John Leo, on the “troubling” diversity research being withheld by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, whose “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”:
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€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.
Again, notice what Leo — and even Putnam — are saying here: “diversity” as a socially-engineered construct has proven harmful, not because people hate or fear other races or ethnicities, but rather because the project itself has been directed from within a social milieu that has given short shrift to assimilation and nationalism (which, as I’ve noted elsewhere, is important for its legal parmeters with respect to a kind of group belonging).
It is my contention that the “melting pot” — a metaphor for a cultural homogeneity that is, perhaps counter-intuitively, defined by its breadth of localized differences — is the best remedy for the kind of “bad” race consciousness that gives rise to racism.
And to that end, cultural pressure toward assimilation — which, when not viewed as some kind of aggressive or hegemonic white Christian ploy to rob ethnic or racial groups of their individual identities, but rather as the best way for a society built around self-government and individual rights to construct itself in a manner consistent with promoting the individualism that is at the core of its founding ideals — and even toward “nationalism” (which is not to be confused with nativism, or ultranationalism), would merely be a reflection of a social contract working to assert itself, often against policies that, though well-intentioned, are decidedly not in its best interest.
Or, to put it another way, if we can begin to see assimilation as the structural pre-condition for promoting individualism — and recognize that assimilation does not mean the destruction of cultural uniqueness, but rather represents an addition of that uniqueness to a “cultural sameness” that is remarkable for its ability to expand and accommodate and redefine itself based upon what it absorbs — we will no longer feel the need to fight against that which gives us the best hope for the kind of racial and ethnic admixture that makes the US so unique in the first place.
As a social project, today’s “diversity” movement — insofar as it is based around a shallow and cosmetic idea of injecting “differences” into group dynamics, often by legislative and (sadly) legal force — is bound to fail, precisely because it privileges a person’s membership in a group over his or her uniqueness as an individual. It is a force, in short, that works against assimilation — and therefore, if you accept my kernel assertion, against the ideals favored by our country’s founders, (ideals that, it turns out, enabled us to self-correct a number of early abuses by appeals to law).
And as Putnam’s research shows, in the short and medium term, the currently-favored iteration of “diversity” is proving socially disastrous.
And though in the long-term a comfort level develops, I suspect that is because it is in the long term that the insistence of the “diversity” project is melted away by familiarity — a familiarity that could have been achieved in the short term and medium term had the cultural forces governing us been allowed to encourage assimilation, the natural state of being for a society built around the primacy of the individual.
****
Note: this is, so far as I can remember, the first attempt I’ve made to put the diversity debate in such terms, so I’m really struggling to give voice to certain ideas. I am aware that in trying to do so, there’s the possibility that I have not made a point clearly, and that there are those who will seize upon this and attempt to label me a “hater.”
To them I say, take your high-dudgeon, smear it on a soft pretzel, and have yourself a nice, self-satisfied snack.
To others interested in this topic — and specifically, in what is the best strategy for ridding ourselves of the kinds of racial and ethnic divisions that many of us find to be harmful, both socially and legally? — I welcome your critiques and rebuttals and comments, all of which I will continue to incorporate into my thinking in one way or another.
(h/t Stoo Pid)
But when short-term political gains are available through the non-assimilation of these ethnic/religious/national groups, you know those that stand to benefit are going to fight hammer and tong to make sure they don’t assimilate.
You’ve said it quite clearly. The melting pot. If people don’t buy into the idea, let them ship themselves off to some place where their rich ethnic focus is the norm. I celebrate all cultures and identities that are moral and legal. Nobody loves Cinco de Mayo more than I, nor St Pattie’s day and even Casimir Pulaski Day locally.
Throat-slitting cultures, not so much. And pre-emptively, spare me the “Christians are the worst mass murderers of all”. Not today, not here, and not anyone I know. What my great-great-great granddaddy said to yours, I’m not really interested in.
JeffG
The other day I heard Robert Locke on the radio talking about “the great pause” in regards to halting unchecked immigration into America between 1924 and 1965 (I’ve found his article discussing its affect on poverty here). In the radio interview, he said that this pause also had the effect of allowing the masses of new, non-English speaking immigrants, the chance to assimilate. Within two or three generations, these groups were fluent in English and had moved into solid middle class.
