NationStates Jolt Archive

Read it and weep ('http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html')

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.”

In the 41 sites Putnam studied in the U.S., he found that the more diverse the neighborhood, the less residents trust neighbors. This proved true in communities large and small, from big cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, and Boston to tiny Yakima, Washington, rural South Dakota, and the mountains of West Virginia. In diverse San Francisco and Los Angeles, about 30 percent of people say that they trust neighbors a lot. In ethnically homogeneous communities in the Dakotas, the figure is 70 percent to 80 percent.

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.”

Proven by someone who was expecting diversity to be a good and wholesome thing...

Generalizations are beneficial.

I wonder what he means by "social capital."

Sorry, no weeping here RO, more like laughing because this reveals more about you and what you want than what is "proven."

Hmm. It seems people are, as a whole, vaguely xenophobic...That's, uh, not unexpected. Let's see how this thread goes.

here's the kicker:

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.

Generalizations are beneficial.

I wonder what he means by "social capital."

Sorry, no weeping here RO, more like laughing because this reveals more about you and what you want than what is "proven."

It reveals a lot about what this professor was wishing for, and couldn't find, and how he stooped to academically unethical behavior to hide the results he couldn't stand.

You have to be so careful when you deal with statistics to not read too much into results. Remember: correlation != causality. Just because one variable changes in relation to another does not mean there is a true connection.

It reveals a lot about what this professor was wishing for, and couldn't find, and how he stooped to academically unethical behavior to hide the results he couldn't stand.

Which in turn just goes to show how the liberal academia ivory tower pro-terrorist anti-american commie multi-cultural pro-immigrant faction is also unethical!

eh. i don't think thats true at all. I live in a very diverse community and I'm not withdrawn from making friends or keeping them. It sounds like a load of BS to me.

Actually, it sounds like it's racism towards immigrants that's the problem.

And what does that make you, Remote Observer?

Hint: It starts with "Part of the proble"

First of all, it's only one study. Several more will be needed to demonstrate whether it's valid or not.

Secondly, it addresses short- and medium-term effects. How long is short term? Medium term? Will (have) studies been done on long-term effects?

Third, what were the study criteria? How many neighborhoods? Who was in those neighborhoods? Were the neighborhoods low, middle or high income? What was the educational level of the people in the neighborhoods.

Fourth, what sort of statistical rigor was applied.

So many questions?

Okay so what does 'Social Capital' mean?

Also I note that this was an American study and not world wide.

I live in London, and the area of London I live in although predominently black, has been intergrated for years, and I mean before I was born. The sense of community is great. So I guess for some short term problems in America, I'll take intergreation, and multiethnic society anyday.

A few things...

1 - what does the mean by "41 sites"? Cities, towns, neighbourhoods? What kind of subdivision does he mean? It doesn't say how big the area was, so, how do we know he was getting a good feel for larger versus smaller areas?

2 - "More diverse" - so, does this mean there were a lot of one minority, many or just few from different groups?

This article doesn't seem to give much in the way of details, so how is diversity harmful if we don't have a good set of numbers, a wide variety of groups studied? How many groups were involved in this study?

3 - what social factors were considered? Those are important.

4 - the history of the area studied?

So how much money did he spend to figure out people are xenophobic?

Me against my brothers, me and my brothers against my clan, my clan against my country, my country against the world.

Welcome to humanity: where relationships are only fitting when we're threatened.

I'm fairly confident that the long term benefits outweight the short and medium term "devastation".
"Diversity is harmfull" is not a foregone conclusion.

[

Proven by someone who was expecting diversity to be a good and wholesome thing...

..posted by somebody who is only about one or two generations from off the boat themselves, if memory serves.

Read it and weep ('http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html')



Proven by someone who was expecting diversity to be a good and wholesome thing...

One study doesn't prove anything.

The problem isn’t ethnic conflict or troubled racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation.
The underlined part couldn't possibly be the cause for the bold part :rolleyes:

Proven by someone who was expecting diversity to be a good and wholesome thing...
Since the cause for his "proof" is quite possibly the things he said don't matter, his proof is irrelevant without a cause - things don't just happen. I can say going to Disney World makes the Disney estate rich. Sure, it's true, but since there is no cause explained, it doesn't really matter.

