Diversity did not make America great. Assimilation did!
Cheers!
Posted on 09/30/2007 7:15:33 PM PDT by Lorianne
The latest round of research done by sociologist Robert Putnam has been spreading around the world in dribs and drabs for most of this decade. Mr Putnam, who teaches at both Harvard and the University of Manchester, is known for his work on social capital, which he defines as "social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness".
Since social capital is linked to better health, wealth and education, longevity and a stronger democratic life, it is something worth guarding.Mr Putnam lamented its decline in a bestseller called Bowling Alone. At the start of this decade, Mr Putnam undertook a vast study that led him to a troubling conclusion: one of the big causes of the decline of social capital is racial diversity.
This summer, Mr Putnam's work on diversity came a step closer to penetrating the consciousness of the public when one of his lectures was published in the journal Scandinavian Political Studies. His social science colleagues have been mulling over his research for years and none has seriously challenged his conclusions. So an ideological crisis is looming. One of the cherished shibboleths of public policy, corporate identity and interpersonal relations - the idea that "diversity is strength" - is losing its legitimacy.
Mr Putnam studied 30,000 people, urban and rural, rich and poor, young and old, male and female, across the US. He found a steady correlation between ethnically mixed environments and withdrawal from public life. People living amidst diversity tend to "hunker down", in his words. They trust their neighbours less (whether of other races or their own), vote less and give less to charity. About the only things they excel at, in Mr Putnam's account, are television-watching and protest marching. They lead sadder lives.
This conclusion, viewed a certain way, is just laboriously documented common sense. People trust people like themselves more than they trust people unlike themselves. Life is short and diverse groups waste precious time arguing over ground rules. Once a certain level of diversity is surpassed, a community ceases to be a community. What makes "the gay community" and "the African-American community" communities, at least in politically correct jargon, is that they are not diverse. Mr Putnam himself acknowledges a long list of "evidence that diversity and solidarity are negatively correlated". One could cite Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser's demonstration that ethnic diversity helps account for much of the weakness of the US welfare state relative to those in Europe.
But Mr Putnam's study does not simply point to a few difficulties in administering diversity - it undermines the official doctrine of western governments that diversity is always, and in every way, a positive force in society. It makes one wonder if diversity would still be considered a positive force at all if it were not an official doctrine, and one with a mighty apparatus of enforcement. Admirably,Mr Putnam wants to keep people from overreacting to diversity (the social fact). But the way he chooses to do this is by taking refuge in diversity (the state ideology). He insists that "ethnic diversity is, on balance, an important social asset". What exactly does he mean by this? Diversity is indeed an asset, in the sense that companies that pay careful attention to it will spend a lot less time defending lawsuits against government prosecutors. But what is its inherent value?
Here, Mr Putnam's gift for specificity and syllogism fails him. While he describes and empirically verifies the problems of diversity, he does little more than speculate about its advantages. Mr Putnam credits one social scientist with having "powerfully summarised evidence that diversity (especially intellectual diversity) produces much better, faster problem-solving". But intellectual diversity is not the kind of diversity thatMr Putnam is studying, and it is not the kind that official programmes promote, particularly in human resources departments and on college campuses. What is promoted is racial diversity. While it is assumed in theory that this will bring intellectual diversity in its wake, that has not happened in practice. Indeed, a powerful conformism has become the mark of American universities in precisely the decades when they have been growing more diverse. Mr Putnam also cites the desegregation of the US Army as evidence that people get used to diversity over time. But even the best army is organised along hierarchical and authoritarian lines that make it a poor place to look for lessons about life in a democratic republic.
"The central challenge for modern, diversifying societies," writes Mr Putnam, "is to create a new, broader sense of 'we'." But surely to "broaden" anything is to attenuate it. If you doubt this, imagine how your spouse or business partner would take such a suggestion. To ask for a "broader sense of 'we' " is to ask that we simply make our peace with waning social capital.
It is our duty to live with the diversity around us. But it is not our duty to sing the praises of diversity ideology. Racism and certain other forms of exclusion corrode a society morally. But diversity, as an ideology, is not a matter of avoiding those occasions of sin. It is an active, ruthless and crusading belief system. Its effects resemble those of "meritocracy" on the community life of London's Bethnal Green, as described in Dench, Gavron and Young'sThe New East End. It involves identifying, discrediting and breaking up close-knit communities in the interest of mixing them more easily into some new ideal of the nation.
There have been great gains from this ideology, and great losses. Mr Putnam's research shows that the latter are more obvious than the former.
The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard
Everyone marching to the beat of a different drummer is a nice idea, but it’s an awful way to run a parade
Diversity did not make America great. Assimilation did!
Cheers!
I’m going to go up to my boss tomorrow and demonstrate my new “diversity”. I’m going to tell him that electronics is not a phenomenon of physics with voltages and currents but instead it is a tool of Satan and that demons run along the wires and the resistors are good angels that resist the demons of electricity. Therefore I’m going to quit designing circuitry and instead pray to Cthulhu that all will be well.
I’m sure he’ll appreciate my beneficial and socially valuable “diversity”. If he tries to fire me I’ll sue!
Sometimes the gay community tells us we should celebrate diversity.
Is “sexual” diversity good for America, or the world in general?
diversity is a concept that seems to have been blindly accepted by people. Some talk about diversity being the strength of our country and our society, and nobody ever questions that idea.
The Nazis did pretty well against the diversity of the rest of Europe. A disciplined group will almost always defeat an undisciplined group even if the undisciplined group is magnitudes larger. Thermopylae anyone?
The promotion of “diversity” as a virtue and a goal in itself is just another assault on western civilization by the destructive forces of academic progressivism. Can’t call them liberals any more. There’s nothing liberal about them.
Definition of Diversity, “Celebrating our differences while pretending not to notice them.”
Diversity has given us a good selection of ethnic restaurants and ...
maybe a few other things.
Diversity sucks.
Hooray! for curry.
Has anyone who works (has worked) for a major corporation noticed how many Directors of Diversity are white?
The answer is:
What does that tell you?
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Diversity is Strength
The socialists are always playing PC word games to cow the masses into letting them play divide and conquer politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.