[RogerButton33]

This a lengthy article. For those who wish to skim I've boldfaced the main points. Red is for those in a really big hurry.


The downside of diversity

A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?

By Michael Jonas | August 5, 2007


It has become increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

"The extent of the effect is shocking," says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation's social fabric. But with demographic trends already pushing the nation inexorably toward greater diversity, the real question may yet lie ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that Putnam's research predicts.

"We can't ignore the findings," says Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. "The big question we have to ask ourselves is, what do we do about it; what are the next steps?"

The study is part of a fascinating new portrait of diversity emerging from recent scholarship. Diversity, it shows, makes us uncomfortable -- but discomfort, it turns out, isn't always a bad thing. Unease with differences helps explain why teams of engineers from different cultures may be ideally suited to solve a vexing problem. Culture clashes can produce a dynamic give-and-take, generating a solution that may have eluded a group of people with more similar backgrounds and approaches. At the same time, though, Putnam's work adds to a growing body of research indicating that more diverse populations seem to extend themselves less on behalf of collective needs and goals.

His findings on the downsides of diversity have also posed a challenge for Putnam, a liberal academic whose own values put him squarely in the pro-diversity camp. Suddenly finding himself the bearer of bad news, Putnam has struggled with how to present his work. He gathered the initial raw data in 2000 and issued a press release the following year outlining the results. He then spent several years testing other possible explanations.

When he finally published a detailed scholarly analysis in June in the journal Scandinavian Political Studies, he faced criticism for straying from data into advocacy. His paper argues strongly that the negative effects of diversity can be remedied, and says history suggests that ethnic diversity may eventually fade as a sharp line of social demarcation.

"Having aligned himself with the central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the facts with a stern pep talk," wrote conservative commentator Ilana Mercer, in a recent Orange County Register op-ed titled "Greater diversity equals more misery."

Putnam has long staked out ground as both a researcher and a civic player, someone willing to describe social problems and then have a hand in addressing them. He says social science should be "simultaneously rigorous and relevant," meeting high research standards while also "speaking to concerns of our fellow citizens." But on a topic as charged as ethnicity and race, Putnam worries that many people hear only what they want to.

"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," he writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable."

. . .

Putnam is the nation's premier guru of civic engagement. After studying civic life in Italy in the 1970s and 1980s, Putnam turned his attention to the US, publishing an influential journal article on civic engagement in 1995 that he expanded five years later into the best-selling "Bowling Alone." The book sounded a national wake-up call on what Putnam called a sharp drop in civic connections among Americans. It won him audiences with presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and made him one of the country's best known social scientists.

Putnam claims the US has experienced a pronounced decline in "social capital," a term he helped popularize. Social capital refers to the social networks -- whether friendships or religious congregations or neighborhood associations -- that he says are key indicators of civic well-being. When social capital is high, says Putnam, communities are better places to live. Neighborhoods are safer; people are healthier; and more citizens vote.

The results of his new study come from a survey Putnam directed among residents in 41 US communities, including Boston. Residents were sorted into the four principal categories used by the US Census: black, white, Hispanic, and Asian. They were asked how much they trusted their neighbors and those of each racial category, and questioned about a long list of civic attitudes and practices, including their views on local government, their involvement in community projects, and their friendships. What emerged in more diverse communities was a bleak picture of civic desolation, affecting everything from political engagement to the state of social ties.

Putnam knew he had provocative findings on his hands. He worried about coming under some of the same liberal attacks that greeted Daniel Patrick Moynihan's landmark 1965 report on the social costs associated with the breakdown of the black family. There is always the risk of being pilloried as the bearer of "an inconvenient truth," says Putnam.

After releasing the initial results in 2001, Putnam says he spent time "kicking the tires really hard" to be sure the study had it right. Putnam realized, for instance, that more diverse communities tended to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents -- all factors that could depress social capital independent of any impact ethnic diversity might have.

"People would say, 'I bet you forgot about X,'" Putnam says of the string of suggestions from colleagues. "There were 20 or 30 X's."

But even after statistically taking them all into account, the connection remained strong: Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television."

"People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down' -- that is, to pull in like a turtle," Putnam writes.

In documenting that hunkering down, Putnam challenged the two dominant schools of thought on ethnic and racial diversity, the "contact" theory and the "conflict" theory. Under the contact theory, more time spent with those of other backgrounds leads to greater understanding and harmony between groups. Under the conflict theory, that proximity produces tension and discord.

Putnam's findings reject both theories. In more diverse communities, he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise. And in perhaps the most surprising result of all, levels of trust were not only lower between groups in more diverse settings, but even among members of the same group.