I do not think that this professor did anything unethical. If all he did before waiting to publish his conclusions is evaluating other possible explanations of his results, this is merely part of any responsible research. It is also exactly the sort of thing that he would be asked to explain while defending the paper before his peers.

here's the kicker:

Ok who had 8 minutes for claims of the leftest conspiracy of the universities?

i'd have to see the study, but it seems to me that a plausible possibility for what's at work here is not so much diversity and immigration per se, but rather community stability. people still living in some town in the dakotas grew up there and will die there along with everybody else from there. in diverse and vibrant places, people are constantly shuffling around so one really doesn't know the neighbors and really does have less control over the political situation there.

in my experience of moving around to small towns, new people are always disruptive.

the tighter the community, the more the disruption.

ethnicity seemed to have little to do with it. the inability of people to accept change of any kind seemed to be everything.

to let people isolate themselves amongst their own kind will not make it any easier for them to deal with outsiders. i think the greater societal good is served by people having to cope with new people.

in my experience of moving around to small towns, new people are always disruptive.

the tighter the community, the more the disruption.

ethnicity seemed to have little to do with it. the inability of people to accept change of any kind seemed to be everything.

to let people isolate themselves amongst their own kind will not make it any easier for them to deal with outsiders. i think the greater societal good is served by people having to cope with new people.
Don't let facts and logic get in the way of hypocritical and supposedly non-existent (according to the study) racism.

Social capital is the ability of someone to interact within the society within societal norms and mores. It is often used in relation to schools, so I'll use that as an example.

We have two families. Family A has high social capital: they attend many school functions, know all of their childrens teachers, and have regular conversations about what is occuring in the classroom. They are familiar with the principal, and are often the family that will chaperone a field trip or help plan a fund raiser. They know other influential families. They have high social capital.

Family B has low social capital: they do not attend parent teacher conferences. They may know the teachers names, but, when at a function, rarely converse. They find out about school-related activities and what is happening in the classroom from their child. They have few friends, and most of those friends are not powerful in the community. They have low social capital.



as for the study, I am not surprised that people in big cities (which is where we will find more diversity) do not trust their neighbors. I don't trust mine. It does not matter what race they are, it has to do with the fact that I don't know most of them. In my building, I know 4 other people. On my street, I know 2 more. Cities don't function like small towns where you know your neighbor and everything about them. I'll have to see much more before I believe this.

not to mention, he still says it is beneficial in the long run.

Social capital is the ability of someone to interact within the society within societal norms and mores. It is often used in relation to schools, so I'll use that as an example....snip...as for the study, I am not surprised that people in big cities (which is where we will find more diversity) do not trust their neighbors. I don't trust mine. It does not matter what race they are, it has to do with the fact that I don't know most of them. In my building, I know 4 other people. On my street, I know 2 more. Cities don't function like small towns where you know your neighbor and everything about them. I'll have to see much more before I believe this.

not to mention, he still says it is beneficial in the long run.

I was thinking the same thing in terms of rural and urban communities. The more diverse the community, the more likely you will end up in a large city. Large cities also have many other social ills that result in feelings of isolation. I've lived in cities all my life. Neighbours who build communities within large cities (i.e. have high social capital) seem to be of all sorts of different races, according to my observations. On my block, we have the Sikh and the blonde white hippie who organise everything.

We have backyard Bollywood parties. With tofu hot dogs.

And yet certain posters contend that diversity is an end in itself?

I was thinking the same thing in terms of rural and urban communities. The more diverse the community, the more likely you will end up in a large city. Large cities also have many other social ills that result in feelings of isolation. I've lived in cities all my life. Neighbours who build communities within large cities (i.e. have high social capital) seem to be of all sorts of different races, according to my observations. On my block, we have the Sikh and the blonde white hippie who organise everything.

We have backyard Bollywood parties. With tofu hot dogs.

that sounds awesome.

