I’ve written before on the failures of the “diversity” project revealed by Robert Putnam’s wide-ranging study, so I won’t rehash those arguments here at any length.
In short, Putnam’s research (Putnam, incidentally, is a progressive scholar and advocate for the diversity project that, though it is decidedly illiberal, in that it relies on forced central planning and often unwelcome social engineering, continues to be embraced by no fewer than 5 SCOTUS Justices as a compelling state interest) reveals that, at least in the short and mid-terms, “diversity,” as it is currently understood, leads to a kind of civic malaise.
My previous post on the study’s findings posits that the real failure of the diversity project is that it attempts to take place within a culture where sovereignty and nationalism have been unfairly (and unwisely) marginalized as quaint and oppressive, and replaced by a boutique multiculturalism and a kind of self-imposed cultural relativism that — while superficially compelling in the abstract — is, in its private moments, the cause of a pervasive social distrust that extends to the political sphere.
This distrust, I think it bears pointing out, comes not from any institutionalized racism: distrust, in “diverse” communities, is evident not only between different ethnicities but also within singular ethnic groups. Instead, what is lacking, according to Putnam — always the advocate — is “a new, broader sense of we.”
Of course, Putnam’s belief that Americans need a “new” broader sense of “we” is self-serving, given that it is “diversity” advocates (who, policy-wise, at least, have promoted a strictly superficial kind of diversity) who are responsible for deconstructing the “broader sense of we” that has already proven effective — national identity, and a commitment to the American project, which by itself represents the pinnacle of true diversity: a society of immigrants whose blending represents not so much a diminution of individual cultures as it does an ascendancy of the kind of cultural give and take required to effectively lay claim to pluralism. Libarlism notes, ostentatiously, that it is a construct by design — and that its primary organizing structure is individual liberty and equality under the law. And in the service of this construct, it requires of individual cultures some sacrifices to the larger organizing principle.
The “diversity” project, insofar as it has once again sought to foreground group differences (to “celebrate” them this time around — though in theory, this “celebration” is merely the flip side of the kind of essentialist thinking that gave us enforced segregation and such embarrassments as the one drop rule under previous policy prescriptions), flies in the face of the political construct laid out by the founders and subsequently fine-tuned, once women and blacks were embraced as full-fledged citizens, and race and sex were reduced to empirical categories, rather than social conditionals.
But invested social engineers are loath to surrender their pet projects, so the move to rehabilitate “diversity”, in light of Putnam’s findings, will almost certainly prove inventive. And in the Boston Globe’s “The downside of diversity,” we can begin to see the contours of the arguments that are taking shape:
[…] by drawing a portrait of civic engagement in which more homogeneous communities seem much healthier, some of Putnam’s worst fears about how his results could be used have been realized. A stream of conservative commentary has begun — from places like the Manhattan Institute and “The American Conservative” — highlighting the harm the study suggests will come from large-scale immigration. But Putnam says he’s also received hundreds of complimentary emails laced with bigoted language. “It certainly is not pleasant when David Duke’s website hails me as the guy who found out racism is good,” he says.
Note the rhetorical formulation here: the findings themselves, terrible as they may be for proponents of the “diversity” project, are problematic not only for what they say about the failed project itself, but for the kinds of people the findings could conceivably benefit, and for the ways in which the findings can conceivably be used by such people.
Not surprisingly, the people we need to be concerned about are “conservatives” — who will use the study’s findings to crack down on immigration, we’re told (even while, with a few exceptions, concerns about immigration focus on illegal immigration — and those who propose a moratorium on immigration claim to be doing so as a way toward fixing problems they argue are the result of years of illegal immigration overloading civic infrastructure), and to reinvigorate the kind of unreconstructed racism and bigotry being nurtured by the likes of David Duke.
And if that’s what the findings herald, perhaps we are better off fine tuning the diversity program rather than surrendering it to the nativists and bigots.
Or, to put it in a less obvious way — and the way proponents of this approach would prefer — the goals of the diversity program (harmony and social good through the enforced contact of “difference”) are enough to justify its continued existence, particularly when the alternative is a return to racism and bigotry. That it has failed thus far to produce the kinds of results it promised — and, in fact, seems to have created a social milieu of civic ennui and distrust — is less problematic than the alternative: a return to outward bigotry.
And so the project must push on — if only to prevent the wrong kinds of people from seizing upon its failures.
Of course, the argument implied here — in addition to relying on a ridiculous caricature of its opponents — sets up the kind of either/or scenario that is as insulting as it is intellectually bankrupt; and worse, it does so in order to carefully advance one of the most troublesome of progressive tropes: that “facts” and “proof” are themselves tools of the oppressor class — a way to maintain the status quo that progressives just know to be wrong. Under this emotionalist rhetorical paradigm, any scientific findings that give succor to the “status quo” are suspect. And when the findings themselves can no longer be viewed as suspect (having met the standards of academic and scientific rigor) — rationalism itself must necessarily be suspect.
