Does “Diversity” Turn People Into Turtles?
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam (of Bowling Alone fame) thinks so.
“Diversity seems to trigger not in-group/out-group division, but anomie or social isolation,” Putnam writes in the June issue of the journal Scandinavian Political Studies. “In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle.”Putnam has been engaged in his large study of diversity for quite a while, and we have encountered findings from it before, here and here.
Putnam seems quite taken with his turtle metaphor (or maybe I’m just taken with quoting him using it). In the first “here” linked above, I quoted him as follows describing his findings:
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.”Actually, turning people into turtles may be among the mildest effects of diversity. The New York Times Magazine linked first above, for example, also reports other, non-reptilian but even more unwelcome effects.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.”
Studies by Wendy Berry Mendes, a social psychologist at Harvard, and her colleagues find that when research subjects play a cooperative game with someone of another race, they can show physiological signs of distress — reduced cardiac efficiency and arterial constriction, for example. On a daily basis, this alarmed reaction might make people pull inward. Putnam himself speculates that, with kaleidoscopic changes going on around them, people in diverse communities might experience a kind of system overload, shutting down “in the presence of confusing or multiple messages from the environment.”In my first discussion of Putnam’s research, linked above, I commented:It’s thus no surprise, and maybe even a good thing, that campuses that fetishize “diversity” are often the ones sporting the most racially segregated dorms, dining room tables, lounges, etc.
If we’re going to set aside the formerly fundamental principle barring discrimination against any person based on race in order to bask in the benefits provided by “diversity,” shouldn’t we at least begin seeing, sooner or later, some research demonstrating just what those benefits are?That now seems too mild. Let me rephrase: shouldn’t we at least begin seeing some research demonstrating that “diversity” doesn’t turn people into turtles or sick, arterially constricted, stressed out humans?
Say What?
An argument can be made that it's good to expose people to those different from themselves (racially, politically, religiously, etc.) even if it hurts; it may well be good for society and even good in the long run for the exposee. The problem is that most of the people who claim to support diversity are just plain lying, and that is the reason we have racially segregated dorms, graduations, etc.
Posted by: LTEC
|
June 23, 2007 12:18 AM
It’s thus no surprise, and maybe even a good thing, that campuses that fetishize “diversity” are often the ones sporting the most racially segregated dorms, dining room tables, lounges, etc.
Was this really in the NYT Mag article about Putnam? I couldn't find it there, and it doesn't seem like something the NYT would ever print.
Posted by: Jian Li | June 23, 2007 1:20 PM
I believe this type of discomfort was cited in the testimony of Expert Witness Patricia Gurin, the UM prof. hired by the school to statistically demonstrate the benefits of diversity in the Gratz and Grutter cases. The stress involved in the encounter of difference was supposedly important to enriching the educational experience of young adults. Of course, the theory presupposes inadequacies in the upbringing of the upper middle class suburban whites and Asians who predominate on these campuses- they need to be re-educated in addition to being educated.
Posted by: David | June 23, 2007 7:12 PM
My impression is that the only people who found the Gurin report credible were the author, the U-M officials who sponsored it, and Justice O'Connor. It was subjected to devastating criticism, which I can find if you need a cite.
Posted by: John Rosenberg
|
June 23, 2007 9:48 PM