of ensuring ethical, voluntary participation. The combined sampling strategy enabled the inclusion of diverse perspectives and supported a comprehensive analysis of neighborliness and social cohesion within the selected communities.

3.5. Interviewer and Researcher Positionality

All comprehensive interviews were conducted by the principal investigator, including the primary researcher, co-investigator, research assistant, and various other members of the research team. This method ensured consistency in the implementation of the interview protocol and facilitated rapport-building with participants across diverse study sites. The researcher approached the fieldwork from an interpretivist perspective, recognizing that meaning is collaboratively constructed through interaction and dialog.

In considering positionality, the researcher acknowledges their dual role as both an academic and an external observer within certain study communities, which may have influenced how participants expressed their responses. To address potential disparities in power dynamics and researcher bias, the investigators adopted a self-reflective approach throughout the data collection and analysis stages, emphasizing the importance of active listening, cultural sensitivity, and openness to participants’ experiences. Ongoing reflexive memoing and iterative engagement with the data were utilized to enhance the transparency, credibility, and trustworthiness of the findings.

3.6. Data Collection

In-depth, face-to-face interviews served as the primary method of data collection [95]. These interviews enabled participants to articulate their experiences and interpretations of neighborliness in their own words. An interview schedule with open-ended questions guided the discussions, addressing themes such as communication, parenting practices, conflict resolution, family values, trust, neighborhood relationships, racial dynamics, equality, and broader forms of social cohesion [96]. With informed consent, all interviews were audio-recorded and subsequently transcribed. In-depth interviews align with Roller’s [93] argument that such methods generate rich, detailed accounts of participants’ lived realities.

3.7. Data Analysis

The study employed reflexive thematic analysis as outlined by Braun and Clarke [97] to identify, analyze, and interpret themes and related sub-themes within the qualitative data. This method followed an inductive, semantic, and experiential orientation, allowing themes to emerge directly from participants’ narratives rather than from pre-existing assumptions [98].

The analysis proceeded through Braun and Clarke’s six-phase framework [97,99]. The researchers first became immersed in the data by repeatedly reading the interview transcripts. Initial codes were generated and subsequently grouped into related clusters to form preliminary themes. These themes were reviewed for internal coherence and refined through iterative coding. Once finalized, each theme was clearly defined and named, followed by the integration of illustrative extracts and analytical commentary in the final report.

ATLAS.ti (version 25.0.1.32924) software facilitated the systematic management and organization of the data, ensuring consistency throughout the coding process.

To enhance the rigor of the analysis, several quality assurance strategies were implemented. Member checking was used to confirm the accuracy of thematic interpretations [100]. Iterative coding facilitated the continuous refinement of themes, while ongoing reflexivity enabled the researcher to identify and mitigate potential biases [101].

Guided by this interpretive analytic approach, and informed by Castleberry and Nolen [102], Craig et al. [103], Parameswaran [104], Lim [105], and Naeem et al. [106], the study facilitated a deep and context-sensitive understanding of how neighborliness, shared values, and everyday interpersonal interactions shape social cohesion within the selected communities. The depth and flexibility of qualitative thematic analysis enabled the study to capture insights that would be difficult to access through quantitative methods. Through this process, the study illuminated how residents navigate trust, mutual care, and collective well-being within environments often shaped by social and economic inequality.

3.8. Data Analysis and Analytical Responsibility

Thematic analysis was conducted by the primary researcher, involving repeated engagement with the transcripts, iterative coding, and the development and refinement of themes in accordance with a reflexive thematic analysis approach. Undertaking the analysis as a single researcher facilitated deep familiarity with the data and coherence in the interpretive process.

Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that single-researcher analysis may limit the diversity of interpretive perspectives. To address this, several strategies were employed to enhance analytical rigor, including reflexive memoing, iterative coding cycles, and ongoing comparison between emerging themes and the raw data. Member checking was also utilized to verify the credibility and resonance of the interpretations. Despite these measures, the absence of multiple coders is recognized as a limitation of the study and is considered in the interpretation of the findings.