I've seen it all. Immigrant neighborhoods struggle for many reasons: high mobility, low social capital, sometimes low cultural capital, isolationism (either imposed or not), etc.

My neighborhood (mind you, "neighborhood" here is not a typical neighborhood. Allston/Brighton has a population of 20,888 people) of Boston is made up of Korean immigrants, Brazilian immigrants, BU students, BC students, Harvard students, and Berklee students. We divide and socialize along those lines. I don't know my physical neighbors, but I know people who are a 15 minute walk away. Therefore, I don't trust my neighbors.

Read it and weep ('http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html')



Proven by someone who was expecting diversity to be a good and wholesome thing...

Question, question?

How come America is so kick ass after CENTURIES of diversity?

And yet certain posters contend that diversity is an end in itself?

I am a big proponent of multiculturalism. I don't see it as an end in itself. To me, it seems more like an inevitable result of globalisation. People who oppose such diversity are trying to stop a tidal wave with their bare hands.

that sounds awesome.

I've seen it all. Immigrant neighborhoods struggle for many reasons: high mobility, low social capital, sometimes low cultural capital, isolationism (either imposed or not), etc.

My neighborhood (mind you, "neighborhood" here is not a typical neighborhood. Allston/Brighton has a population of 20,888 people) of Boston is made up of Korean immigrants, Brazilian immigrants, BU students, BC students, Harvard students, and Berklee students. We divide and socialize along those lines. I don't know my physical neighbors, but I know people who are a 15 minute walk away. Therefore, I don't trust my neighbors.

I used to be like that. One day, I just stopped doing it. I started saying hi to my neighbours, introducing myself, asking to borrow stuff, lending stuff.

Me and my Sikh neighbour spend a lot of time fixing people's bikes for free on the sidewalk in front of our places. It's a good way to get to know the other people on your street. Beer always flows.

And the Bollywood parties with tofu dogs are incredibly awesome. Next time, I'm bringing east indian sweets.

Question, question?

How come America is so kick ass after CENTURIES of diversity?

Ronald Reagan's god-given magic.

Question, question?

How come America is so kick ass after CENTURIES of diversity?

Because RO conveniently left out this little piece of the article:

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.

America likely has succeeded by creating new identities after waves of immigration in the past that incorporated the immigrant's culture, or at least part of it, if Putnam is correct.

So how much money did he spend to figure out people are xenophobic?

Seriously, this probably was a fairly wasteful study financially.

Why didn't he just yell racial jokes and explitives and see who laughed the most?

I used to be like that. One day, I just stopped doing it. I started saying hi to my neighbours, introducing myself, asking to borrow stuff, lending stuff.

Me and my Sikh neighbour spend a lot of time fixing people's bikes for free on the sidewalk in front of our places. It's a good way to get to know the other people on your street. Beer always flows.

And the Bollywood parties with tofu dogs are incredibly awesome. Next time, I'm bringing east indian sweets.

Since I'm a student, there isn't much desire on my part or theirs to become friends (the immigrant population). They're middle aged, I'm 21. They sleep at night, I go to bars and vomit on their stoop.;)

Wait, so because people don't accept immigrants and newcomers right away, Diversity is harmful? Isn't it more that closeminded people are harmful to immigrants and newcomers, and that immigrants and newcomers will make closeminded people uncomfortable?

Wait, so because people don't accept immigrants and newcomers right away, Diversity is harmful? Egads! That must be it!
When Galileo released his findings, the people then didn't want to accept them. There was a lot of unrest and turmoil.
The conclusion: science is harmful.

Wait, so because people don't accept immigrants and newcomers right away, Diversity is harmful? Isn't it more that closeminded people are harmful to immigrants and newcomers, and that immigrants and newcomers will make closeminded people uncomfortable?

Yes, which means that it's harmful to the sensibilities of the white Christian close-minded people, making it inherently harmful and bad. And off to Gitmo with you for questioning them.

pfft...you needed a study to find this out...I just found out from my immigrant parents...But by the time the immigrants have kids (like me) they'll be assimilated into North American culture...so don't worry about t3h 3b1l Imm1grantsz

I hope this doesn't become another "Bowling Alone." It's completely wrong, but it never goes away. It comes up in every American political science class because professors have this perverse desire to get students excited about it before tearing it to shreds. Putnam's methodology, his definitions, even his most basic assumptions are horribly, horribly flawed.