CA Gov Arnold was pretty much politically incorrect the other day when addressing the National Assoc. of Hispanic Journalists
As if other non-English speaking immigrants are NOT busy working?? (in So. Cal there are very large ex-pat communities of Vietnamese, Cambodian, Armenian, Russian, Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Iranian … all seem able to find time to become fluent in English)
I like living in So Cal specifically because of the cultural diversity. Foods, music, entertainment. However, without one particular salad dressing to combine all the disparate components of the salad (tossed salad v melting pot analogy), then its just a bowl of things. That dressing is English, and my first two suggestions would be Immigration policy (cutoff illegal immigration aggressively, streamline and limit legal immigration) and to make English the official national language (all governmental institutions conduct business ONLY in English…not multi-lingual voting materials, etc, all students graduating high school must be fluent in English).
The important concept is to recognize that assmilation works both ways.
American culture began as an offshoot of the British, and almost immediately began to diverge from its roots — partly as a self-selection effect, as those dissatisfied with the way things were in the Old Country were much more likely to move than the comfortable, and partly under the influence of other societies it came in contact with, both those found on the new continent and the extended versions of European societies who were settling the New World at the same time. Since then we have absorbed large numbers of immigrants from societies that vary widely in their cultural mores from those of the native Brits, and the result is a culture that preserves, in its deep roots, many of the attributes of its main progenitor, but is in many ways barely recognizable as a derivative.
It is precisely an evolutionary process. New immigrants’ cultural verities rub against those of the already-present majority; if those practices and (heh) paradigms turn out to be valuable to the majority culture they will be adopted, perhaps in modified form. If they are not valuable, or are less valuable than those already practiced, they will be rejected. This does not mean that the culture of the majority is optimum in any absolute sense; it does mean that, having run the process for well over two centuries, we can confidently say that the majority culture at least occupies a fairly deep local minimum in cultural phase-space, and it will require a major perturbation to drive it out of that — a force that is much more likely to smash it, scattering the bits all over to settle in other, smaller local minima, than it is to drive it toward a theoretical better place that may or may not exist.
This means that the perceived force of assimilation will be much larger on the immigrants than it is on the majority. The majority, having already assimilated many other cultures, has eliminated a lot of dross and redundancy by winnowing through practices and selecting the “best” ones, that is, the ones that produce a stronger culture. The minority is still practicing things that the majority have tried and found wanting, and will have to (most uncomfortably) modify their practices to align with the majority or find themselves permanently weaker and less effective than they could be.
The demand of the “multiculturalists” is that this process not be permitted to work — that immigrants and members of minority cultures should (must!) be isolated from the majority, who are obligated to yield to the minority’s practices. This means that the minority is not permitted to benefit from the experimentation that has already been done, and thus remains weaker; and that the majority is compelled to re-adopt at least a superficial version of practices it has already tried and found wanting, and is thereby weakened — a lose-lose proposition.
There are three main groups of people promoting multiculturalism. Two of them are “honest” in the sense that they are promoting it out of a belief that it is, in fact, a better way: the faux-multiculturalists, who do not, in fact, actually believe in other cultures, considering their own ways absolute and definitive, and the neo-Marxists, who persist in the belief that there is a much deeper optimum in cultural phase-space nearby, and that the way to reach it is to forcefully splash the culture out of its local minimum, to coalesce happily in Socialist nirvana. In both cases they are tools in the hands of the third group, who are not honest — people who aspire to be the biggest frog in the puddle, and care not how small or polluted the puddle may be so long as they can sit on their log and croak without fear of dissent. If we are to start a campaign to root multiculti out, we need to be careful to identify which group we are contending against at any given moment. Tactics that work against one won’t work against the other, and in many cases may weaken our case rather than strengthen it.
Regards,
Ric
I share your views. Assimilation is an individual’s choice and our historical laissez-faire allowance thereof has always been the pragamatic course. If we conclude multi-ethinicity is beneficial then how/why did it occur naturally from our country’s very beginnings at the pace of individual participants in port cities of Boston and New York? Didn’t happen by writ of law, which I believe is feel-goodism generally born from the predilections of the liberal previledged class – the bourgeoisie – who segegrate themselves moreso than any other class.