3.9. Trustworthiness

The researchers employed various strategies to enhance the trustworthiness of the data, including credibility, confirmability, dependability, and transferability [101]. Credibility was strengthened through data triangulation [107] and member checking, which was used to validate the findings and interpretations with participants [108]. Confirmability was addressed by ensuring that the researcher’s interpretations and conclusions were directly grounded in the data [109]. Dependability was established through thorough documentation of the research methods, enabling external reviewers to audit and evaluate the process [110]. Transferability was considered by addressing external validity and the potential applicability of the findings to other contexts [111].

To enhance transferability, the study provides detailed contextual descriptions of the four rural communities where the research was conducted, including their geographical locations, predominant economic activities, social composition, and everyday community dynamics. Philippolis (Free State) as well as Lambert’s Bay, Caledon, and Grabouw (Western Cape) exhibit differences in livelihood structures, settlement histories, and patterns of social interaction, thereby presenting diverse yet comparable rural contexts. By providing rich, in-depth descriptions of these settings and the social conditions influencing neighborly relationships, the study enables readers to evaluate the relevance and applicability of the findings to other rural or resource-constrained communities, rather than seeking statistical generalization.

Member checking was used to strengthen the credibility of the findings by verifying the accuracy and resonance of the interpreted themes with participants’ experiences. Concise summaries of the preliminary themes were shared with a subset of participants following the initial analysis, and they were invited to comment on whether the interpretations reflected their perspectives and everyday realities. Their feedback affirmed the relevance of the themes, and minor clarifications were incorporated into the final analysis.

Confirmability was addressed by employing reflexive and transparent analytic practices. An audit trail was maintained to document analytic decisions, how codes were developed, the refinement of themes, and reflexive notes throughout the research process. These measures ensured that the findings were grounded in the data rather than influenced by the researcher’s assumptions. Additionally, selected transcripts, codes, and thematic interpretations were reviewed by external qualitative researchers with expertise in social cohesion and community-based research, who provided critical feedback on analytic coherence and interpretive consistency.

Transferability was supported by providing rich, contextual descriptions of the study settings and participants. Detailed accounts of the socioeconomic conditions, community contexts, and participant characteristics were included to enable readers to assess the applicability of the findings to similar contexts. Rather than seeking statistical generalization, the study prioritized analytical transferability by situating the findings within established theoretical frameworks, including social capital theory and social bond theory.

The external reviewers were independent academic colleagues with experience in qualitative research and community studies who were not involved in data collection. Their role was limited to reviewing analytic procedures and thematic interpretations, thereby strengthening methodological rigor without influencing the primary analysis.

4. Results

This study explores how everyday perceptions and practices of good neighborliness influence the development of cohesive communities. Drawing on narratives from four South African communities—Philippolis, Lambert’s Bay, Caledon, and Grabouw—the findings illuminate how neighborly relations are enacted in daily life and interpreted by community members. Five interconnected themes emerged from these experiences: everyday mutual support and practical assistance; moral norms and values of care; social familiarity and community connectedness; trust and good neighborliness; and intergroup relations and cohesion within diverse communities. References to the number of participants associated with each theme are provided to indicate the prevalence of patterns across the dataset, rather than to imply statistical generalization.

4.1. Theme 1: Everyday Mutual Support and Practical Assistance

Participants consistently described a neighborhood culture in which sharing food was significantly more common and socially acceptable than giving or lending money. This pattern emerged in the accounts of eleven out of twenty-five participants, including parents, community members, and professional stakeholders from all four study sites. It highlights the local economic realities and livelihood structures of these communities, many of which rely on agriculture or seasonal employment. Caledon and Grabouw rely heavily on farming (grain, livestock, fruit), while Lambert’s Bay has a longstanding history of fishing and increasing tourism. In these contexts, food is a more accessible and socially appropriate resource to share than cash [67,85].

These local practices align with broader concepts of neighborliness and social capital: routine acts of sharing strengthen informal networks and establish practical support systems that help households during periods of need [78,83]. Three participants described this form of mutual aid in direct and recurrent terms:

“I’m helping this family, they don’t have food, and I have food in my family. I also assist them, especially if there are children. So, yes. They do help each other. With food… Chances of money are few.”

