Noted Harvard social scientist Robert Putnam recently published the results of a major study with surprising findings: that community diversity is linked to relatively lower levels of key other measures of civic engagement and healthy community involvement. The Boston Globe article refers to him as the “bearer of bad news” – and he faces the perhaps unwelcome role of liberal scholar providing research supporting conservative devaluation of diversity.
IT HAS BECOME increasingly popular to speak of racial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.
But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.
Conservative groups have already picked up on this story (Putnam says, “It certainly is not pleasant when David Duke’s website hails me as the guy who found out racism is good…”) and no doubt will continue to use this as fodder in their tactics of discrimination. A more important question is, what lies behind Putnam’s findings? And perhaps the biggest questions will be, how do we quantify the greater BENEFITS of diversity? And how do we find other ways of overcoming the lower social capital (low voter turnout, low civic engagement, low charitable contributions, etc.) that can be more likely to appear in places like urban neighborhoods?
“Diversity, at least in the short run,” Putnam writes, “seems to bring out the turtle in all of us.” In the short run, indeed; let’s be mindful of the long run.
Political correctness has replaced the great American melting pot with the American gumbo. As this has happened we have lost our American identity of common values. This naturally led to what the good Harvard Professor is seeing. If nobody needs to become an American then nobody needs to act like an American by becoming civicly engaged. I didn’t need a PhD(Piled High and Deeper) from Harvard to figure this out.
<
p>
Nothing good comes of state mandated diversity. Let us judge not by color of skin or other outward appearances but by content of character and ability.
Only someone with no hope of attaining that level of credential would find it amusing to crap on scholarship.
<
p>
But I’m with ya EaBo on the melting pot thing. I can’t wait to fire up the ole m.p. again. Have you gotten the memo yet? I’ve been selected at the Model Patriot you and the nation will now be emulating. Cuz you know the opposite of state mandated diversity (you there! get more Mexican! NOW!) is state mandated conformity.
state mandated conformity. I merely made the reference that we had a higher rate of civic engagement when the American dream meant becoming an American.
<
p>
I am the child of an immigrant. So don’t pull the immigrant card on me.
<
p>
Oh and I think I could attain a PhD with no problem, I just find no need to. If you must know I’m a duly qualified Mensan, although not dues paying. I find it phony when people hide behind degrees that’s all.
And, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner for the funniest comment ever on BMG! Congratulations to EaBoClipper!
I think I’m flattered.
We’ll send you a free BMG t-shirt and a gift certificate for a case of Sam. That’s more than you’ll ever get from Mensa!
By Sam I imagine you mean the Brewer Patriot and not Sam’s Choice cola from WalMart
The brewer-patriot and early Masshole.
i suppose the new surveillance system is gumming up the works a bit.
<
p>
p.s. Can you back up this interesting assertion with fact, or even some really good fake science?
Also, I was always under the impression that The American Dream meant simply “making it by the sweat of one’s brow”, up by ones bootstraps via the meritocracy, etc. Am I incorrect? Your definition seems to accommodate only non-Americans, since Americans are by definition already Americans, and have no need of “becoming Americans”. Has even The American Dream been outsourced and off-shored? Is it unavailable to me (I’m an American citizen)?
i’d like to see how the researcher controlled for economics and generation. i can easily believe that some of the most diverse areas are crappy low rent areas that many immigrants and/or discriminated against groups put up with until they can work out something better. Therefore it isn’t diversity that is the problem, but a happenstance of who is forced to inhabit the lowest eschelons at this time. not long ago these were irish or italian slums in some of our cities…
<
p>
Further, new immigrants often respond to new cultures (turtle effect) much differently than their kids who are raised in the new culture. Which group is he speaking of? Any “turtle response” will be exacerbated by crime that may exist in the stressed-out areas they may have to live in. Whether a person chose to move to the new place or was compelled by economics or other factors probably also has a lot to do with their interest in participating in society. Civic engagement is a life-threatening thing in some countries. It may take a lifetime to feel safe enough to participate here.