But he just won't go away.

Social capital is the ability of someone to interact within the society within societal norms and mores. It is often used in relation to schools, so I'll use that as an example.

We have two families. Family A has high social capital: they attend many school functions, know all of their childrens teachers, and have regular conversations about what is occuring in the classroom. They are familiar with the principal, and are often the family that will chaperone a field trip or help plan a fund raiser. They know other influential families. They have high social capital.

Family B has low social capital: they do not attend parent teacher conferences. They may know the teachers names, but, when at a function, rarely converse. They find out about school-related activities and what is happening in the classroom from their child. They have few friends, and most of those friends are not powerful in the community. They have low social capital.



as for the study, I am not surprised that people in big cities (which is where we will find more diversity) do not trust their neighbors. I don't trust mine. It does not matter what race they are, it has to do with the fact that I don't know most of them. In my building, I know 4 other people. On my street, I know 2 more. Cities don't function like small towns where you know your neighbor and everything about them. I'll have to see much more before I believe this.

not to mention, he still says it is beneficial in the long run.

I am a small town guy. I never understood why people in big cities do not know the people in their neighborhood. I can understand that you cant know everyone in a big city, but why not at least get to know everyone in your building or everyone on the block?

Diversity is not harmful, but it isn't necessarily useful. The August/September issue of Scientific American Mind had an article by Elizabeth Mannix and Margaret A. Neale that said diversity did not necessarily improve group performance. The conclusion was that while diverse people were good to have on a team, simply having three people of different races or genders did not insure that.
There is a summary of the article here (http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?articleID=000BE495-D00E-14C7-8DCC83414B7F0000). You have to pay to see the entire thing.

Because RO conveniently left out this little piece of the article:

America likely has succeeded by creating new identities after waves of immigration in the past that incorporated the immigrant's culture, or at least part of it, if Putnam is correct.

That only happens, as you managed to leave out, when people find a common identity, as we did in WW II.

In an age of multiculturalism, where a unified identity is frowned on, the professor himself notes that the long term effects will be hard to come by.

Thanks for stepping right into the trap.

That only happens, as you managed to leave out, when people find a common identity, as we did in WW II.

In an age of multiculturalism, where a unified identity is frowned on, the professor himself notes that the long term effects will be hard to come by.

Thanks for stepping right into the trap.

I do not think that anyone frowns on unified identity. America is the melting pot of the world. The American way of life is the product of many diverse peoples becoming one group that lives more or less harmoniously. E Pluribus Unum is even on our coins.

OK, i like diversity. If everyone was the same then we'd be just like the Sneeches.

I am a small town guy. I never understood why people in big cities do not know the people in their neighborhood. I can understand that you cant know everyone in a big city, but why not at least get to know everyone in your building or everyone on the block?

I live in a suburban area and I don't know everyone on my street...I don't really see much need to do so.

I am a small town guy. I never understood why people in big cities do not know the people in their neighborhood. I can understand that you cant know everyone in a big city, but why not at least get to know everyone in your building or everyone on the block?

well, in my home town, I don't know much of my street, but many of my neighbors are renters, so there really isn't a point.

As for my building, I'm friends with my downstairs neighbors and know the upstairs neighbors (I knew one of them before I moved in). Right now, since it is almost entirely students in the building, much of it is sublet for the next few months untill september. The building holds 24 people total, of which I know 10 fairly well.

My street is probably 20-30 such buildings. To get in, you need to buzz in. Most people will not buzz up a stranger for obvious safety issues for both them and the other tenants of the building. My one street literally has around 300 people. It is impossible to know all of them.

For my building, we do plan on getting to know all of them, mostly because we are trying to get a building-wide party going. But in many of my friends buildings, there are older people (up to 70 years old). There simply isn't much of a reason to try.