(CGP1—Parent, Primary caregiver, household member)

“[Food?] I can yes. [Money?] Everyone is struggling.”

(CGP3—Resident, informal community actor)

“Yes, they will ask neighbors for sugar… maize… whatever the community member needs.”

(PP7—Stakeholder/School principal)

While food was shared more freely, cash transfers were perceived as riskier and more conditional. Also, three participants reported that they would lend money only to neighbors they knew well, expressing discomfort with lending to strangers. This reluctance reflects how monetary exchanges introduce expectations and obligations that can strain relationships—a dynamic noted in research on economic exchanges within social networks.

“My mom… if neighbors within the immediate residential area come and ask, then my mother gives [food]. [Money?] yes, we lend it out too, but then community members don’t pay it back… it is people that we know… [strangers?] feel uncomfortable.”

(CGP4—Resident, informal community actor)

“In Grabouw… many people work on farms. The income is very minimal. So, to now ask someone with little money when I’m in the same boat… I don’t think money so often. [Food?] maybe a little bit of sugar, or tea…”

(CGP5—Resident, informal community actor)

“With money… you loan that little bit that you can give… maybe R100 or R50 or less.”

(PP8—Stakeholder/Health worker/Medical personnel)

Three participants from the above emphasized that the fear of social judgment or gossip discouraged them from even requesting minor favors, highlighting the tension between communal interdependence and the preservation of personal dignity in close-knit communities [60]:

“I will not do that [ask for sugar], because then it would become the gossip of the town.”

(PP10—Stakeholder/non-governmental organization (NGO) representative)

“I would rather suffer and never ask… I don’t want any confronting between the neighborhood and myself.”

(PP3—Community development practitioner)

Reciprocity emerged as a central principle shaping neighborly exchanges. Two participants described giving and borrowing as reciprocal practices that sustain networks of mutual support. This reciprocity both reflects and reinforces social capital, as neighbors assist one another with the implicit or explicit expectation of receiving mutual aid when roles are reversed [83].

“Yes, we do borrow… if you don’t have you borrow from your neighbor. And if neighbors within the immediate residential area also don’t have, they borrow from you.”

(PP9—Stakeholder/non-governmental organization (NGO) representative)

“We are with my neighbors; I can ask her, and she can ask me… what I want from others, I want to do for them too.”

(PP4—Social services provider)

“Yes. I can give you food… [money?] Yes. My neighbor… As I’m here, I take money from my neighbor.”

(CGP6—Parent, Primary caregiver, household member)

Three participants illustrated that everyday support within these communities is founded on shared vulnerability, mutual trust, and collective responsibility. Providing food frequently serves as a form of care, as it offers immediate utility and is less likely to create long-term debt, whereas monetary assistance often entails expectations of repayment and the risk of relational strain [84]. Simultaneously, the norm of reciprocity and the Ubuntu-inspired ethic of mutual care sustain neighborly exchanges, establishing them as essential mechanisms for maintaining social cohesion in South African neighborhoods [11,78]

4.2. Theme 2: Moral Norms and Values of Care

Neighborliness emerged as a deep moral practice, shaped by religious teachings, cultural norms, and shared community values. Four participants described everyday actions such as greeting, waving, checking in on neighbors, and engaging in brief conversations as meaningful expressions of concern that help sustain social harmony. In this study, greetings encompassed routine interpersonal practices, including verbal salutations (e.g., saying “good morning” or “how are you”), brief informal conversations, and culturally familiar gestures such as handshakes or acknowledgements when passing neighbors in shared spaces. These simple acts were regarded as part of a broader ethic of care that reinforces mutual responsibility among community members, a perspective aligned with Ubuntu principles, which emphasize compassion, empathy, and mutual recognition [76].

Responses in this context are shown below:

“Sometimes when we are sitting outside… someone comes past and we will ask how it’s going with them. That’s how we show each other [care]… some people won’t even greet, but I will help.”

(LBP4—Long-term resident, community elder)

“I will greet… if they ask me something I will answer them in the best manner I can… if they ask me something I will do my best to do it or give it.”