That is, the premises from which progressives proceed, when they run afoul of empirical evidence disputing them, are not surrendered for more tenable premises (Putnam notes he has tried every variable to bring his findings into line with the Utopian vision progressive social engineering has promised us, and he fears being pilloried by his fellow travelers as the bearer of an “inconvenient truth” despite his continued commitment to a failed project); but rather, the faulty premises are retained and their defense redoubled, and the means by which the premises have been problematized are attacked.
When truth is contingent, than the means for determining truth is also contingent. Meaning that so long as the “consensus” agrees that “diversity” is both a worthwhile project (as well as a constitutionally viable one), support for it can only be pressured by empirical studies noting its failure.
Advocates of the diversity project, that is, are under no obligation to surrender their commitment to inconvenient truths. And that’s because the operable “truth” under which they proceed is the “fact” of their own righteousness and wisdom, and the depravity of their opponents motives.
Defending a failed premise, under these circumstances, becomes a badge of virtue; because there are larger truths that need to be serviced, chief among them, that a surrender to “conservatism” is a surrender to racist, nativism, and hate.
And no “inconvenient facts” can stand in the way of the “significance” of finishing the (social) story the “correct” way.
(h/t Defenseman Emeritus)
I remain amazed that anyone needed research to figure that out.
Who said academics research things that require research?
TW: zation Tribune,
Okay, seriously, now this thing is just messing with me.
Good point, MMS.
I’ve got your diverse tolerance right here.
the argument implied here…sets up the kind of either/or scenario that is as insulting as it is intellectually bankrupt…that a surrender to “conservatism†is a surrender to racist, nativism, and hate
You know, they really need to leave the black-and-white thinking to us conservatives. We’re so much BETTER at it than they are.
This distrust, I think it bears pointing out, comes not from any institutionalized racism
The distrust comes in part from the fact that Our Betters continually harp on the fact that people who come from different cultures are REALLY different. So different, you bigoted cracker, that you can’t possibly relate to them or feel their pain, so it’s ON with the kid gloves and we’ll have no lip from you.
It also can’t encourage trust among groups when Our Betters keep pointing out how much native enmity there is toward The Other: hey whitey, the brothas hate your guts because your great-great-great-great-great grandfathers owned slaves. Or not, but that’s beside the point. You resemble some of the folks who did, so that makes you guilty right there. You have no choice but to meekly endure their rage until your penance is paid.
Oh, and you black folks? The White Man wants nothing more than to Keep You Down, despite their protests to the contrary. So don’t trust them, and if they adopt black babies, they’ll turn them into Race Traitors.
You’re right, Jeff, academics like Putnam fail to realize that The Establishment against which they’ve rebelled for 40 years contained a perfectly legitimate “we” around which all groups could rally, regardless of national origin. They think that because some of the people who truly believed in The American Experiment were also racist (because of inherited traditions) that there was some kind of causal connection between the two.
I’ve heard more than one lefty sneeringly suggest that conservatives want to go back to the 50s, Jim Crow laws and all, when really we’d just like a bit more public morality, more maturity in public discourse, more honest-to-God patriotism, and less 1960s mentality. As if the hippies were the ones who pushed through Civil Rights.
Diversity isn’t a goal, it’s what we already have. UNITY needs to be the goal, and the only rallying point we need is the Constitution and the values enumerated therein.
TW: Dungannon RECENT; blamed if I know what that means.
“rationalism itself must necessarily be suspect”
The subtitle of Hayek’s The Counter-Revolution of Science is Studies on the Abuse of Reason. He makes a very good case concerning the Left’s appropriation of the language of natural science to develop a ‘new’ nomenclature (which he refers to as scientistic). The only area in which ‘reason’ is involved is in the development of theoretical end states having more to do with a faith based eschatology than empirical constructs.
IOW – they wuz stealing the language ab initio and they ain’t stopped yet.
My wife and I are friends with a couple who spend part of their year in Orlando, working an artist gig in EPCOT. The wife was unaware of “gay day” at the park and was shocked when she began to see vulgar tee shirts blossom one day when she had her 7 year-old daughter there with her (the park being fastidiously policed for such things the other 364 days of the year). During the course of that day, they were subject to sneers, dirty looks and not a few insults about “breeders” and such.
The Usual Suspects have no corner on the boorishness.
You’ve got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught
From year to year,
It’s got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You’ve got to be carefully taught.
hundreds of complimentary emails laced with bigoted language
It’s useful to imagine these things, in their hundreds.
Hundreds of emails complimenting an obscure professor for an unreleased study…
The only knowledge of which these hundreds of complimenters have is from a press account, not of the study, but of his reluctance to release it, his sadness at his failure to find a way to discredit it himself…
These hundreds of people who tracked down his address to compliment him for his public display of reluctance and sadness at bringing knowledge possibly useful to racists into this world…
Hundreds so pervaded by bigotry that they couldn’t help but throw a little “Stand up to them college Jews!” or “Ship those niggers back! It’s science!” into their compliments to a college professor for his sadness and reluctance to give succor to racism…
Hundreds.
