As a second-generation American on my father’s side, I still feel relatively close to the immigrant experience. Consequently, research on the impact of immigration usually catches my attention. I had heard about Robert Putnam’s work on diversity and communities, and had been meaning to read it for a long time, but only today had an opportunity to do so. It was interesting research indeed, and I encourage you to check it out.
Putnam reaches some interesting conclusions. First of all, there is no doubt that immigration is increasing globally, and countries like the United States have larger and larger foreign-born populations. Often, such changes are met with dismay by the local population, but Putnam explores some of the positives:
- Immigration boosts creativity. Large numbers of our Nobel Laureates, artists, and other creative thinkers are immigrants, and exposure to new ideas and approaches boosts creativity.
- Immigrants boost the economy. Okay, I’m a psychologist not an economist, but Putnam describes research results that show that the income of native born Americans increases faster in areas where there are large numbers of immigrants (perhaps California, for example?)
- Immigrants fill the gaps in countries like the US, with its rapidly aging and not very fertile native populations. Personally, I think this is sad. I’d rather see Americans enjoy being parents, too.
- Immigrants improve their home countries by sending money and knowledge home.
So is there a down side to this? Putnam puts forward a provocative view. In spite of many initiatives in favor of bringing diverse populations together, diversity actually makes people “hunker down” and stick to their own. Putnam surveyed more than 30,000 participants from many different communities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, where non-Hispanic whites comprise less than 40 percent of the population. I particularly liked his description of “diversity” in South Dakota as “inviting a few Norwegians to the annual Swedish picnic.” My dad would have smiled at that.
Putnam found a discouraging, but not too surprising result. People living in non-diverse communities were more trusting of people of other races than people living in diverse communities. This finding supports the “conflict” approach to diversity, where increased contact decreases trust, as opposed to the “contact” approach, in which increased contact builds trust. More surprisingly, however, Putnam found that living in diverse communities had two unexpected effects:
- People living in diverse communities distrusted their neighbors more than people in homogeneous communities.
- People living in diverse communities distrusted members of their own race more than people in homogeneous communities.
These finding support neither the conflict nor the contact theories. Instead, Putnam proposes a “constrict” theory, in which living in a diverse environment reduces all forms of social interaction. This tendency has significant impacts on community life. People living in diverse environments give less to charity, are less likely to register to vote, report fewer friends and confidants, expect less cooperation from others, and list watching TV as their most important form of entertainment.
If you’re thinking, well, what about size of community? Self-selection to neighborhoods? All of the other variables that good experimental designers want to check? Trust me. Read the original paper, and you’ll find that Putnam has more to say about why none of those things matter than he does about his basic conclusions. His work is very careful and exacting.
Does this mean the goal of “getting along” is doomed? Putnam thinks not. He believes that people can become more comfortable with diversity given enough time, as they become more inclusive as Americans. He believes that the effort will definitely pay off.
For another view of this issue, check out Mark Brandt’s Social Psychology Daily.
Putnam, R.D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137-174. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
2 Comments
gferraro · June 3, 2008 at 6:18 pm
I am second generation too. My grandparents and various parts of their family came in the US in the 1900’s from Sicily. They lived in Little Italy in New York City. During the 1950s my great uncle was the boss of the Mafia. Talk about constricting. My relatives talked about how they knew no English and felt more at home surrounded by fellow Sicilians. But eventually they branched out into other communities. I think that it would be very scary to leave your country and any comfort would be appreciated.
Laura Freberg · June 3, 2008 at 9:42 pm
I think the immigrant experience is very challenging. My dad was not allowed to speak Swedish outside the home for fear he would be mistaken for a German. Consequently, he really lost the ability to use the language and had to pay someone to translate letters to Swedish relatives in his later years. I wish that I had grown up learning a second language, but did not have that opportunity.
Comments are closed.