(LBP5—Stakeholder/Social worker)

Parents also emphasized that the values of respect, concern, and helpfulness must be deliberately instilled in children. Teaching children to greet others, demonstrate kindness, and offer assistance was regarded as essential for maintaining positive neighborly relations and fostering future community members who uphold shared moral standards. This perspective aligns with the ecological view that children’s behavior is shaped by multiple levels of influence from the family to the broader community and its cultural expectations as outlined in social capital theory [27,82].

“We must not steal, not hurt each other, and care about each other… we get taught from generation to generation that my child is your child… we live in a community where we care about each other. That is what I teach our children.”

(LBP3—Resident, informal community actor)

“He must have respect and greet people… I’ll teach him to help where he can.”

(LBP4—Long-term resident, community elder)

The above two participants described greetings including verbal salutations and brief informal exchanges as routine practices through which care and mutual recognition are expressed. This intergenerational transmission of moral norms also reflects what has been described in social capital perspectives, where shared values, reciprocity, and trustworthiness form the foundation of strong community ties [8]. When parents model and reinforce prosocial behavior, children internalize these expectations, fostering a community culture in which care and collective responsibility are prioritized.

Taken together, these findings demonstrate that neighborliness in these communities extends beyond practical assistance [25]. It represents a moral system embedded in cultural ideals, enacted through daily interactions, and sustained across generations. This moral fabric strengthens cohesion, promotes prosocial behavior, and supports collective well-being, especially in contexts where communities rely on one another for emotional and practical support [47].

4.3. Theme 3: Social Familiarity and Community Connectedness

The small size of the community appears to foster familiarity, daily visibility, and a strong culture of greeting, all of which contribute to the development of bonding social capital. Social capital theory suggests that dense, trust-based relationships within close-knit groups enhance cooperation, shared norms, and a willingness to support one another. These relational ties create a network of mutual recognition and accountability that strengthens social cohesion [21,23,68].

Many participants, eight of twenty-five, described how living in a close and familiar environment made it easier to offer help and maintain supportive relationships:

“It’s a small community so it’s not that big… everyone knows everyone. Basically, I could ask my clients do they know another client, they’ll say yes. It’s just quite small.”

(CGP2—Stakeholder, social worker)

“We will help where we can help… because we are a community. We are small, I know most people. So, if you can help, you help.”

(PP8—Parent, unemployed)

“They are very close to each other… each one knows each other’s business, and when they meet, they talk like they are family… I think it’s a very friendly community.”

(CGP1—Stakeholder, social worker)

These responses reflect the mechanisms through which bonding social capital develops: repeated interactions, shared experiences, and a collective sense of belonging. In small communities, relational ties often deepen because fewer actors and overlapping networks enhance social visibility and reinforce expectations of reciprocity.

This supports arguments that smaller groups may experience smoother coordination and fewer competing interests, whereas larger groups are more likely to encounter fragmentation, cliques, and diminished cohesion [73]. In this context, the close-knit social environment appears to strengthen interpersonal responsibility and mutual care.

Religious leaders further emphasized how community connectedness translates into tangible support for vulnerable individuals, such as those struggling with substance use. These efforts exemplify both bonding and bridging social capital, as networks of trust enable communities not only to care for insiders but also to connect individuals with broader support systems:

“We had once a worker at the church that had a problem with alcohol. We had a discussion with him, and we told him we are prepared to send him for rehabilitation…”

(PP7—Stakeholder, pastor)

“I’ll get a Deacon to go and find out what happened… then I’ll network with the community to find out how we can help and what type of work the person can find.”

(LBP6—Stakeholder, pastor)

Such interventions illustrate how social capital can mobilize resources, facilitate pathways for reintegration, and enhance collective well-being.

However, three participants also raised concerns regarding the limitations and contradictions inherent in their community’s connectedness. While there are outward displays of closeness, some individuals felt that this solidarity was partial or even superficial, undermined by economic pressures, selective support, and gossip:

“They’re helpful to an extent… but I can’t say it’s fully. If they were fully helpful, they wouldn’t be in the kind of position they’re in now.”

(CGP2—Stakeholder, social worker)

“I don’t think people care enough about each other… the economy and the state of affairs in South Africa… there is negativity. We don’t actually have time for each other, and they gossip a lot.”

