Oh my. This should rock the boat a bit:
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, is very nervous about releasing his new research, and understandably so. His five-year study shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. 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.Putnam’s study reveals that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital between ethnic groups, but also within the groups themselves. Trust, even for members of one’s own race, is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friendships fewer. The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation. Putnam writes: “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle.â€
I don’t know what’s more interesting: Putnam’s findings or his fear in releasing them. Certainly his study fails to show diversity and multi-culturalism breeding happy, smiley-faced Americans walking down their neighborhood street hugging their ethnically or racially divergent brother and everyone dancing around the maypole in solidarity with the world revolution.
But we knew that. Any ten year old knows this from his experience on the real life playgrounds of the world. At a very young age, children are able to recognize differences and without being told or taught, tend to congregate in their own ethnically and racially similar groups. They will make alliances and initiate friendly relations with other groups made up of children from different backgrounds. But the ethnicity and race of their circle of friends will reflect what they see in the mirror every day.
Now don’t get me wrong. Being exposed to people of different cultures and races is a good thing. It breeds a tolerance and a respect for others that was probably missing from my rather sheltered childhood. In my time, one’s parents set the tone for how you treated others from different cultures, backgrounds, and races. If you had tolerant parents, the chances were very good that you would end up a fairly tolerant adult.
But the significance of Putnam’s study – a study he refuses to release because he’s afraid of either us evil right wingers making political hay of his findings (thanks, professor; we will) or he’s terrified of being skewered by the left for daring to publish anything against the multicultural orthodoxy – is that the old fashioned assimilation model for new arrivals might – just might – be a superior socialization strategy compared to the promotion of separate and distinct racial and ethnic groups in America.
Rather than look at the study, I am more intrigued with the Professor’s hand wringing over the fact that his work tends to knock the chocks from underneath a pillar of leftist thinking; that by pigeonholing Americans and recent arrivals into their own special group while encouraging a separateness based on culture and language, tolerance and acceptance will automatically follow in the country at large. This has been an article of faith on left for 30 years. It has affected school curricula for children as young as pre-schoolers on up through the speech codes and diversity mandates found in the finest institutions of higher learning in the land.
And rather than accomplish anything, it has made things worse.
Diversity does not produce “bad race relations,†Putnam says. Rather, people in diverse communities tend “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.†Putnam adds a crushing footnote: his findings “may underestimate the real effect of diversity on social withdrawal.â€Neither age nor disparities of wealth explain this result. “Americans raised in the 1970s,†he writes, “seem fully as unnerved by diversity as those raised in the 1920s.†And the “hunkering down†occurred no matter whether the communities were relatively egalitarian or showed great differences in personal income. Even when communities are equally poor or rich, equally safe or crime-ridden, diversity correlates with less trust of neighbors, lower confidence in local politicians and news media, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer close friends, and less happiness.
What’s a conscientious liberal to do? The professor not only has political dynamite in his hands but .50 caliber ammunition for the enemies of multi-cultural thought. The professor’s solution is, shall we say, unique:
Putnam has long been aware that his findings could have a big effect on the immigration debate. Last October, he told the Financial Times that “he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity.†He said it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that,†a quote that should raise eyebrows. Academics aren’t supposed to withhold negative data until they can suggest antidotes to their findings.
No, they’re not. And if Putnam was a conservative he’d be lashed to the mouth of a very large cannon featuring a very short fuse. But I suspect the professor will be praised for his altruistic impulses in putting the needs of multiculturalism over his own academic reputation.
And the professor’s stated reasons for the delay in publishing raises some interesting questions; just what “proposals” could “counter” the negative effects of diversity? Let’s give that one some thought. Perhaps we could change the entire intellectual framework by which we approach the problem? How about treating people as individuals rather than lumping them into defined, monolithic groups and encouraging what Goldstein refers to as “the other” – a mindset that breeds a separateness from society and positing its superiority over the dominant culture?
But that would be relatively easy. The problem is we’d have to throw out The Diversity and Multi-Cultural Handbook in order to mitigate these effects on society. The fact that the professor has now taken 9 months to come up with other “solutions” probably means he doesn’t have a clue how to rescue the diversity baby without destroying at least parts of it. And if there is anything that would tick off the left more than producing a study giving the lie to one of their cherished beliefs it would be publishing solutions that would bury that belief for good.