"Diversity, at least in the short run," he writes, "seems to bring out the turtle in all of us."

The overall findings may be jarring during a time when it's become commonplace to sing the praises of diverse communities, but researchers in the field say they shouldn't be.

"It's an important addition to a growing body of evidence on the challenges created by diversity," says Harvard economist Edward Glaeser.

In a recent study, Glaeser and colleague Alberto Alesina demonstrated that roughly half the difference in social welfare spending between the US and Europe -- Europe spends far more -- can be attributed to the greater ethnic diversity of the US population. Glaeser says lower national social welfare spending in the US is a "macro" version of the decreased civic engagement Putnam found in more diverse communities within the country.

Economists Matthew Kahn of UCLA and Dora Costa of MIT reviewed 15 recent studies in a 2003 paper, all of which linked diversity with lower levels of social capital. Greater ethnic diversity was linked, for example, to lower school funding, census response rates, and trust in others. Kahn and Costa's own research documented higher desertion rates in the Civil War among Union Army soldiers serving in companies whose soldiers varied more by age, occupation, and birthplace.

Birds of different feathers may sometimes flock together, but they are also less likely to look out for one another. "Everyone is a little self-conscious that this is not politically correct stuff," says Kahn.

. . .

So how to explain New York, London, Rio de Janiero, Los Angeles -- the great melting-pot cities that drive the world's creative and financial economies?

The image of civic lassitude dragging down more diverse communities is at odds with the vigor often associated with urban centers, where ethnic diversity is greatest. It turns out there is a flip side to the discomfort diversity can cause. If ethnic diversity, at least in the short run, is a liability for social connectedness, a parallel line of emerging research suggests it can be a big asset when it comes to driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings, says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be a boon.

"Because they see the world and think about the world differently than you, that's challenging," says Page, author of "The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies." "But by hanging out with people different than you, you're likely to get more insights. Diverse teams tend to be more productive."

In other words, those in more diverse communities may do more bowling alone, but the creative tensions unleashed by those differences in the workplace may vault those same places to the cutting edge of the economy and of creative culture.

Page calls it the "diversity paradox." He thinks the contrasting positive and negative effects of diversity can coexist in communities, but "there's got to be a limit." If civic engagement falls off too far, he says, it's easy to imagine the positive effects of diversity beginning to wane as well. "That's what's unsettling about his findings," Page says of Putnam's new work.

Meanwhile, by drawing a portrait of civic engagement in which more homogeneous communities seem much healthier, some of Putnam's worst fears about how his results could be used have been realized. A stream of conservative commentary has begun -- from places like the Manhattan Institute and "The American Conservative" -- highlighting the harm the study suggests will come from large-scale immigration. But Putnam says he's also received hundreds of complimentary emails laced with bigoted language. "It certainly is not pleasant when David Duke's website hails me as the guy who found out racism is good," he says.

In the final quarter of his paper, Putnam puts the diversity challenge in a broader context by describing how social identity can change over time. Experience shows that social divisions can eventually give way to "more encompassing identities" that create a "new, more capacious sense of 'we,'" he writes.

Growing up in the 1950s in small Midwestern town, Putnam knew the religion of virtually every member of his high school graduating class because, he says, such information was crucial to the question of "who was a possible mate or date." The importance of marrying within one's faith, he says, has largely faded since then, at least among many mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.

While acknowledging that racial and ethnic divisions may prove more stubborn, Putnam argues that such examples bode well for the long-term prospects for social capital in a multiethnic America.

In his paper, Putnam cites the work done by Page and others, and uses it to help frame his conclusion that increasing diversity in America is not only inevitable, but ultimately valuable and enriching. As for smoothing over the divisions that hinder civic engagement, Putnam argues that Americans can help that process along through targeted efforts. He suggests expanding support for English-language instruction and investing in community centers and other places that allow for "meaningful interaction across ethnic lines."

Some critics have found his prescriptions underwhelming. And in offering ideas for mitigating his findings, Putnam has drawn scorn for stepping out of the role of dispassionate researcher. "You're just supposed to tell your peers what you found," says John Leo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. "I don't expect academics to fret about these matters."

But fretting about the state of American civic health is exactly what Putnam has spent more than a decade doing. While continuing to research questions involving social capital, he has directed the Saguaro Seminar, a project he started at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government that promotes efforts throughout the country to increase civic connections in communities.

"Social scientists are both scientists and citizens," says Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, who sees nothing wrong in Putnam's efforts to affect some of the phenomena he studies.