(PP2—Parent, attorney)

“…For me, it is a mix… I don’t want to say it is a false cohesive.”

(PP10—Stakeholder, principal)

These contradictions highlight a common tension within bonding social capital: while close networks strengthen unity, they can also intensify conflict, exclusion, or surveillance. Strong ties may foster mutual support, but they can just as easily become sources of judgment or social pressure, particularly in communities experiencing economic hardship. The findings demonstrate that social familiarity and connectedness serve as powerful forms of social capital within the community. However, the quality and stability of this capital are influenced by broader structural conditions, rendering cohesion both resilient and fragile. These dynamics indicate that social cohesion in these communities is robust in its ability to mobilize support during crises, yet vulnerable in everyday contexts where persistent inequalities and historical divisions remain unresolved.

4.4. Theme 4: Trust and Good Neighborliness

Trust emerged as a central element in maintaining good neighborly relations and overall cohesion within the community. Seven participants consistently described trust as enabling individuals to rely on one another, feel secure, and offer support without hesitation. Their accounts highlighted everyday behaviors that demonstrate confidence in the integrity and goodwill of their neighbors:

“Yes. They can, because sometimes you can see they leave their houses open and a neighbor can… have access to the house, neighbors were permitted to enter one another’s homes for purposes such as caregiving, crisis support, or assistance during illness or bereavement. So, yes, I think they can trust each other.”

(CGP1—Stakeholder, social worker)

“So those things about trust, I will say 90 percent of the people, yes, are open with each other and trust each other.”

(CGP5—Stakeholder, Day Hospital)

“I would say since I’ve been here, I haven’t seen anything to mistrust them… nothing has happened to give any reason to mistrust.”

(CGP10—Stakeholder, social worker)

Trust is widely recognized as an essential foundation for sustaining cooperation and reciprocity, a perspective echoed in the three participants’ reflections [112]. When trust exists, communication becomes more straightforward, relationships strengthen, and individuals are more likely to provide assistance or share resources [113]. Conversely, when trust is weak or inconsistent, suspicion arises and relationships become more fragile.

When asked whether community members would return lost items or money, responses were mixed. Some expressed confidence:

“Yes. It’s possible. They are most likely to return it.”

(CGP6—Parent)

“[Neighbor?] Oh yes, they will definitely give it back.”

(CGP5—Stakeholder, Day Hospital)

Others were far less certain, revealing that trust did not extend equally across all relationships:

“People that I know? Yes, I can trust them. But I don’t know my neighbors that well, so I’m going on the assumption they will give it back.”

(CGP2—Stakeholder, social worker)

“Yeah, they will yes, but not people that I don’t know.”

(CGP4—Student)

These mixed sentiments indicate that trust within this community is both conditional and relational strongest among familiar individuals, yet more cautious when extended to unfamiliar neighbors [74]. For two participants, whether lost property would be returned was influenced by personal experiences or broader perceptions of the community’s moral climate.

The above seven participants suggested that economic hardship, inconsistent values, or previous violations could undermine trust. Such factors may increase the temptation for dishonest behavior or diminish confidence in others’ intentions [57]. Regardless of the underlying causes, their reflections underscore that trust is not a static attribute of community life but rather something that must be continually nurtured and reinforced. The findings emphasize that trust is fundamental to fostering good neighborliness. Where trust is robust, cohesion flourishes; where trust is fragile, cooperation becomes uncertain. Therefore, strengthening trust remains vital for building stable, supportive, and cohesive community relationships [114].

4.5. Theme 5: Intergroup Relations and Cohesion Across Diversity

Discussions about diversity and cohesion frequently emphasize the potential for ethnic and linguistic differences to weaken social bonds, especially within heterogeneous communities [3]. This study found that although diversity posed genuine challenges to communication and relationships, it also created unexpected opportunities for connection, mutual respect, and gradual social transformation [86]. Two participants identified language differences as obstacles to smooth interaction. In particular, Afrikaans and isiXhosa were regarded as markers of deeper cultural boundaries that occasionally complicated neighborly engagement:

“I think it depends on how long they have known each other. Because as far as Afrikaans and Xhosa is concerned, if the Xhosa neighbor has been there for a long time, they’ve learnt to pick up some Afrikaans. So, they do communicate.”

