Diversity and Trust

Bad news about our tolerance for diversity:

Harvard study paints bleak picture of ethnic diversity, by John Lloyd, Financial Times: A bleak picture of the corrosive effects of ethnic diversity has been revealed in research by Harvard University’s Robert Putnam, one of the world’s most influential political scientists.

His research shows that the more diverse a community is, the less likely its inhabitants are to trust anyone – from their next-door neighbour to the mayor.

This is a contentious finding in the current climate of concern about the benefits of immigration. Professor Putnam ... 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 that”.

The core message of the research was that, “in the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.” ...

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.” ...

Prof Putnam stressed, however, that immigration materially benefited both the “importing” and “exporting” societies, and that trends “have been socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed”. ...

Comments

[evagrius]

Bull- That's all I can write without being obscene.

I've just moved to Montreal, Quebec, one of the most ethnically diverse citie in the world, and I can state that so far, I've not seen the mistrust etc; that he speaks of.

I can understand L.A.- it really is a basically "cracker town" that was once dominated by WASPs and is no longer but that's L.A.- it's not the same for other places.

Montreal has its problems, linguistic, cultural etc; but to say that it can't cope with nor wants to, ( the same for other cities with a diverse population), is an insult.

[donna]

No kidding, bull. San Diego is extremely diverse, and people here are incredibly friendly.

This asshat needs to get out more.

[Chris]

Look folks, sometimes you got to face up to unpleasant truths. Countries with big social welfare programs are (were) super homogeneous, like Norway, Denmark, etc. In the American south there's always a black party and a white party.

It's a problem of human nature, and the only way to deal with it is to face up to it.

[true dough]

Here's a quote I recently came across from Milton Friedman:

“Though it is not as true now as it used to be with the influx of immigration, the Scandinavian countries have a very small, homogeneous population. That enables them to get away with a good deal they couldn’t otherwise get away with.”

“What works for Sweden wouldn’t work for France or Germany or Italy. In a small state, you can reach outside for many of your activities. In a homogeneous culture, they are willing to pay higher taxes in order to achieve commonly held goals. But “common goals” are much harder to come by in larger, more heterogeneous populations.”

“The great virtue of a free market is that it enables people who hate each other, or who are from vastly different religious or ethnic backgrounds, to cooperate economically. Government intervention can’t do that. Politics exacerbates and magnifies differences.”

[evagrius]

true dough;

Love the name- equivalent to Trudeau-

What Friedman states is also bull-

the "free market" is another synonym for God, ( except that Friedman is an atheist ).

What works is a commonly accepted standard- the Declaration of human Rights as an example.

That's what's being struggled over in Europe and on this continent.

[reason]

Did the study control for population density and mobility (it is not clear what factors were controlled for in the study)? I'm not one to reflexively reject what one doesn't want to hear, but I always like to read critical reviews first.

[Richard]

I too would like to know if there are controls for urbanicity. In general, the more ethnically diverse locales will tend to be more urban and urbanicity has its own set of issues (high density, wide range of incomes, bimodal age demographics) which might affect trust and mistrust.

[reason]

Richard,
I was thinking of mobility as a key issue, how many much people were moving around.
But yes urbanicity as well, but in a different sense - what sort of urbanicity. Ever read Jane Jacobs?

[Ken Houghton]

I can't find the study on Putnam's homepage, and FT piece doesn't mention its name or where it was published, but it does note that "British Home Office research has pointed in the same direction."

Looking at Putnam's most recent article, I suspect the challenges above were answered.

[anne]

Ken Houghton, what is the specific article by Robert Putnam you are referring to?

[anne]

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/saguaro/bibliography.htm#putnam

Recent essays by Robert Putnam, though the recent study is not mentioned or presaged here as far as I can tell.

[joan]

It should be noted that in the US the meaning of diversity is not the same as England. Most of us no longer notice the ethnic differences between people with European ancestry. This is not true in Europe and was not true in the US a hundred or even fifty years ago. The ethnic slurs on the Nixon tapes seem weird now but was part of the world view of many in his gerneration. We still have a problem with race (Mexicans are a mixture indian and european), but my childern and their friends notice racial differences much less than my gereration, so maybe this too will pass.

[realpc]

We trust people when we have something in common with them. Culture, not race, is the problem. You can become friends with someone from a different race and culture, but only if you share some interests and values.

