I don't want to overshadow all of the commentary being published today, but I couldn't let this pass. Robert Putnam has a new study coming out regarding the negative effects of diverse populations that is so negative that it is frightening him.
As I keep saying over and over in here, people are a lot more comfortable with others who are like them and will naturally gravitate towards them. Government's (or other groups') attempts to force diversity will end up causing more problems than they are solving.
Tom
As I keep saying over and over in here, people are a lot more comfortable with others who are like them and will naturally gravitate towards them. Government's (or other groups') attempts to force diversity will end up causing more problems than they are solving.
Tom
Labels: diversity, Robert Putnam, sociology, Tet
I think the most interesting point is that the "contact hypothesis" is proven to be false in most empirical studies. More proof that you can't force people to accept/become comfortable with something they're not familiar with; they have to do it on their own. I think Billy Joe would find this interesting, as it basically shoots down his "make people live with those of a different race so they become comfortable with diversity" roommate pairing system (this has already been extensively debated; I think his article about it is in the archives somewhere).
I would like to see his actual study and results, so I hope he publishes that soon before I can completely accept the findings.
A few things from within the article you link to that make me think you're being a little misleading:
(1) The reason the study is "frightening" to Putnam is because he is "wary of what right-wing politicians might do with his findings" and he "fears that his work on the surprisingly negative effects of diversity will become part of the immigration debate, even though he finds that in the long run, people do forge new communities and new ties."
(2) The study has not been made available for peer review, nor is it accessible to the public.
(3) Putnam concludes that "in the long run, increased immigration and diversity are inevitable and desirable" and he is "hopeful that eventually America will forge a new solidarity based on a 'new, broader sense of we.'"
Also, setting aside your objections to government's intervention in this area (which, so far as I can tell, has been pretty mild), it's not like government is the only thing spurring an increase in diverse populations, so what do you actually propose as a solution to the problem you're perceiving?
Well, if you've read Putnam's earlier works, the current work is further evidence to his earlier theses which were peer reviewed and quite well accepted.
Bowling Alone is actually a classic.
I don't see that there is a problem, actually. I believe that immigration followed by assimilation into the mainstream culture can be desirable, since that brings hybrid vigor to the mix. In this, I agree thoroughly with Putnam.
However, prior to the final assimilation, I see nothing wrong with populations being somewhat segregated, as long as the government is not involved. It appears to be a natural thing.
My belief is that this work as well as Putnam's earlier works on the subject put the lie to the desirability of mandated diversity in the workplace, at universities and in society in general, that's all.
Kevin points to this above with the stupid "roomate diversity system" policy as an example. Bad for everyone involved.
In truth, if diversity is as bad for people in the short-term as his studies have shown in the past, it has to be part of the immigration debate, whether that scares Putnam or not, since the amount of damage to society that's allowable will be key in figuring out how many immigrants per year the US can actually assimilate long term.
I mean, seriously, Europe's a fucking disaster, particularly Britain. If we can avoid going down that road, we need to do so.
Tom
Outside of the workplace, don't most people, especially recent immigrants, self segregate in the United States? Little Italy, Chinatown, Greek Town, etc., are all places where recent immigrants can go to insulate themselves from other influences when they leave work without outside influence and be among people like them? Won't people, at least in the US, always self segregate into those communities, and wouldn't that provide sufficient distance between other groups to allow these individuals to assimilate?
Absolutely, Prescott. I think that that's a good thing, since it gives new arrivals time to get on their feet before really becoming part of the mainstream culture.
There is a new problem in the 21st, though, caused by the proliferation of satellite TV from home. This has a tendency to reinforce the culture of the recent immigrants' homelands, rather than encouraging them to subsume their origins into the new gesalt culture being constructed.
What I was trying to point out, mainly, is the evidence that the kind of diversity espoused by the philosophy of multiculturalism is likely to be destructive, rather than constructive.
Tom
Why does satellite television pose a bigger risk to assimilation then the traditional pressures such as family pressure to old country cultural conformity, neighborhood reinforcement of the cultural identity, speaking of the old country's language at home, etc.?
It reinforces the culture of the "old country" to an extent that hasn't been experienced before.
The retention of old culture has always been somewhat of a problem for new immigrants. My parents and grandparents were so worried about it than none of the kids in my generation in our family were allowed to learn our original homeland's language. I was born 22 years after they arrived here (for perspective).
If you're watching your original hometown's soccer games, news broadcasts and soap operas, you're not learning the language that you'll be needing to succeed in the long-term. If you don't succeed, you end up being a net burden, rather than a net asset to yourself, your neighbors and to the nation as a whole.
With satellite TV and newspapers in your home language (as well as the 'Net), it's like you never left. If you self-segregate and never assimilate, you turn your neighborhood into the place that you left, and if that was that great, you'd not be here....right?
Tom
But for years newspapers in the states have been published in the old languages; especially German.
And while the language might not be spoken at home, it is spoken at school, at least generally for now, and at the work place. While I admit the degree of spanish speaking citizens is disconcerting for national cohesion, wouldn't a lot of your fears be alieved through work place environment and schooling?
We had papers in Lithuanian, too, Prescott. They didn't really do much to retard assimilation, though, because they told news stories about Chicago rather than Vilnius.
What worries me is that the news on current satellite TV is from the home country, rather than the US. If the potential citizens were watching bilingual news about their own city, I would be less worried, since it would be key to making the adjustment.
The workplace helps. What has been causing real problems, though, is the call for diversity there and in schools that is mandating printing of information in more than one language. This again allows the newcomer to "get along" and delay assimilation that much longer.
Tom
Bowling Alone (the book) was not peer-reviewed.
A much more interesting take on this topic is a book by Diana Mutz called Hearing the Other Side. It's not about "diversity" in the racial sense, but in the ideological sense. She comes to the same conclusion Putnam does, diversity decreases participation, but she offers it as a result of tolerance. Id est those who are more tolerant are less prone to civic engagement. She explains that since diversity creates tolerance, it appears that diversity creates apathy, but it's much more benign than that.
This argument appeals to my sensibilities, at least, because it seems natural for those who accept alternative viewpoints to be less willing to deter others from holding them; which is the underlying goal of activists.
Sorry, JM, I was under the impression that BA was an expansion of an earlier paper.
Are you saying that it is the goal of activists is to deter others from holding opposing viewpoints, or vice versa? I don't quite understand your last paragraph.
Tom
The last two sentences in the article:
"Putnam is hopeful that eventually America will forge a new solidarity based on a “new, broader sense of we.” The problem is how to do that in an era of multiculturalism and disdain for assimilation."
I don't know much about this topic, but who has a "disdain for assimilation"?
I would have thought it would be natural for immigrants to settle among other immigrants from their own country, and that true assimilation would come with their children and grandchildren.
I don't understand that last sentence about multiculturalism and "disdain for assimilation".
There are a number of problems with assimilation when you're a member of a group that wants to maintain its cultural heritage. There has long been a tension between fully assimilating into society and trying to retain a separate identity. Different people fall on different points on that spectrum, and that's the dispute the author is referring to.
tet:
It was an expansion of an earlier paper, which may have been peer-reviewed (I don't know), but the book was not.
It seems to me that the reason activists do what they do is because they a) want something to change (or stay the same) or b) want people to believe something. Underlying that kind of behavior is a belief that your viewpoint is better than alternatives.
Even non-interference viewpoints like libertarianism assume that some way is a better way of doing things, id est non-interference.
If on the other hand you accept other viewpoints (or at least the right for others to follow them) which is how I would define tolerance, you would be less likely to argue against those viewpoints. Ergo diversity->tolerance->inactivity.