To be fair, the professor’s study showed some improvement in these attitudes in the long term:
Putnam’s study does make two positive points: in the long run, increased immigration and diversity are inevitable and desirable, and successful immigrant societies “dampen the negative effects of diversity†by constructing new identities. Social psychologists have long favored the optimistic hypothesis that contact between different ethnic and racial groups increases tolerance and social solidarity. For instance, white soldiers assigned to units with black soldiers after World War II were more relaxed about desegregation of the army than were soldiers in all-white units. But Putnam acknowledges that most empirical studies do not support the “contact hypothesis.†In general, they find that the more people are brought into contact with those of another race or ethnicity, the more they stick to their own, and the less they trust others. Putnam writes: “Across local areas in the United States, Australia, Sweden Canada and Britain, greater ethnic diversity is associated with lower social trust and, at least in some cases, lower investment in public goods.â€Though Putnam is wary of what right-wing politicians might do with his findings, the data might give pause to those on the left, and in the center as well. If he’s right, heavy immigration will inflict social deterioration for decades to come, harming immigrants as well as the native-born. 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.
Does this sound familiar? “...[S]uccessful immigrant societies “dampen the negative effects of diversity†by constructing new identities…”
We used to call them “hyphenated Americans,” these immigrants with “new identities.” It was special to be an “Irish-American” or “Italian-American.” The terms themselves defined a way of looking at America and the world as well as how you interacted with your “Polish-American” or “Russian-American” neighbors. Diversity then wasn’t some artificial construct. It was given life by assimilating oneself into the larger American culture through a wide variety of portals. Churches, social clubs, sports leagues, even local watering holes. And finally, a school system that cared more about children as human beings than dots on a graph.
It wasn’t perfect by any means. But in its creaky, uneven way, it served its purpose well. America successfully assimilated more than 150 million immigrants in less than 150 years – a feat unmatched by any other society in the history of human civilization. Whatever we did, however it was accomplished, it worked.
The fact that the multi-cultural model has turned out less well won’t matter to its advocates and high priests. Blame for its failure will fall elsewhere; oppressive white society, undiversified media, bad parenting, even evil right wing influences.
But perhaps following Hamlet’s Cassius’ advice in Julius Caesar would speed understanding by the left into what is truly a seminal moment in the history of our culture; “”The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…”
UPDATE
James Joyner and I are on pretty much the same wavelength. He also rounds up some other reaction, including this from Rod Dreher:
I predict this research will have absolutely zero impact on the immigration debate. Why? Because Diversity is a dogmatic secular religion. To dissent from its dogmas is to declare oneself to be a heathen. Seriously, to question its premises is to be thought of as a closet hater by the Establishment. You would get about as far questioning Creationism at a backwoods Bible college as you would questioning Diversity at a US university, corporation or whatnot.
While the reference to “backwoods Bible college” is a pretty gratuitous slap of Christians – especially since not all Bible colleges teach creationism or even intelligent design – the point is valid. There’s too much emotional investment (not to mention financial windfalls for some campus groups) in diversity for the academic community to do anything with these conclusions except dismiss them out of hand or ignore them.
8:38 am
Rick,
Throughout history, and even today in most parts of the world, when people of different religions, races, ethnicities, etc., have tried to live together in the same place, it’s been called war. In America, we call it diversity, but I would venture a guess that a handful of Americans prefer that this dynamic be more like it is in other places. Call me a cynic, but if there’s an opporunity to leverage some political advantage from discouraging immigrant communities from assimiliating, I’ll bet my right arm certain politicians will exploit it.
And before anyone points their finger and howls “Racist!”, bear in mind that those who would keep immigrants from becoming Americans are the only bona fide chauvinists in this debate. They don’t believe immigrants are capable of becoming American. If they did, they wouldn’t be doing their damnedest to ghettoize immigrant communities.
9:40 am
My wife is a recent immigrant from China. Her primary circle of friends are also Chinese. I have seen that she does have a tendency to “hunker down” a bit, but she is also very militant about learning English and becoming an American.
I meet with her friends on occasion but there is a bit of a language gap. My Mandarin Chinese is virtually nonexistent. I still try and speak with her friends and on occasion help them out as needed.
The one thing I have noticed, every single one of them is working hard to assimilate as best as they can. Not one of them cares about “diversity” and I doubt most of them even understand the concept they way we think of it these days. Every one of them wants top be a good citizen. More power to them and I’ll do what I can to help.
9:58 am
Rick
An immigrant melding country can withstand ethnic diversity and is strengthened by it. But that requires melding into the whole by all ethnic groups.
MultiCulturism is negative enforcement that goes beyond the ethnic pride of your country of origin.