I don't see anything wrong with having a healthy distrust of strangers. In fact, trusting indiscriminately is very dangerous.

[calmo]

Similarly indiscriminant bravery is very dangerous.

Sorry realpc, but "having a healthy distrust of strangers" does sound paranoid. {I just crossed you off my list of possible good samaritans.)

A startling number of homocides are family affairs which makes me think twice about

We trust people when we have something in common with them. Culture, not race, is the problem. You can become friends with someone from a different race and culture, but only if you share some interests and values.

I like joan's observation that it may just take time, a generation or so, to break down racial barriers. Hope so. It does seem to be more successful with some races than others.

[piglet]

The most significant methodological challenge to this study will be to correct for social and economic inequality. I suspect that in the study, ethnic diversity is just a proxy for inequality.

[anne]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1207822,00.html

Jun 25, 2006

You Gotta Have Friends: A study finds that Americans are getting lonelier
By ROBERT PUTNAM

Americans are more socially isolated today than we were barely two decades ago. The latest evidence of that comes from a topflight team of sociologists who, after comparing national surveys in 1985 and 2004, report a one-third drop in the number of people with whom the average American can discuss "important matters."

That startling report raises four questions: 1) Is it true? 2) Why has it happened? 3) Does it really matter? And 4) if so, what can we do about it?

I confess a personal stake in the first question. Six years ago in a book I wrote called Bowling Alone, I argued that the fabric of American communities has frayed badly since the mid-1960s. I traced plummeting membership in PTAs, unions and clubs of all sorts; long-term declines in blood donations, card games and charity; and drops of 40% to 60% in dinner parties, civic meetings, family suppers, picnics and, yes, league bowling.

Just as the debate about global warming began with controversial claims made by a few iconoclasts, so too were many sociologists skeptical of my findings about lonely bowlers. No complex issue is ever settled by a single study. Advancing the global warming argument has required decades of research, and it may take another decade to convince the final doubters that social connectivity in the U.S. has, in fact, disintegrated. But that latest study is an important milestone.

Ironically, the authors began their work deeply skeptical about my argument. To their credit, when the unexpected results came back, they scratched their heads, kicked the tires really hard to ensure there was no mistake and last week reported their findings in a paper aptly called "Social Isolation in America."

Why this sharp increase in social isolation? Both the new study and mine found sharp generational differences--baby boomers are more socially marooned than their parents, and the boomers' kids are lonelier still. Is it because of two-career families? Ethnic diversity? The Internet? Suburban sprawl? Everyone has a favorite culprit. Mine is TV, but the jury is still out.

Does it really matter? As a friend said, "So what if the average American now has two close friends, not three? Two is plenty." But that's exactly like saying, "If global temperatures rise from 65°F to 70°F, I wouldn't even notice." That's fine, as long as you ignore the indirect effects, like mega-hurricanes in the Gulf.

Social isolation has many well-documented side effects. Kids fail to thrive. Crime rises. Politics coarsens. Generosity shrivels. Death comes sooner (social isolation is as big a risk factor for premature death as smoking)....

[anne]

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/saguaro/bibliography.htm#putnam

Robert Putnam's readily available essays are here, and the theme is endemic social isolation and the need to counter.

[anne]

Frankly, I am altogether unconvinced and actually rather doubtful about Robert Putnam's suppositions and findings but detailed research on the nature of relationship strikes me as important.

[Gina]

Joan, the problem here is that younger generations consistently have less of an issue with racial differences with the older ones-- but then, this awareness of racial distinctions magnifies as people reach the point when they have to pick neighborhoods, choose schools and earn a living.

I'm an old-fashioned liberal and I noticed this with my own nephews and nieces-- for a while were refreshingly unaware and, seemingly, unburdened by the racial baggage of our own generation. But then it came time to pick a school and, with it, a neighborhood. And the least desirable places became those with higher black and Latino populations-- not a pleasant truth but the truth nonetheless. If anything, racial and ethnic awareness seems to be becoming even more ironclad, not less.

[Hungry Brain]

This study doesn't tell us anything we don't already know. Multiculturalism is being forced down peoples throat. You end up with everyone hating everyone else, living in a racial cess-pit, being forced by the government to live and work next to sub-humans. Visit natallnews if you'd like to know more.

says...

We'll all be dead in a few hundred years anyways.