<
p>
Finally, I would like to know just how he defines “diversity”. Does he rely on some skin color criterion, or the person’s country of origin, or the person’s economic status, or the person’ sexual orientation, or the person’s age, or whether they’re left handed, or…
<
p>
*disclaimer: may immediate family members are from north america, south america and europe. for me personally, “diversity” has been a very good thing indeed.
Accoding to the Globe article, he defined diversity as racial and yes, he controlled for income and about 20 other factors.
<
p>
You do make a good point about certain ethnicities being reluctant to participate in politics. I hope, but can’t say for sure, that the author looked at neighborhoods which overwhelmingly consisted of one racial minority, such as Hispanic communities in Texas, or black Roxbury, or some Asian areas.
<
p>
Frankly, I belive this study, both because of the credentials of the author (= not some conservative fruit loop), and from my own experience. I grew up in Brookline, a fairly diverse commmunity (especially back in the 80s), and I have clear memories of the diverse high school cafeteria: with a few exceptions, the black kids all sat together, the asians sat together (and apparently subdivided into Koreans, Chinese, etc), etc.
the adults in Brookline are amongst the most involved anywhere in the state.
<
p>
Now statistically, it might be that only the retired/rich who can afford to be involved are so, whereas those working class schlubs aren’t tuned in. I don’t know the data, but I wouldn’t be surprised that the percentage of home ownership in Town Meeting is higher than Brookline as a whole.
<
p>
Kids self segregate everywhere, and it’s worthy of tons of academic study in and of itself. Does it relate to lack of community involvement as adults? No I dear.
I haven’t read this study, or even read the article, but I’ve read a lot of Putnam before. I would hope, though, that his definition of social capital, and his obsession with community organizations over friendship/family networks has changed since his pre-Internet studies. Is it really objectively better to go to a church picnic than to join a message board of people with similar interests? Is bowling in a league with strangers objectively better than throwing a few frames with old college buddies? I’m not convinced.
because no one will scam your fries and beer from you while you’re busy with that damn 7-10 split. that may sound anti-social, not wanting to share fries, but isn’t it just as anti-social to scam a person’s fries? they do share shoes though, in the bowling ally. a sort of temporary community shoe exchange. well, so then, he may have a point after all.
Putnam’s full article: http://www.blackwell…
…anything that comes out of the social sciences, but the discussion above regarding the “melting pot” made me LOL.
<
p>
As far as I can tell, the “melting pot” doesn’t exist in the USofA, and likely never has. The melting pot concept seems to be nothing more than a public relations phrase that was fed to school children in social studies courses in the USofA in at least the 1960s, which is when I first ran across it. Maybe also before and after.
I’m rather proud that America is distinct from other nations in our long tradition of (mostly) welcoming diverse peoples. Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty bear witness that we were not going to be a land only for descendants of the English settlers of Jamestown and Plymouth. And we don’t have an icky criterion, like Germany for example, on “blood” determining American-ness. So let’s not totally dismiss the American Melting Pot. I think there’s some level of validity to it, compared with most other countries.
<
p>
…my spouse (and his mother and father) were from West Germany. But, shortly after they arrived in New Britsky, CT, the mother was hit by the Polish residents there with “German Whore.” And the parents of one of my spouse’s anglo friends didn’t even allow allow them to play with each other when they were children
<
p>
I’m sorry, but the idea of the US being a melting pot is a Quatsch (Preussich), a Schmarrn (Bayrisch), in other words, cow manure. Am I allowed to say here “bullshit”?
Again…
let’s not totally dismiss the American Melting Pot. I think there’s some level of validity to it.
There are plenty of good experiences to counter the negative one you cite. We remember bad ones better because they hurt so much.
it’s not all or nothing
<
p>
…Ja oder Nein, but it really would be helpful if those who believe that the “melting pot” has anything to do with reality would provide evidence that it has anything to do with reality.