(CGP1—Stakeholder, social worker)

“I was told it’s a bit of a racial issue between blacks and colored’s… partly a language thing. Some of the others cannot speak Afrikaans.”

(CGP2—Stakeholder, social worker)

Despite these challenges, three participants emphasized that racial and ethnic differences did not completely undermine cooperation. Daily interactions at work, in neighborhoods, and within religious spaces provided opportunities for meaningful intergroup engagement:

“No, I mix with other races. At work and at home, yes.”

(CGP5—Stakeholder, Day Hospital)

“There’re blacks, white, colored, and Indians. We get along pretty much, we’re fine.”

(CGP1—Stakeholder, policeman)

“In the broader community, they look out for one another; they support one another; they share among themselves; and they are very religious, so that also plays a part in good unneighborly relationships.”

(CGP10—Stakeholder, principal)

Two participants observed that genuine cohesion remained a work in progress. Nonetheless, they also reported a discernible shift compared to previous decades, indicating a gradual yet significant movement toward a more integrated community life:

“Less cohesion, but we are working towards it… we are not where we should be, but we are journeying to get there.”

(PP7—Stakeholder, pastor)

“If you had this interview 20 years ago, it would’ve been very different. People didn’t even go into one another’s communities… But today that has shifted.”

(PP7—Stakeholder, pastor)

Historical racial divisions were characterized as deeply entrenched; however, three participants noted evidence of diminishing boundaries, increased interaction, and rising tolerance among groups. Crises and shared hardships emerged as powerful catalysts for unity. When community members experienced tragedy, loss, or urgent need, the typical boundaries of race and language appeared to recede. In these moments, the community mobilized collectively:

“You’ll find meetings when there’s a problem… everybody who has an interest in solving it will be there. When there’s a crisis that needs to be solved.”

(PP7—Stakeholder, pastor)

“You see the cohesion at funerals… leaders talk to their people, find solutions, and bring them back. It’s a network of interactions… during crises the cohesion is across races as well.”

(PP7—Stakeholder, pastor)

“There are people who struggle more than us. When there is a death in that house and they have nothing, the community will stand up and help… Someone will gather donations, and we will stand together.”

(PP8—Parent, unemployed)

These accounts demonstrate that although diversity may introduce barriers, it does not necessarily undermine cohesion. Rather, cohesion within this community emerged as fluid and contextual, reinforced through shared experiences, mutual aid, and the collective navigation of adversity.

5. Discussion

This study examined the role of neighborliness in fostering social cohesion across four distinct rural communities in South Africa. The findings were systematically organized into five main themes: everyday mutual support and practical assistance; moral norms and values of care; social familiarity and community connectedness; trust and good neighborliness; and intergroup relations and cohesion across diversity.

Collectively, these themes demonstrate how practices of neighborliness operate as micro-level social processes through which cohesion and resilience are enacted in the everyday lives of the four rural communities studied. Rather than suggesting that all communities are uniformly cohesive or resilient, the findings emphasize that cohesion and resilience emerge situationally through reciprocal support, trust-building, and collective responses to adversity. In this study, resilience was evident in participants’ accounts of how community members addressed food insecurity, illness, unemployment, bereavement, and social crises through informal support networks, shared resources, and collaborative problem-solving. While participants from all four communities reported similar practices of neighborliness, the specific forms these practices assumed were shaped by local economic activities, settlement size, and social histories, such as reliance on agricultural labor, fishing livelihoods, or faith-based networks.

Participants consistently demonstrated a preference for sharing food rather than financial resources with neighbors experiencing hardships. This tendency appears to be linked to the predominant economic activities in these communities: Caledon and Grabouw emphasize agriculture, Lambert’s Bay is centered on fishing, and the Free State community practices diverse forms of subsistence. Food sharing emerged as an immediate and effective means of supporting neighbors, thereby strengthening communal bonds.