Liberal-tinkerism is the new crack cocaine.
what is the best strategy for ridding ourselves of the kinds of racial and ethnic divisions …
I can’t give you a “best” of anything but here’s a different idea. Start with the churches. Get a black church and a white church of the same demomination to switch pastors one Sunday a month. There are no disparate racial groups that should be in agreement more than those in Christian churches. The idea is not to divirsify the preaching but to build agreement across racial lines. Maybe both congregations would be pleasantly suprised at how much they do have in common. Christian churches were in the forefront fighting against slavery and for civil rights. Maybe they can be convinced the job is not completely done as long as there is still racial animosity in America.
Diversity is racism by another name. If a human being can bring something positive to the party based soley on race, ethnicity, gender, blah, blah, then it follows that he can also bring something negative.
We’ve tended to romanticize the melting pot. My father was first generation, and as one who waas melted, he assured me that there was nothing romantic about it. Strong cultural forces rewarded assimilation and stigmatized separation. Bigotry was commonplace, but it tended to force the “other” into the American stew.
And, of course, the engine was and is the American economy. To thrive requires a certain set of skills independent of class, race, etc. And money tends to homogenize. Everyone’s is green.
Bad diversity: Muslims wanting to enforce shari’a law in the United States.
Good diversity: A few weeks ago, some Korean friends and I were wondering how kimchi would taste on a cheeseburger. We haven’t tried it yet. Soon!
No, Andrea, don’t do it. Kimchi is Korean chemical weapons, banned by treaty in all civilized countries.
I like kimchi. Well, certain varieties anyway. I’ll admit that some types are pretty aromatic.
kimchi be diverse
icanhaswithcheezburger?
no, Andrea, no
Andrea – Your digestive tract would certainly prefer that you skip the
The fascination with “diversity” — and please note that the diversity mongers never state diversity-of-what — comports well with the interests of statists in general, whether of the right or the left.
It is a sort of divide and conquer approach adopted by the governing classes toward their own populations.
The prerogatives of a governing class can be severely limited when faced by a coherent population with strong internal bonds and shared views and goals — at least when the government wants to do something unpopular.
On the other hand, a fragmented population, particularly when there are welfare state goodies to be divided up and handed out, is susceptible to internal rivalries and power struggles, and ripe for manipulation by the clever governor.
It is, on my view, fairly clear that the diversity fad, much like state-imposed feminism, and welfare generally is a very effective technique for the modern state to interject itself into the traditionally stronger bonds of community, marriage and family, and reinforce it’s own power thereby.
By and large, at least in my very limited experience, the people who are most enthusiastic about “diversity” et al, are either members of the governing class, or people who aspire to become members, or who at least identify with the governing class.
They have no interest in promoting better relations between members of the public at large. Quite the contrary.
BTW: Kimchee on a burger would probably work fine. Kimchee with beef is pretty much of a barbeque standard.
The cheese though … hmmm, I’m not so sure about that.
Diversity of what is the fundamental problem that many of us have with the whole diversity movement. In practice, it has little to do with actual diversity, focusing on an external structure of inclusion of special groups, while absolutely abhoring actual diversity of thought and opinion. In the modern diversity they simply shoot for members of the special groups – ie. a lesbian that is half asian and half black would be an ideal. Were this same person to think conservative thoughts, or be a Republican, they would be savaged.
Two disparate and incomplete examples to chew on:
In my city, the Mexican invasion has resulted in the local Libtards spraining their elbows while patting themselves on the back re the city’s “diversity”. This invasion has displaced 5 out of every six blacks who lived here 30 years ago, and no one to the left of me has even noticed this fact.
Machismo is an integral part of the Mexican culture, but anathema to our Left, who looks the other way. PETA pickets the annual County Fair rodeo, but not the annual Mejicano rodeo, which is a lot harder on the animals.
[…] emphases] I wrote over the weekend about the role of individualism and assimilation in defending liberalism, so I won’t rehash […]
[…] written before on the failures of the “diversity” project revealed by Robert Putnam’s […]
[…] use it (be they left or right) to shut off entire arenas of expression, with the end game being to close off debate on a number of important policy questions. By making it difficult to discuss, for instance, both the viability and rectitude of a […]
[…] is, naturally, the inevitable next step in identity politics, whereby the multicultural establishment, peopled by what Peter Wood has called academic “diversiphiles,” manages to deconstruct […]
[…] I and others haven’t been arguing for years; but it’s nice to have data — well, additional data — available to back up what it would seem are rather commonsense […]
These days politics are not providing any good to people on earth. All thay can do right is filling their pockets.