Harvard's Robert Putnam: Diversity destroys trust

Great Debates
1

Robert Putnam, the Harvard political scientist who became an academic celebrity when his book * Bowling Alone * was published, has now published a study showing that cultural diversity destroys trust in communities.

Among other things, Putnam said that:

I’ve often said that we can only have so much diversity before we destroy all sense of community.

In view of this man’s study, are any of the multiculturalists out there prepared to alter their views as to how much diversity can be tolerated before we bring disaster on ourselves? Are they willing to at least consider the possibility that the left has been badly wrong in defending impractical, even destructive policies as regards immigration, education of minorities, busing, minority set asides and other diversity issues–that maybe it’s time to emphasize unity rather than diversity?

Or has diversity become such a fetish among the progressive crowd that they are no longer able to consider even the possibility of changing their minds?

2

One paper and you take that as gospel? Especially when the author of those papers has this to say:

3

Well, in view of CalMeacham’s cite, I think we need more details on what “this man’s study” actually says. One particularly important point is raised in the linked editorial from his quote:

I think we can all agree that cultural diversity in a community can be stressful and divisive as well as beneficial. But I think it’s far from conclusively proven that we’ve crossed some kind of line where the harmful effects of diversity are outweighing the good ones.

Personally, I’d say (unless I’m badly deceiving myself) that I’m almost always willing to consider the possibility that I’ve been wrong, so we should be okay there.

But what are the particular “impractical, even destructive policies” that you suggest the left has been “badly wrong in defending”? And what are the alternatives that you recommend “to emphasize unity rather than diversity”? Like it or not, we do have a wide variety of ethnic and cultural diversity in this society, and all these people have to live together somehow. Short of rigid ethnic separatism or mass deportations, how are we going to “emphasize unity” in any practical way that will relieve the stresses and strains of diversity?

I mean, if the stresses of diversity manifest themselves even at the level of “inviting Swedes to a Norwegians’ picnic”, as your quote states, then I just don’t see any way to avoid them. At this point, ISTM that we’re pretty much stuck with diversity, no matter how much we complain about it, so we might as well make the best of it.

I’d be more interested in debating the other questions you put forward, if it’s all the same to you. This one has rather a flavor of “Have you stopped beating your wife?”—if I don’t change my mind, is that to be taken as “evidence” that I’m in thrall to a “fetish” and “no longer able to consider even the possibility” that I’m wrong?

4

You’re going to have to come up with a far more impressive disaster than, “People don’t trust each other as much.”

5

I’m very grateful for the rejoinders here, which have very much relieved my anxieties from reading LonesomePolecat’s irredeemably selective linked article.

6

I’m very grateful for the rejoinders here, which have very much relieved my anxieties from reading LonesomePolecat’s irredeemably selective linked article.

7

So what’s the answer, LC, even if we concede the accuracy of your cite? What are we supposed to do with an open population with freedom of movement? What are we supposed to do with the multitude of subcultures, races, orientations, religions and such that we already have and would have even if your bogeyman of “multiculturalism” weren’t extant? Are there segregated communities in your envisioned future? Laws against public displays of non-majority culture?

Even IF your cite is accurate (which is not being conceded yet), the genie’s out of the bottle. What exactly would your non-multicultural America look like?

8

I think there’s nothing groundbreaking or shocking here. One would expect for increased diversity to disturb group cohesiveness, at least in the short-term. And?That’s not necessarily a bad thing. Societies would never evolve if groups never intermingled or merged. Diversity-induced disturbance is what makes advancement possible. It doesn’t always make people happy, but the laws of nature are pretty indifferent towards our feelings.

9

Not to add to the pile-on, but…

Help moe out here, LonesomePolecat. With what methods would you reverse this horrible trend of diversity? Would racial segregation play a role?

10

:rolleyes:

And while you’re helping moe, also please help larry and curly. And me.

11

What kind of disaster?

12

Is this an argument for racially separated gated communities.
The failure has been to offer equal education and econmic opportunity in the past. It never happened, so its impact is unknown.
Suburbs have always been characterized by minimal interaction with neighbors. This is in relatively segregated communities. What is threatened here?
My neighborhood is diverse. Next door black, across the street Iraqi, 2 doors down Pakistani with 4 various middle east nationalities down the street. No problems with them at all.

13

Let’s not get carried away, here.

Lonesome Polecat has expressed concern over multi-culturalism. The natural conclusion to draw from that expression would be that he might wish that all immigrants were “Americanized” rather than being allowed (or encouraged) to retain (too much of) the languages or cultural traditions of their native countries.

