There’s a new study by Harvard political scientist, Robert Putnam, showing that, contrary to popular belief, the greater the diversity in a community, the worst their “civic health”, that is, the fewer people vote, volunteer, give to charity and work on community projects. According to this study, in the most diverse communities, there’s less trust between neighbors and people tend to isolate and “huddle unhappily in front of the television”. The study, based on detailed interviews of almost 30,000 people is the largest ever conducted on civic engagement in America.

Putnam claims that there’s a striking decline in the nation’s "social capital". The term, which he helped popularize, refers to the social networks -e.g., friendships, religious congregations, neighborhood associations- that he regards as key indicators of “civic well-being”.

I haven’t read the whole study yet, but so far, I have two main problems with it. First, Putnam’s concept of “social capital” seems incomplete if not outdated. What about our “online social capital”? Today thousands, perhaps millions, of social networks are web-based, from discussion groups and professional associations to friendship communities. These are pretty diverse and presumably also contribute to the civic health of a nation. People with similar interests or goals but from different races and ethnic backgrounds interact in these places. The cohesion of an online community, although constructed in a different way, may be equally significant in civic terms. But, apparently, all these online action is not considered in the study as an indicator of “social well being”.

The other problem I see with Putnam’s study is that here in the United States diverse communities also seem to be poorer and/or less educated than homogeneous ones. If this is in fact true, it’s not surprising to see more social disintegration and less participation within these “heterogeneous” groups. Again, I don’t know the details of the study but Putnam seemingly assumes that diversity is the cause of the disease when it may well be a symptom.

However, even if diversity is a cause of civic ill-health, the melting pot shouldn’t be discarded as a bad ideal. It isn’t hard to imagine why people feel naturally more close or inclined to trust those who look like them. Evolutionary speaking, there are numerous biological advantages in teaming up with those who have more similar genes. But that doesn’t mean that homogeneity should be a social goal. In today’s world, what’s natural isn’t always what’s best. We should be able to surpass our initial response to those who are different in order to benefit from them.

The sad thing is that, no matter whether the results are confirmed or not, this study will be used by many conservatives as an excuse to discriminate against immigrants and advance their xenophobic agenda. Anyway, you can read the Boston Globe’s report of this study below.

The downside of diversity

By Michael Jonas

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

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

Complete article...

Subscribe to ChiliConDarwin weekly updates