<
p>
On the theme of the post, it really would be nice if Putnam were to get down into the Agora and defend his work. Just because he can get a major publisher to publish his work isn’t much of an imprimatur. They will publish anything that sells.
Putnam’s actually blasted for doing more advocacy than a lot of people think academics should. The Globe article touched on this coming from academics (mostly conservative) and conservative groups, but I remember he got grief for being overly political even around the time that Bowling Alone was coming out. Does a touch of activism or an opinion about what’s right and wrong make this less of a scholarly work?
The only people on this continent who were unrestrainedly welcoming to new arrivals were many groups of Native Americans. How’d that work out for them?
<
p>
My grandparents arrived to a Boston that had signs on the door that said “No dogs or Irish allowed”. However, they were there despite very poor English skills. The Irish got crack at what in most countries are the hardest jobs: public service. I hope I don’t have to detail for you that historic domination of 20th Century Mass. politics by the Irish and Italians. They didn’t get a red carpet, but they got an education, work, and legal status.
<
p>
Compare that to most European countries that accept foreigners under the title of “guest workers”, work them until they wear out, and send them back home. Countries where you can be born there and still not receive citizenship.
<
p>
The American record of treating immigrants is not something to be proud of (and our ancestors had it easy compared to immigrants from East Asia). However, that is because the United States has a record of accepting immigrants.
what the Germans did to Poland would you be big “Polish ” fan, raj?
I’m half Italian, 25% Irish, 25% Portuguese. My wife is half Italian, 25% Polish, and 25% unknown [a grandfather adopted, unknown tree prior].
<
p>
That’s pretty dang melted, is it not? We celebrate all of our heritage at different times [admittedly, Polish the least and Portuguese only when we visit family in New Bedford], through food, festivals, language, tourism [a total of about 21 months time spent in our heritage countries], and so forth.
<
p>
“Melting Pot” a crock? Hardly. Has America been welcoming of immigrants? Nope. Do we eventually learn to accept them, and fold them into our society? Yes, if only when the next different-skinned group shows up.
I don’t have time right now to read the article or try to find more on the study, but the thing that immediately comes to mind is this: is Putnam actually showing — indeed, is he even claiming to show — some sort of causative relation between greater diversity and lower civic engagement? At least from the quotation you’ve pulled from the Globe, it sounds like the reporter is inferring causation, but that’s such a common fallacy to fall into that I don’t take that to necessarily indicate Putnam’s claiming anything more than correlation.
<
p>
I have no difficulty believing that there’s a negative correlation between cultural or ethnic diversity and civic engagement, but I think it would be very hard to find strong evidence for increases in the former causing decreases in the latter.
When we say “diversity,” do we mean a mixture of ethnicities in an area (what I assume he means)… or do we mean a high number of one or two minority groups (i.e. “Wow, China is filled with so many Asian minorities!) I mean, does the level of civic engagement decrease in areas that are (say) by and large latino relative to areas that are a mixture of African-American and latino etc.?
I had hoped that there would be intelligent and insightful discussion of this important article here. I am severely disappointed.
<
p>
Could we please have no more comments from anyone who has not read the article, or at least the Globe piece?
<
p>
This is why online forums do not count as a real form of social capital.
Because you didn’t find the discussion you wanted, you’re ready to throw the whole concept of online communities away?
<
p>
What about cancer survivor forums? Eating disorder support groups? Are you arguing that there’s no value in these things?
i was at the same point of frustration as you, so i’m glad you spoke up.
<
p>
however,
<
p>
a. i agree with sco — from one thread it does not make sense to draw conclusions about online forums.
<
p>
b. why don’t you be constructive and make the first substantive comment?
…the Boston Glob has to write about what Putnam wrote. Let Putnam come here and defend his work.
<
p>
I’m serious about that.
given the source, suffice for you?
<
p>
“Social science” isn’t a science. It’s a joke.