Veen [115] contends that sharing initiatives constitute a form of community self-organization, enriching our understanding of social dynamics within such contexts. Similarly, Mshayisa [116] notes that meal sharing, even when involving brief face-to-face interactions, highlights the significance of personalized connections in sharing practices. Although relational aspects may pose challenges, they remain a defining characteristic [117].

Participants identified reciprocity as a primary motivator, reflecting altruistic behavior in which assistance is offered with the expectation of receiving similar support during times of personal crisis (CGP1, CGP3, CGP6; PP4, PP8). These findings are consistent with social capital theory, which explains how informal interactions and resource exchanges foster trust and collective efficacy [82,83]. In this context, everyday acts of practical support extend beyond simple kindness; they serve as essential mechanisms for cultivating social capital, reinforcing mutual responsibilities, and maintaining community cohesion [85].

The concept of neighborliness is deeply rooted in moral principles, cultural teachings, and religious doctrines that advocate for compassion, empathy, and collective responsibility. Supporting this perspective, Lin [82] draws on social capital theory, highlighting the significance of social networks, shared norms, and values such as culture and religion in fostering resilient communities. The study further notes that although diversity may introduce substantial communication and relational challenges, it also generates unexpected opportunities for connection, mutual respect, and gradual social transformation [86]. Participants indicated that greetings, informal conversations, and inquiries into others’ well-being served as meaningful expressions of care and neighborliness (LBP4, LBP5). Parents emphasized the importance of transmitting these values to their children, illustrating intergenerational socialization processes that promote prosocial behaviors. These findings align with social bond theory, which posits that attachment, commitment, involvement, and shared moral beliefs enhance individuals’ connections to their communities [3,5]. The Ubuntu philosophy further reinforces these insights by stressing interconnectedness, shared humanity, and collective responsibility [11]. By instilling ethical norms and cultivating a culture of care, communities foster relational trust and a sense of belonging, both of which are vital for sustained cohesion.

The study found that smaller community sizes enhance familiarity, social visibility, and a culture of greeting, which collectively foster neighborliness and strengthen social cohesion [CGP1, CGP2, PP8]. Close-knit communities allow members to monitor each other’s well-being and provide targeted support, consistent with the concept of bonding social capital, where dense networks cultivate trust and facilitate collective action [82,88]. According to social capital theory, trust-based relationships within tightly connected groups promote cooperation, shared norms, and mutual support. These relationships create a network of mutual recognition and accountability, further reinforcing social cohesion [21,22,68]. Religious leaders in these communities played an active role in social rehabilitation and support, demonstrating how community networks extend beyond immediate family or neighborly ties to encompass broader civic and moral responsibilities [PP7, LBP6]. However, some participants noted the ongoing presence of harmful behaviors, such as gossip, which can threaten communal cohesion. These findings indicate that while familiarity and connectedness offer benefits, the quality of interpersonal relationships and shared norms is crucial for sustaining community cohesion, as suggested by social bond theory.

Trust emerged as a pivotal component of cohesive communities, shaping the willingness to assist neighbors, safeguard property, and reciprocate support (CGP1, CGP5, CGP10). While participants expressed confidence in neighbors with whom they had established rapport, a degree of skepticism persisted toward unfamiliar or less well-known individuals (CGP2, CGP4, CGP6). Trust is central to social capital theory, as it fosters cooperation, reduces social friction, and promotes collective well-being [82,83]. The findings indicate that trust is not uniform; rather, it is relational and depends on familiarity, prior interactions, and perceived moral standards. Therefore, strengthening trust networks is essential for maintaining neighborly reciprocity and long-term social cohesion in communities facing structural inequalities and socioeconomic challenges.

Ethnic, linguistic, and cultural diversity presents significant challenges to social cohesion, particularly in contexts where language barriers impede effective communication [CGP1, CGP2]. Despite these obstacles, participants described instances of inter-racial collaboration and mutual support, indicating that social cohesion can be fostered through communal activities, religious practices, and joint problem-solving initiatives [CGP5, CGP10, PP7, PP8]. Social capital theory highlights the importance of bridging networks that connect diverse groups, promote inclusivity, and expand access to broader social resources [9,37]. Consistent with the principles of Ubuntu, these findings demonstrate a collective sense of reciprocal humanity.