Jumping from there to a question about segregation (which would, actually, physically encourage multiculturalism) or presuming that he might have a problem with people of different ethnicities (provided they are melding into the “American” culture) are not appropriate. If he later posts a desire to segregate* current immigrants, feel free to bring forth these arguments again. Until then, let’s stick to what he has said and the ramifications of those statements without creating any strawman attacks basedon a presumption of ethnic hostility.
*Segregation is actually a great way to promote multiculturalism–look at Harlem in the 1930s-1950s or the various Chinatowns–so that would be counterproductive to his argument.

I do not agree with his concerns, but let us address his statements, not our assumptions.

14

I think you’re being somewhat selective here, tomndebb. LonesomePolecat quotes Putnam as saying:

So, it is, at least in part, very much about what a person looks like, and not what language he speaks or food she eats.

The quoted article also says:

Again, this is not tied to the degree to which unique cultures manifest themselves within a community, it is strictly about race (at this point in the conversation).

I think that based on this, and on the political perspective from which LonesomePolecat has himself decided to approach this article (and his criticism of policies that promote racial diversity), it is certainly fair to bring up segregation as a logical component of this discussion.

And to LonesomePolecat, are you suggesting that racial diversity is something that the ‘left’ supports, but the right does not? Would you say that the majority of people on the ‘right’ are anti-diversity? That, given the option, they would say that the right thing to do is for races to not mix with each other in schools, the workplace, in families, on sports teams, or even in towns? That seems to be your implication by casting diversity as a ‘progressive fetish,’ and blaming impractical diversity issues on destructive lefty policy.

15

I feel a little silly debating with you about what we’re inferring that LonesomePolecat meant, but since so far he hasn’t come back to amplify or defend his ideas himself, I’ll go with this interpretation, which seems perfectly reasonable.

My response to this putative argument would be: how do we “Americanize” immigrants without emphasizing the very same “focus on ethnic and racial differences” that Putnam, as quoted by CalMeacham, says that we need to reduce?

ISTM that if we rigidly force all immigrants to conform to “mainstream American” culture—no wearing hijab (Muslim women’s clothing with headscarf) or yarmulkes, no speaking Spanish or Chinese in school or the workplace, no eating with chopsticks or tortillas or chapattis—then we may be minimizing ethnic differences among the various immigrants, but we’re over-emphasizing their differences with respect to “us”, the existing “mainstream” Americans. This is not “building the broader sense of ‘we’” that Putnam recommends for successful assimilation of diversity.

And, of course, resisting integration—keeping different ethnic groups in their own geographical enclaves—further exacerbates the focus on ethnic and cultural differences. It’s not clear to me that ethnic segregation, back in the days when large cities had their “Chinatown” and “Paddytown” and “Little Italy” and so forth, produced more harmonious inter-ethnic relations or better assimilation.

On the contrary, what we need for a “broader sense of ‘we’” is an expansion of what it means to be “mainstream America”. Americans wear hijab and yarmulke as well as baseball caps and mohawks, speak Spanish and Chinese and French as well as English, eat with chopsticks and tortillas as well as knives and forks, and so on. Yes, we need to emphasize the deeper “Americanness” that we all have in common, but we also have to share and welcome different aspects of our individual cultures.

Sure, interacting with people who are different sometimes causes stress and anxiety, but ISTM that Putnam’s saying that ultimately, that’s the only way to a stronger America. As jayjay notes, the diversity genie’s already out of the bottle. An ethnically and culturally homogeneous American society is no longer possible (if it ever was), so we’ve got to focus on ways to make a heterogeneous society work.

16

I have no problem with folks disagreeing with Lonesome Polecat; (I do). I would just prefer that the immediate questions and comments that assume racial or ethnic prejudice be held in abeyance until his explicit comments indicate that he advocates them.

17

Let’s be honest, what we’re really talking about here is not Muslims, not East Asians, but Latinos. The one immigrant group present here in sufficient numbers to make assimilation to the predominant Anglo-American culture less than certain.

And if Latinos in the U.S. don’t assimilate, so what?

18

I enjoy diversity, but I do value unity for social, economic, political and spiritual reasons. But I would solve the problem by encouraging interracial marriage. Maybe when we finally can see that we are all basically alike, we will end the need to be angry.

19

Actually, it’s your mind that Putnam thinks needs to change. He doesn’t think immigrants should be more like us, he thinks we need to change how we define “us”.

As an aside, if you timed your OPs to not coincide with when they finally appear on the Council of Conservative Citizens’ website (they’re sometimes a bit slow), you might find that fewer people jump to conclusions about your assumptions. Either that or you could just return to your OP at some point.

20

Whilst not wishing to hijack, I was wondering if this is an opinion or fact?
Is advancement (the rub might be the definition of advancement) impossible without diversity?
Just curious; carry on.