<
p>
Is that enough?
Lector mundi dixit.
<
p>
We might as well just give up trying to understand people individually or collectively and rely on folklore, prejudice, intuition, and guesses.
we would all read the original research paper, as well as have an understanding of the ins and outs of the methodology used and other literature on the subject. Since I guess you’re the only one who has done that, you’d be doing the rest of us a great service by presenting your considered opinion on both the study and the Globe’s take on it. but if you can’t blow us out of the water with your brilliance, you might alternately consider whining and tweaking noses.
One doesn’t need to have read the article to make the broader point that commenting on something you don’t know about – and I mean the Putnam article specifically, not the topic of diversity generally – is the act of a small (because already made up) mind.
<
p>
Good call. But the fact that online forums allow people to mentally masturbate doesn’t make them any different from other social settings. Granted, hiding anonymously behind a username is lame, but even some of the regulars at BMG – who are at the point not exactly “anonymous” – have said way more than their piece on the Putnam story without having read it.
<
p>
I think the real problem with BMG that this discussion has pointed up is this: if you want to take the time to assemble your thoughts and do some research before posting, it’s likely to be days before you post, and by then no one will see what you’ve written. So if you’ve just gotta say something on diversity, then you say it, whether or not you’ve even skimmed the Putnam article.
where exactly (mine is downthread)? oh, here it is
I guess you didn’t bother to do the research you opine the lack of, and look to see that the person who you are trying to support is, indeed and anonymous poster. Well done!
No, I didn’t do research on the question of whether or not sounding off on an article one hasn’t read is good or bad. But it seemed like a point worth seconding. (I wasn’t supporting a person, as you write.)
<
p>
It also seems worth saying – thank you for pointing out the irony – that Quality Health Care is a lame, anonymous username. Still, he or she was stating a larger truth, not attacking anyone personally, so frankly the anonymity in this case isn’t quite as weak. But it’s still weak.
<
p>
As for bothering to do research on the Putnam article, I’m still in the middle of reading it. I just came to the post an hour ago, which is when I saw the link to what I had assumed would be an article that would cost me money, but is actually free.
<
p>
Can you retract your claws until I’m finished with it?
<
p>
Thank you,
Jeremy B. Thompson
Jamaica Plain MA
<
p>
<
p>
So this is a guy who has been spending part of 6 years to control for all plausible flaws in the study.
<
p>
2. What does this mean in practical terms?
<
p>
<
p>
3. What other academic theories is he attacking with his data?
<
p>
I was not surprised by Putnam’s findings. In a diverse neighborhood, we are more likely to live next to someone who is different from us (different can mean racially, socio-economically, politically, etc.). Generally speaking, we don’t tend to naturally socialize with folks who are different from us. If a republican lives on one side of me, and a democrat on the other, I’d talk to the Democrat first. As a result, this means residents are only interacting with a small segment of one community, which decreases overall civic participation.
<
p>
Did anyone see what type of communities he compared his findings to?
<
p>
I work in the South End and Lower Roxbury neighborhoods of Boston and for the most part focus on increasing civic engagement and traditional community organizing work (campaigns/issues).
<
p>
In the South End alone, there are over 20 neighborhood associations, 15+ tenant/resident groups, at least a dozen park/recreation groups, a handful of CBO’s such as where I work (United South End Settlements)and many more. This all happens within one of, if not the highest, real estate market per capita in Boston, as well as a n’hood that is home to one of the largest concentrations of subsidized/affordable housing (44% of the housing stock is subsidized)in the state. So although most folks don’t think of the SE as diverse, it is very diverse in terms of race and class.
<
p>
On the surface it seems like there is a tremendous amount of social capital in the SE. However, it is a very fragmented community. There is a tremendous amount of isolation among all of the residents in the community, regardless of race, class, age, type of housing (homeowner/rent) and length of time in the community. There are efforts to address this but change happens slowly.