Wolfe says what is unusual is that Putnam has published findings as a social scientist that are not the ones he would have wished for as a civic leader. There are plenty of social scientists, says Wolfe, who never produce research results at odds with their own worldview.

"The problem too often," says Wolfe, "is people are never uncomfortable about their findings."


--The Boston Globe, Ideas section.

.

[fubyFrery]

Wow, this is just heartbreaking.

[ancexiaepidge]

Ironic how the article concerns a struggle to maintain objectivity in the face of uncomfortable data, and the posting of the article is a lesson in itself:

"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," he writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable." Thanks for highlighting the important points for all us busy people.

[dserbokim]

This is not a surprise to me insofar as stressing, promoting and aggrandizing peoples' differences based on cultural heritage, racial makeup, and class distinction while simultaneously encouraging/mandating the sorted blending of people based on these distinctions and in parallel promote special interest/special treatment policies that favor one group over another can only be divisive.

'Identify and treat others differently according to their differences.'

or more politically correct

'Identify and treat others differently according to their differences so that their diversity is respected.'

With mottos like 'tolerance and diversity' why can't everyone find 'common ground' and have a dialectic, - I mean 'dialogue?'

"It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity," he writes in the new report. "It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable." Sounds like we're being groomed for a marxist revolution. Considering everyone is equally dissatisfied with the status quo, we're almost there.

'Social solidarity' seems a suspect goal when civic disenchantment is the problem. Pandering to special interests to try to cause this 'solidarity' is a fallacy and the cause both directly and indirectly of the lamented outcomes.

[Filling25]

many in America today would ask, whats the upside to diversity, as seen in the latest immigration debate

[Controller]

Sounds like we're being groomed for a marxist revolution. Considering everyone is equally dissatisfied with the status quo, we're almost there.

? Explain this. ^

[k5wTvu9f]

^
I may write something about this soon ablarc.

*****

A piece that made me think of this thread:


America, Land of Opportunity

by Don Cooper | January 8, 2009

These hard economic times have affected us all. That’s why I decided now was the time to make a career change. So I began applying for jobs that may not have paid as well as previous jobs but rather were jobs that I knew I would enjoy.

You can do this in America, I thought to myself. Of all the countries I have lived in, the U.S. is truly the land of opportunity. Especially for a white male!

First stop: Hooters. I’d always loved the atmosphere at Hooters. Men drinking beer, eating chicken wings and watching sports. HooAaa! If I could spend my days mingling with those guys I’d be a happy camper. Unfortunately I was told that I have to be a woman to wait tables at Hooters.

Next stop: Black Entertainment Television (BET). I always wanted to be on television. Unfortunately, I was told that they limited the number of white people appearing on BET.

Next stop: the LPGA tour. I’d seen several women playing on the PGA tour so certainly men could play on the women’s tour. Unfortunately, I was told that men are not permitted to compete on the LPGA tour.

Next stop: a job at the V.A. but they gave it to a veteran

Next stop: a job at Good Will Industries but they gave it to a handicapped person.

Next stop: a job at a Muslim mosque but I was told I’d have to convert to Islam.

Finally I realized that I would only be able to make a career change if I were to do it myself. To invest my own money and time and effort into starting a new business. So I decided to invest my life’s savings and open up my own business: a Hebrew Fitness Center catering to the wealthy Jewish retirees in south Florida. Certainly a very rich and untapped market.

So I had to hire fitness trainers.

First applicant was a young Jewish white girl who unfortunately was grossly overweight. Certainly not the image a fitness center wants to present. I had to turn her down.

Second was a young, white, Muslim fellow who informed me that if hired would need to pray 5 times a day. Unfortunately, I felt that, that kind of possible tension in my fitness center could be detrimental to business. I had to turn him down.

Then a handsome, fit, young black man who seemed perfect for the job except he had no experience as a fitness trainer. I had to turn him down.

In the end I had to close my yet to open Jewish Fitness Center in order to concentrate all my time and money on:

• The lawsuit brought by the overweight white girl for sexual discrimination
• The lawsuit brought by the Muslim man for religious discrimination
• The lawsuit brought by the black man with no experience for racial discrimination

Eventually, all my savings were gone as was my home and I had to move into a homeless shelter. Nonetheless, I realized that no matter how bad things get, at least I can be thankful that I live in a country where the government doesn’t control your life!

Copyright © 2009 LewRockwell.com

[surefireinvest]

Funny thing? I just saw three people walking down 42nd outside the marriot with promotional shirts. they looked like they were pushing a fitness club/program/product.

