Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Diversity and trust.

Bleak news from Harvard political scientist (and author of Bowling Alone) Robert Putnam:

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".

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. "They don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people and they don't trust institutions," said Prof Putnam. "The only thing there's more of is protest marches and TV-watching."

Yesterday's Financial Times has the story.

Comments:
Grisly, especially in how plausible it sounds. Let's hope a lot of that is heavy spinning from the reporter/reviewer. Anyway, the study subjects clearly were sucky mean people who didn't trust amidst diversity only because they weren't celebrating it.
 
My reading of this is that what we (humans) really want are people with whom we have important things in common. What "things" they are will vary from person to person, be they ethnicity or religion or politics or hobbies, but basically we want people around us who can share our experiences or at least listen to us talk about them (and relate to them).

Social diversity is fundamentally opposed to this human desire.

Consequently, if our neighbors don't have important things in common with us, then rather than trying to relate to them on their terms, we don't interact with them at all (and, if possible, find people who aren't our neighbors with whom we can interact, and if not possible, then we watch TV).

All of this makes perfect sense to me. Why would anyone expect anything different?
 
I'm not sure why social diversity is fundamentally opposed to the desire you describe. And I'm not sure I want to be surrounded by people like me. For example, I don't cook particularly well, and I like a variety of food, so I am happier living in a community with diverse populations from areas with tasty cuisines.

Anyhoo, see the next post, re important other aspects of Putnam's recent work.
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]