<
p>
I felt that the Globe article didn’t cover, or maybe Putnam didn’t offer, any ways to address his findings. Here is one practical ideas and I hope folks add on to it.
<
p>
We need to promote more efforts that bring together all type of folk and provide tools for people of different backgrounds to work together. We need to build relationships so folk understand where everyone is coming from while recognizing that we are not always going to agree on everything (insert Deval’s “We don’t have to agree on anything…” quote). This will create an atmosphere of trust and understanding and encourage folks to continue to come together and as a result will increase the social capital of the community. Please note this is a very boiled-down description.
<
p>
These efforts need to compliment the tremendously important work and resources that are targeted toward lower-income communities.
<
p>
At the very least, Putnam’s work has increased the awareness about social capital and prompted numerous “discussions” about civic engagement.
<
p>
I look forward to reading additional ideas on how to address these findings.
<
p>
Kyle R.
<
p>
By the way, you can find the full 29-page paper here (pdf).
<
p>
The “commentary” part of the paper starts on Page 23. He has a few practical ideas, but not many.
Thanks for bringing in the ideas of bridging and bonding social capital. I think they are important ideas. I does seem like bonding social capital which you are likely to find more homogeneous would foster more civic engagement than the bridging capital necessary in more diverse communities.
<
p>
Yet, I think there is a different issue that is completely being missed. More homogeneous communities might have greater civic engagement, but is the level of civic engagement the best measure of health of a community? If your goal is to promote civic engagement, it might be. If you are concerned with the economy, you might think GDP or income levels is a better measure of community health.
<
p>
What is it that is best for a community? Civic Engagement? The wealth of citizens? Some sort of spiritual connectedness? Something else?
<
p>
It may well be that when you think about what is best for a community in some of these other forms, you will find diversity is actually more desirable.
As I wrote in my post (at The Eisenthal Report) on Sunday, Robert Putnam did conclude in his study that, all things being equal, higher diversity means lower social capital – in the short to middle run.
<
p>
Putnam did a lot of “tire-kicking” of his data. According to the Globe article,
<
p>
Putnam realized, for instance, that more diverse communities tended to be larger, have greater income ranges, higher crime rates, and more mobility among their residents — all factors that could depress social capital independent of any impact ethnic diversity might have. “People would say, ‘I bet you forgot about X,'” Putnam says of the string of suggestions from colleagues. “There were 20 or 30 X’s.” But even after statistically taking them all into account, the connection remained strong: Higher diversity meant lower social capital.
<
p>
However, in the end, Putnam remained optimistic about how diversity and social capital would interact.
<
p>
In the medium to long run…successful immigrant societies create new forms of social solidarity and dampen the negative effects of diversity by constructing new, more encompassing identities. Thus, the central challenge for modern, diversifying societies is to create a new, broader sense of ?we?.
by saying, in essence, “wait 50 years, and all will be well, in fact probably better than before the jump in diversity”. The study results are interesting, one glaring omission from the charts were error bars. If he mentioned variance amongst respondents within a cell, I missed it.
<
p>
One methodological thing that popped out at me was that he did not allow for a mixed-race classification. THis is unfortunate, as the 2000 census was the first to allow people to check of all that apply (iirc). I would dearly love to see whether people who choose to identify themselves as mixed race have the same of different take on these questions.
<
p>
Finally, he says that individuals in more diverse places had “lower” scores for many factors he was defining as desirable. Well, “lower” is about as unitless as you can get. Again, did I miss something he spelled out about units? If something a smidge lower, the difference is probably meaningless.
about mixed-race classification, though I think that Putnam hints that the growing numbers of ethnically and racially mixed people in this society will take care of that – see this for support. For the generation born around the turn of this century, the word “we” is likely to mean something very different from what it meant to those of us born around the middle of the twentieth – either that or we won’t be a very viable society.
Bowling Alone was first published in 1995, not 2000. I was pretty sure, so I looked it up: Bowling Alone wiki page