The phrase in bold was something like "Want thin?" or something similar.

You guessed it. One of the ladies was about 30-40 pounds overweight. Now I can understand the whole "equal opportunity" thing, but when you are going for an image, you should not be forced to hire someone that will not work.


When they start hiring Ugly models on a regular basis to push things like cars, boats or Poppinfresh Muffins, let me know!

[Todilrdc]

Live in a truly monocultural environment, like some parts of Europe, Japan, Korea, parts of China and Asia and see how long it takes for you to go mad.

Diversity is good.

Nuff said.

[Ivanaishere]

Try parts of America first, its closer. Everywhere has monoculture to some degree. Even parts of NYC.

[immelawealecy]

Yeah, because parts of New York are just like Japan.

Because people of the same gene pool in New York have been living on Manhattan island since the ice age just like the Japanese, and make up 99.9% of its population.

Repeat and rinse for Korea, parts of the RF, Eastern Europe etc

Err, no. Not even the ethnic enclaves of NY are like that.

[ugosanchezo]

It just funny that some lament the loss of Little Italy (for instance) but then champion cultural diversity.

Why is that?

---

There was a wonderful area of Florence, the San Lorenzo district that up until just a few years ago was filled with old and dependable tuscan trattorie, all kinds of great food stores selling local products, tradition craftsman studios and shops etc. selling things Florence has always been famous for: leather goods, ceramics, fine linens etc. The area was just so .... Florentine.

Today the area is a mix of races and lanquages... lots of Chinese take-out, Chinese-made discount clothing stores, kebab, Pakistani owned grocery, stores selling exotic food, a few African shops selling food and gift items ... and on and on. Most of those quintessentially Florentine businesses have left.

For me ... the area is now the height of banality. It was interesting before... now it is a scene we see everywhere.

Cutural diversity is often overrated. What I love most about my town is that it is still so Italian, so Tuscan... and City Hall has even taken measure to block ethnic restaurants, Chinese take-out, Kebab places and so forth in the center of town.

I love big cities with their mix of everthing.... but my town is still an enclave that celebrates it's specific culture.

Nothing wrong with that.

---

[alex_loudermilk]

I sniff at your antiquated and arrogant provincialism. And shame on you for your lack of conservation of threatened local heritage.

[acneman]

Sniff away.

[Kokomoxcvcv]

I'm sniffing, but curry is no substitute for Florentine leather...

[LarryRda]

There is always a balance.

Diversity should never drive away the "locals". Unfortunately, few places ever have a balance between local heritage and foreign influence. One drives the other out or keeps the other from gaining a foothold.

The problem seems to be that locals do not like to spend money. I am being harsh, but that seems to be the key.

The frugality may be two fold. The first is that the trend setters coming into an area like the East Village have, and do, spend a lot more than who wa sthere before them. They want to use money to take the novelty they find and make it comfortable enough for them to live in.

Second is just plain frugality. As much as everyone decries WalMart, I guarantee you most peopel in NYC would shop there, in sunglasses and an overcoat, to save money over Amish Market when looking for their daily needs.

And that 1-2 zaps the locals, who may get some buisness from people, but more people will go to Starbucks than to a genuine Italian cafe in Manhattan. Strangers will stick with what they know. People might get a good pair of dress shoes from the Italian Cobbler, but they will not get their daily shos from them. Off to Wal Mart! And w/o that daily purchasing, many cannot make enoug hto stick around.



Combine the 1-2 with 3. The fact that once people start moving in, all the locals do like we do. "It's not the same anymore" yadda yadda yadda.

While some of this has merit, removing a dry-cleaner for a curry shop might be great to most. But some will lament Sal being forced out of the city and what a great loss that tailor/cleaner will be to the community.



It is very easy to go one way or another, but keeping history and welcoming change has never been easy. Why do you think there are so few places that have done that?

[expiclefich]

Are there any?

[sandyphoebetvmaa]

Italy does have towns that have managed to preserve mono-culturalism. Often very stubbornly so. (and it's wonderful)

[pissmanvd]

Are there any?

I liked Barcelona, but that may not be the best example from my lack of knowledge of its roots. The main square is very modernized and tehy do go out of tehir way for the tourists, but the side streets still have a lot of little hideaways.....

[FsQGF1Mp]

Today the papers here are all reporting about a new ordinance also passed in the city of Lucca. With-in the walled center, all ethnic restaurants are now banned.

I'm posting an article from the major daily "La Repubblica" it's in Italian, but the headline translates easily:

http://www.repubblica.it/2009/01/sez...ca-etnico.html

----

Brigadoon: