Welcome To The Balkans

Untitled document

This is pretty disturbing. A new study by  Harvard University political scientist Robert Putnam say that the more diverse a community is the less likely it is that anyone in the community will trust anyone else.

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 told the Financial Times he had 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."

Prof Putnam found trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history", but his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where "diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians' picnic".

At the risk of pointing out what I think is the obvious here, what this says to me is that encouraging separate ethnic/cultural/religious identities is counter-productive to a healthy society. The wages of multiculturalism is a destruction of the cultures involved all the way around. Putnam hints at this, but in a politically correct way.

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".

In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: "What we shouldn't do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us."

Where America used to excel was in the melting pot, before the onset of multiculturalism. Was it perfect? Heck no. It took years for society to adapt to successive waves of immigrants. But it did so by encouraging an American identity over any other differences. I think we, as a nation, started to slip when people started calling themselves a [ethnic/cultural/religious]-American. That hyphenation began the slide. Putnam is right in a way. The new us we should construct is the old us we used to be.

This entry was posted in Civilization, The Ivory Tower. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Welcome To The Balkans

  1. old_dawg says:

    All of the evidence (India, Japan, China) is that non-diverse populations tend to excel, rather than the liberal claptrap that “diversity equals excellence.” In fact, the more diverse (balkanized) a population is, the more likely it is to – balkanize. Amazing, what?
    The integration of unique ethnic groups into a common American culture and vision can be accomplished without denigrating the history and culture of its contributors. However, this can only be done when people see them selves as Americans (not African, Italians, Mexican, Irish, whatever) first.

  2. Matthew says:

    I have a very hard time with the statement that India and China are non-diverse populations. China is made up of several different ethnic identities including Manchu, Mongolian, Uigher, Tibetan, etc. and several different major languages including Cantonese and various forms of Mandarin. India is even more diverse with a half dozen official languages and hundreds of ethnic and religious identities. India, a majority Hindu country, has more Muslims than any other country in the world, not to mention the millions of Sikhs, Buddhists and Christians.

  3. Gaius says:

    But China has a unifying identity despite the non-homogenous population. Of course, it’s more complicated than that.

  4. Pingback: The Baltimore Reporter

Comments are closed.