Right now there are ethnic groups that refuse in some cases to meld into society on a full basis.
For example black americans have been encouraged by some to observe black pride, which just on a cultural historical basis is a worthy thing, but when it is extended to not graduating from school or other self destructive behaviors to their community as a whole because it is viewed as acting “to white” or “copping to the man” that is a bad thing.
Hispanic groups have similar issue but not as pronounced.
Chinese , Vietnamese, Korean and such are melding over the generations but the social structure and their religion base are so different that they are likely to at least maintain religious practice separation but will tolerate all others and welcome converts to theirs.
Muslim populations are now an emerging issue where some believe a total non melding based on hard line culture separation dogma, with the only exception being that interaction necessary for gainful employment, and the concerns over attempts to evoke shira law are troubling.
10:50 am
In my grad work in Political Science, Putnam was required in numerous classes (International Relations, Public Policy, Methods) for his methodological and theoretical rigor. I can’t say I’m surprised by his results especially seen in light of some of his other writings, or his hesitancy in publishing. After all, Harvard just ousted a Clintonista – Larry Summers – for not being leftist enough and some sectors of academe are increasingly radical and incapable of critical analysis – think Ward Churchill. No doubt that Putnam trends left, but compared to others I’ve read and meet with, he’s rather centrist and deliberate/pensive. Also, he does public policy (as well as International Relations) and in this field of PoliSci or Public Administration you do see proposals and proposed courses of action.
11:23 am
Scared by his own research…
My life experience, and common sense, tell me that clear cultural and subcultural structures are necessary foundations for dependable and predictable human interaction. People associate tribally for good reasons. Multiculturalism throws a bomb at t…
11:45 am
I remember back in the early days of the Internet listening to an older associate talk about how great it was to spend time in AOL groups. Not me, I thought. Well, that all changed, and now I spend way too much time on the Internet. As this person described his enthusiasm to me at the time, you can engage very esoteric interests with people you may not otherwise meet. People from across the country and around the world. So here is an example of people ‘hunkering down’—a reason to be less concerned about who your neighbors are and what’s going on in the community. And let’s face it, there’s a huge diversity of relatively narrow interests that people can have.
Beyond that, I suspect that there are additional factors that can account for the study’s findings, and that the factors cited are one cause and maybe not even the dominant cause. The author is correct in his reluctance to release the findings but not primariy because it will be used as a political football or that antidotes should be included, but because the research is likely poorly designed. No doubt, he’s observed something, but it is likely a thin slice of a multi-dimensional dynamic.
At the very least, this study deserves years of quiet peer-review and integration into a more comprehensive theory that includes cognitive and personality factors, for example. For John Leo to attempt to elevate this to immediate practical import is simply unethical. The study’s author’s fears in releasing this are justified, but he needs to more concerned that his cause-effect relationship is partial at best and needs to spend more thinking about alternate and additive explanations that would delimit the findings’ usefulness in drawing sweeping conclusions.
3:31 pm
As a recovering academic, I smell someone ginning up controversy to sell a book and get on blabfest TV. The research hasn’t even been reviewed for publication, according to the article. And for heaven’s sake, one study NEVER can be a definitive answer to any question.
6:57 pm
“Putnam’s study does make two positive points: in the long run, increased immigration and diversity are inevitable and desirable”
Why inevitable?Cheap labor?Cheap votes?
If it increases tensions and balkinizes the nation,why is it desirable?
“An immigrant melding country can withstand ethnic diversity and is strengthened by it. But that requires melding into the whole by all ethnic groups.”
No,if the majority has a successful culture,why should they be expected to “meld” to the norms of a failed culture brought by immigrants from poorer,less successful societies?
Through out history,poor,unsuccessful tribes migrated into the territory of rich,successful tribes and attempted to grab a piece of the action for themselves.
The result is that the natives drive off the newcomers or are driven out themselves OR one or the other is absorbed or marginialized by the other.
The problem for today’s newcomer’s is that they lack the human capital,knowledge,education and technical skills to keep,say,California running.
A relative handful of Hollywood celebrities and hi-tech moguls can’t compensate for the states increasing loss of a broad,educated,technically skilled and NET tax paying middle class.
And at the most optimistic,it will be AT LEAST 3 generations for them to catch up to the natives,movimng blue collar to white collar as cultural changes take affect.
10:13 pm
Bowling Alone In Room 101…
Rick Moran links to John Leo’s City Journal essay regarding Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam’s study on immigration and multiculturalism that’s been making the rounds in the Blogosphere, and notes the professor’s fear that he may have comm…
9:49 am
[...] Check another piece on the above here. [...]
5:05 am
The claim that Putnam was nervous and held back on releasing these findings or data is patently false.
For a fuller account of the truth see:
http://socialcapital.wordpress.com/2007/06/29/misinformation-about-putnams-diversity-research-in-leos-city-journal-story/
2:31 pm
[...] Lastly, this post by Rick Moran is certainly worth reading as well. Rick links to this study: Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, is very nervous about releasing his new research, and understandably so. His five-year study shows that immigration and ethnic diversity have a devastating short- and medium-term influence on the social capital, fabric of associations, trust, and neighborliness that create and sustain communities. 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. [...]
5:20 pm
While in some ways correct, the socialcapital blog above claiming that it is “patently false” that Putnam was nervous is being disingenuous.
Dr. Putnam certainly did publicize his findings for a time in 2001, at which point I wrote about them.
Putnam is being misleading, however, because he is skipping over the subsequent half decade of virtual radio silence he maintained on the topic from 2001 until he gave an indiscreet interview, which he immediately regretted, to John Lloyd of the Financial Times in the fall of 2006 while making a presentation on his findings in Sweden. Lloyd wrote:
“This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam told the Financial Times he had delayed publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it “would have been irresponsible to publish without thatâ€.â€
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html
5:25 pm
I wrote about Putnam’s research in the cover story “Fragmented Future” of the 1/15/2007 issue of The American Conservative.
http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_01_15/cover.html
12:47 am
Submitted for Your Approval…
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…
5:17 am
Submitted 07/04/07…
This week’s Watcher’s Council’s nominations are in. In That Reason should Rule, The Glittering Eye takes arms against an article in Newsweek arguing that Republicans do a better job of exploiting emotions than Democrats and asks that we allow reason…
7:15 am
Funny thing is, if you teach a child to be a good human being they are naturally good towards others. There is no need for pushing diversity. It’s as simple as asking why football players gravitate to other football lovers, become of a commonality. IT does not follow that they will be cruel or distasteful to non football players. Unfortunately, in our “coodled” Nation we’ve been brainwashed into believing that harmonious relations between the differents can only be had through a strange ism called multiculturalism.
9:22 am
[...] Right Wing Nut House, “Cage Match: Assimilation vs. Multiculturalism†[...]
12:28 am
The Council Has Spoken!...
First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Guess Where Your President Was Wed…
12:18 pm
Watcher’s Council results…
And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Guess Where Your President Was Wednesday Morning… Insh’allah by Joshuapundit, and Bless the Beasts and Children by Michael Yon. Right Wing Nut House was the …
8:35 pm
Watcher’s Council Results…
The winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Guess Where Your President Was Wednesday Morning… Insh’allah by Joshuapundit, and Bless the Beasts and Children by Michael Yon. Here are the full tallies of all votes cast:Vo…
6:28 am
Victorious Entities…
This week’s winners in the Watcher’s Council votes are enumerated below… For the Council Guess Where Your President Was Wednesday Morning… Insh’allah, by JoshuaPundit. My votes for this category were ignored, as usual. I cast my votes thus: Cage…
6:05 pm
Most likely Putman is simply – and understandably – afraid for his career. Tenure – which in principle protects an academic thinking about the unthinkable aloud or in print – would not keep Putman’s working life from descending into hell.
Blind reviews could and should pull sloppy research apart before it ever gets published in anything serious, but why would Putman feel a need to somehow atone for his findings?
Amen on the comments about the religion of the cultural left: “Diversity” may or may not be a good thing in itself, but it is pretty clear – at least in higher education – that textbook writers and educators can’t go wrong praising it as part of the assumed feel-good, anti-western, secular belief set; on the other hand, you could get in no end of trouble questioning it, “critical thinking” be damned.
How pervasive is the preaching?
Here are some “Reflections on Race and Ethnicity” from an English as a Second Language textbook aimed at community college students:
“Have you ever been subject to repression? Explain the situation or tell a story.”
“What questions do Americans sometimes ask immigrants that may indicate some attempt to subjugate the immigrants?”
“Have you been questioned in ways that you thought were supposed to make you feel inferior?”
You HAVE been repressed, haven’t you? Not much reflection would be generated by the answer, “No, I have not had that experience”, or “Maybe…but it’s worth it”, or “What I went through in (choose a country) was much, much worse.
12:07 pm
[...] his own study, rather than deal with it’s un-PC results. Fascinating. And the links just keep on coming. Q: They move on to trust cues and [...]