…
Let’s see fifty.
A mere curiosity just two years ago, the progressive blogosphere has gone mainstream. But Cooper sees a problem.
One thing for sure, these people know how to use their laptops.
Let’s see fifty.
That’s being slightly too literalist, pyschologizer.
“hundreds” (in newspeak) = “many”
“many” (in newspeak) = “more than a few”
“few” (oldspeak) = minimum of 3
Therfore, “hundreds” > 3, so 4 is sufficient for “proof”.
I still wonder if even four could actually be produced.
Sorry – I got distracted…
My guess would be that the “marginalized” groups are holding out for their own brand.
My guess would be that the “marginalized†groups are holding out for their own brand.
I know we show-tunes posters are.
There’s a place for us…
Riffing on Rick Ballard’s #11:
“Some say” – “The bunch of us in the newsroom feel”
“Critics” – Leakers; appointees from prior administrations that are still in place
The ends justify the means – even when the means aren’t making any progress towards the ends.
Stuck inside this fleeting moment
Tucked away where no one owns it
Wrapped up in a haste
And by mistake got thrown away
I was going more for a West Side Story vibe for Sarah. Those are those Runaway Train guys. I thought they were a little too Bon Joviesque, just based on that one song. I will iTunes this one later. I am so sick of every song I have. It would be very cool if JG could organize a music category with all that work everyone did on the 80s songs and pull in that 70s stuff he talks about sometimes – you know, that Only Lonely lady or whatever.
a way to maintain the status quo that progressives just know to be wrong.
No doubt. There’s not much rational about today’s progressives. It’s more of a religion, or cult. The more rational left long ago.
“rationalism itself must necessarily be suspect.”
I understand that you are using the term rationalism in the modern “reason is good/ faith and dogma bad” sense, but in a way their response is a perfect illustration of Cartesian/continental rationalism (classical rationalism if you will).
The have decided that their vision of diversity is good, and is a priori knowledge. That is to say it is an expression of innate moral knowledge unsullied by the influence of the societal institutions and relationships that produced the rest of us hateful bigots. And no stupid empiricist is going to argue them out of their position.
After all who do you think they are going to believe, a researcher who has tested their ideas in the real world-whose faculties can be blinded to the truth by illusions such as economic progress and social cohesiveness-or their own pristine concience?
SarahW and happyfeet: Just for you;
There’s a place for us!
Somewhere, a place for us!
Multi skin tones and cultures there,
Wait for us somewhere!
There are teas for us!
Somewhere are teas for us!
Fawning white people treat us fair,
Apologize, somewhere!
SOMEDAY!!! SOMEHOW!! SOMEWHERE!!!
happyfeet,
Go beyond the MTV video. You’ll be glad you did. That album kicks ass.
And dude was banging Winona Ryder, before she turned to a life of crime, so, you know, points for that.
Thing is, that’s pretty darn close to what Sondheim was getting at I would guess, but still, nice work.
I forgot about that. Winona Ryder carries a LOT of weight with me.
First,
Hard to blieve Jeff got through that one without mentioning a certain perfesser of recent vintage.
Second, I like Grave Dancer’s Union, but the three discs before that — Made To Be Broken, While You Were Out… and Hang Time were all superior, imho. Certainly much less Bon Jovi-esque.
Third, I think we all know Wynona Ryder carries weight in all the right places.
tw: moulded reaches. Well, Made To Be Broken was produced by Husker Du’s Bob Mould, so yeah.
What is meant by ‘diversity’, and why should a word be worshipped so? I do not not want diversity in traffic laws; i.e., I do not want one man saying drive on the right as another says drive on the left, that is what we do in my country.
Sarah, bloody lovely. ‘South Pacific’ has a lot of lessons in lyrics, does it not?
“Comment by Eric J on 8/6 @ 1:45 pm #
The ends justify the means – even when the means aren’t making any progress towards the ends.”
Lovely, Eric. Really, I like how that is said. How about we add “The ends justify the means, even if the ends are those that the current adminstration, or anyone else, doesn’t want to arrive at? I’ve worked for those ends all my life! What about me?”
Sarah(#8)-
“You’ve got to be carefully taught.”
If you really want to be scared… just talk to any “primary” (grades 1-4) teacher.
T/W: reichs labeled—
1)The “Pre-Bush” Eternal Utopia
2)The “Dark Ages”
3)Hillary’s Bloom
Rather “subtle”… huh?
Putnam’s research didn’t show that diversity had failed. It showed that diversity makes people less gullible.
Less gullible, less trusting, less “inclusive,” less invested in civic togetherness.
Working like a charm, it is.
Were did you find these informations?
How do you use dropshipping?