The study across various thematic areas highlights neighborliness as both a valuable social resource and a key driver of relationships. Everyday actions such as offering assistance, demonstrating moral consideration, building familiarity, fostering trust, and promoting inter-group collaboration collectively contribute to the development of both bonding and bridging social capital. In turn, this process strengthens community norms, shared responsibilities, and resilience [74,88]. Social bond theory further elucidates how attachment, active participation, and shared moral values form the foundation of these interactions, particularly within the cultural context of Ubuntu [10,21]. These findings indicate that cohesive communities are sustained not only through structural or institutional frameworks but also through the everyday practice of neighborliness, which fosters social cohesion, reduces inequality, and enhances collective well-being.

6. Conclusions

The study explored neighborliness within South African communities and its significance in fostering social cohesion. Key components such as mutual support, moral norms, social familiarity, trust, and intergroup cooperation contribute to the development of strong communal ties. The principles of Ubuntu highlight shared humanity, compassion, and collective responsibility, expressed through practices such as sharing food, providing practical assistance, exchanging greetings, and responding to community crises. Viewed through the social bond and social capital theoretical frameworks, these actions represent informal interactions and resource exchanges rooted in shared moral responsibilities, which reinforce trust, attachment, and cohesion. Despite challenges related to economic constraints and linguistic diversity, the study demonstrates that neighborliness serves as a vital mechanism for forging social bonds and connecting social networks. In settings historically marked by social and spatial inequalities, cohesion is maintained through relational networks and communal norms.

7. Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, it employed a qualitative approach with a small sample drawn from four rural communities. While this yielded rich, context-sensitive insights, it limits statistical generalizability. The findings are therefore best understood as analytically transferable to similar rural settings rather than broadly representative.

Second, participants were recruited using a combination of purposive and convenience sampling. Purposive sampling was employed to intentionally include parents, community members, and professional stakeholders who were actively engaged in neighborhood and community life and could provide rich, relevant insights into practices of neighborliness and social cohesion. Convenience sampling was subsequently used to access available participants within the selected communities, particularly where access constraints, time limitations, or gatekeeper availability influenced recruitment. The combined approach ensured both relevance of participants and practical feasibility within the community-based research context. Although appropriate for qualitative inquiry, the limited number of participants in each group restricted systematic comparisons.

Third, data collection and analysis were primarily conducted by a single researcher using reflexive thematic analysis. While strategies such as iterative coding and member checking were incorporated to enhance rigor, the absence of multiple coders constrained opportunities for independent validation and inter-coder reliability.

Fourth, participants’ responses may have been influenced by social desirability bias, particularly regarding moral and neighborly issues. Nonetheless, the inclusion of diverse viewpoints helped to mitigate this risk and contributed to a more balanced understanding.

Fifth, the study focused exclusively on adults aged 18 and over, which excluded input from children and adolescents. This limits the scope of the findings, and future research should therefore include younger populations to capture intergenerational perspectives.

Despite these limitations, the study offers valuable insights into the social practices that sustain community life amid inequality, segregation, and limited support.

8. Future Research Directions

The findings of this study point to several important directions for future research on neighborliness and social cohesion. Further studies could examine how population density, cultural diversity, and socioeconomic conditions interact to shape neighborly practices across both rural and urban contexts. Comparative research across different community settings may offer deeper insights into how structural conditions enable or constrain everyday expressions of social cohesion.

Future research would also benefit from adopting longitudinal designs to explore how moral norms, values of care, and neighborly practices are transmitted across generations. Such approaches could illuminate how intergenerational socialization contributes to the sustainability of social bonds over time. In addition, quantitative studies could complement the present qualitative findings by measuring the strength of social capital, trust networks, and patterns of reciprocity within communities.

Another promising area for investigation concerns the role of digital communication and social media in shaping contemporary forms of neighborliness, particularly in communities that are geographically dispersed or socially fragmented. Finally, future research could focus on the development and evaluation of community-based interventions grounded in Ubuntu principles, assessing their effectiveness in strengthening trust, mutual support, and cohesion in contexts marked by persistent social and economic inequalities.