Robert Putnam, who wrote the book Bowling Alone, recently published a paper that found: "New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer."
Michael Jonas writes for the Boston Globe:
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.
…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
When he finally published a detailed scholarly analysis in June in the journal Scandinavian Political Studies, he faced criticism for straying from data into advocacy. His paper argues strongly that the negative effects of diversity can be remedied, and says history suggests that ethnic diversity may eventually fade as a sharp line of social demarcation.
"Having aligned himself with the central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the facts with a stern pep talk," wrote conservative commentator Ilana Mercer, in a recent Orange County Register op-ed titled "Greater diversity equals more misery."
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam has found that diversity is not a strength, but a weakness; the greater the diversity in a community, the greater the distrust. Professor Putnam’s five-year study was reported last year by the Financial Times and is finally percolating down to others in the media and across the blogosphere.
In diverse communities, Putnam observed, people "hunker down": They withdraw, have fewer "friends and confidants," distrust their neighbors regardless of the color of their skin, expect the worst from local leaders, volunteer and car-pool less, give less to charity and "agitate for social reform more," with little hope of success. They also huddle in front of the television. Activism alternates with escapism, unhappiness with ennui.
Trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history," a finding the "progressive" Putnam, who hangs out at Harvard, found perplexing. Almost as predictable is the manner in which these straightforward, sad findings are being misconstrued by puzzled pundits or pressure groups accustomed to maligning You Know Who.
…Like many social scientists living in symbiosis with statists, Putnam doesn’t confine himself to observations; he offers recommendations. Having aligned himself with central planners intent on sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the gloomy facts with a stern pep talk. Take the lumps of diversity without complaining! Mass immigration and the attendant diversity are, overall, good for the collective. (Didn’t he just spend five years demonstrating the opposite?)
To sum up, a scientist-cum-policy wonk "uncovers" patterns of co-existence among human beings that are as old as the hills. Greater diversity equals more misery. So, does he respect these age-old peaceful preferences? No.
Instead, with all the sympathy of a social planner, he reaffirms the glories of forced integration and recommends dismantling old identities and constructing new, "shared" ones. Putnam pelts the many thousands of miserable individuals he interviewed with utilitarian platitudes: Cheap Tyson chicken and colorful cuisine will, in time, ameliorate their misery.
