Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 8, 2007
From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger. But hold on: results from a new study challenge this theory.
Exposing the Mythology of ‘Multiculturalism’
From the Editors
“What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an “inconvenient truth”? This is the conundrum explored by the Boston Globe in a commentary that reveals the downside of “diversity” as reported by – amazingly enough – liberal scholar and Harvard political scientist, Robert Putnam.
Professor Putnam became well known when he published “Bowling Alone” in 2000, which revealed that there has been a decline in civic engagement in America over the past several decades. Possibly prompted by the results of his earlier study, Putnam conducted a massive new research project designed to discover whether or not the cherished “ethnic diversity” and “multiculturalism” beliefs of left wing ideologues hold true.
After interviewing approximately 30,000 participants in a wide-ranging survey, his results unmistakably fly in the face of one of the main tenets of secular liberal dogma. Professor Putnam’s study is the largest one ever carried out on the topic of civic engagement. Its conclusions indicate that the more diverse a community is, the lower the level of civic engagement and shared sense of community cohesiveness.
Michael Jonas writes in his Boston Globe report: “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.”
Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist who was asked for his professional reaction to Putnam’s findings, exclaimed, “The extent of the effect is shocking!”
“We can’t ignore the findings,” says Ali Noorani, executive director of the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition. “The big question we have to ask ourselves is, what do we do about it; what are the next steps?”
Putnam’s discoveries have produced shock waves throughout academia, where previously there had been a nearly total monolithic acceptance of the litany that multiculturalism is “good” while homogeneity is “bad.” Clearly, this issue has now been moved to the front burner of discussion and debate focusing on American exceptionalism versus an apparent out-of-control, virtual invasion of the United States by illegal immigrants and hundreds of thousands of Muslims whose religious dictates insist that they remain unassimilated and separate from all non-Islamic groups.
To paraphrase the Apollo 13 astronauts on their return trip from the moon, “America, we have a problem!”
The results of Putnam’s study bring into clear focus the future of the American melting pot itself. The melting pot metaphor has been the outstanding political, social and economic hallmark of American growth and prosperity for well over a century. Now, there will be intense political debate – from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, posing challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The facts emerging from Professor Putnam’s study are already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation’s social fabric. Demographic trends have been pushing the nation inexorably toward greater diversity since the conclusion of WWII, beginning with our acceptance of refugees from war torn Europe and extending through the post-Vietnam “boat people” immigration phase.
An important question lies ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that Putnam’s research predicts? His results pose major policy problems for Putnam himself, since he has traditionally been a proponent of the benefits of social engineering. Yet, he has proven to be a realist as well.
“It would be unfortunate if a politically correct progressivism were to deny the reality of the challenge to social solidarity posed by diversity,” he writes in the new report. “It would be equally unfortunate if an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism were to deny that addressing that challenge is both feasible and desirable.”
Putnam’s research leads him to the perception that the U.S. has experienced a pronounced decline in “social capital,” a term he helped popularize. Social capital refers to the social networks – whether friendships or religious congregations or neighborhood associations – that he says are key indicators of civic well being. “When social capital is high,” says Putnam, “communities are better places to live. Neighborhoods are safer; people are healthier; and more citizens vote.”
In this new study of multiculturalism, Putnam conducted surveys among residents in 41 U.S. communities, including Boston. Residents were divided into the four principal categories: black, white, Hispanic, and Asian. Members of each group were asked how much they trusted their neighbors and those of each racial category. They were also questioned about a long list of civic attitudes and practices, including their views on local government, their involvement in community projects, and their friendships. Findings demonstrated that the more diverse the communities were, the more bleak the picture is of civic desolation, affecting everything from political engagement to the state of social ties.
For those who have been consistently warning against unchecked immigration without providing specific limitations and time periods for thorough assimilation into American traditions and culture, the factual results of Professor Putnam’s groundbreaking study are unsurprising, but they are a vindication. The real question now is: how should the United States reform its immigration and naturalization policies in order to save America? We have no challenge more urgent than this one.
