A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?
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
“The extent of the effect is shocking,” says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.
The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting
pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to
race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates
on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some
conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to
the nation's social fabric. But with demographic trends already pushing
the nation inexorably toward greater diversity, the real question may
yet lie ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that
Putnam's research predicts.
“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?”
The study is part of a fascinating new portrait of diversity
emerging from recent scholarship. Diversity, it shows, makes us
uncomfortable—but discomfort, it turns out, isn't always a bad thing.
Unease with differences helps explain why teams of engineers from
different cultures may be ideally suited to solve a vexing problem.
Culture clashes can produce a dynamic give-and-take, generating a
solution that may have eluded a group of people with more similar
backgrounds and approaches. At the same time, though, Putnam's work
adds to a growing body of research indicating that more diverse
populations seem to extend themselves less on behalf of collective
needs and goals.
His findings on the downsides of diversity have also posed a
challenge for Putnam, a liberal academic whose own values put him
squarely in the pro-diversity camp. Suddenly finding himself the bearer
of bad news, Putnam has struggled with how to present his work. He
gathered the initial raw data in 2000 and issued a press release the
following year outlining the results. He then spent several years
testing other possible explanations.
When he finally published a detailed scholarly analysis in June in
the journal Scandinavian Political Studies, he faced criticism for
straying from data into advocacy. His paper argues strongly that the
negative effects of diversity can be remedied, and says history
suggests that ethnic diversity may eventually fade as a sharp line of
“Having aligned himself with the central planners intent on
sustaining such social engineering, Putnam concludes the facts with a
stern pep talk,” wrote conservative commentator Ilana Mercer, in a
recent Orange County Register op-ed titled “Greater diversity equals
Putnam has long staked out ground as both a researcher and a civic
player, someone willing to describe social problems and then have a
hand in addressing them. He says social science should be
“simultaneously rigorous and relevant,” meeting high research standards
while also “speaking to concerns of our fellow citizens.” But on a
topic as charged as ethnicity and race, Putnam worries that many people
hear only what they want to.
“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 is the nation's premier guru of civic engagement. After
studying civic life in Italy in the 1970s and 1980s, Putnam turned his
attention to the US, publishing an influential journal article on civic
engagement in 1995 that he expanded five years later into the
best-selling “Bowling Alone.” The book sounded a national wake-up call
on what Putnam called a sharp drop in civic connections among
Americans. It won him audiences with presidents Bill Clinton and George
W. Bush, and made him one of the country's best known social scientists.
Putnam claims the US 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.
The results of his new study come from a survey Putnam directed
among residents in 41 US communities, including Boston. Residents were
sorted into the four principal categories used by the US Census: black,
white, Hispanic, and Asian. They were asked how much they trusted their
neighbors and those of each racial category, and questioned about a
long list of civic attitudes and practices, including their views on
local government, their involvement in community projects, and their
friendships. What emerged in more diverse communities was a bleak
picture of civic desolation, affecting everything from political
engagement to the state of social ties.
Putnam knew he had provocative findings on his hands. He worried
about coming under some of the same liberal attacks that greeted Daniel
Patrick Moynihan's landmark 1965 report on the social costs associated
with the breakdown of the black family. There is always the risk of
being pilloried as the bearer of “an inconvenient truth,” says Putnam.
After releasing the initial results in 2001, Putnam says he spent
time “kicking the tires really hard” to be sure the study had it right.
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. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse
communities tend to “distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color
of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst
from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to
charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote
less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they
can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the
“People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like a turtle,” Putnam writes.
In documenting that hunkering down, Putnam challenged the two
dominant schools of thought on ethnic and racial diversity, the
“contact” theory and the “conflict” theory. Under the contact theory,
more time spent with those of other backgrounds leads to greater
understanding and harmony between groups. Under the conflict theory,
that proximity produces tension and discord.
Putnam's findings reject both theories. In more diverse communities,
he says, there were neither great bonds formed across group lines nor
heightened ethnic tensions, but a general civic malaise. And in perhaps
the most surprising result of all, levels of trust were not only lower
between groups in more diverse settings, but even among members of the
“Diversity, at least in the short run,” he writes, “seems to bring out the turtle in all of us.”
The overall findings may be jarring during a time when it's become
commonplace to sing the praises of diverse communities, but researchers
in the field say they shouldn't be.
“It's an important addition to a growing body of evidence on the
challenges created by diversity,” says Harvard economist Edward Glaeser.
In a recent study, Glaeser and colleague Alberto Alesina
demonstrated that roughly half the difference in social welfare
spending between the US and Europe—Europe spends far more—can be
attributed to the greater ethnic diversity of the US population.
Glaeser says lower national social welfare spending in the US is a
“macro” version of the decreased civic engagement Putnam found in more
diverse communities within the country.
Economists Matthew Kahn of UCLA and Dora Costa of MIT reviewed 15
recent studies in a 2003 paper, all of which linked diversity with
lower levels of social capital. Greater ethnic diversity was linked,
for example, to lower school funding, census response rates, and trust
in others. Kahn and Costa's own research documented higher desertion
rates in the Civil War among Union Army soldiers serving in companies
whose soldiers varied more by age, occupation, and birthplace.
Birds of different feathers may sometimes flock together, but they
are also less likely to look out for one another. “Everyone is a little
self-conscious that this is not politically correct stuff,” says Kahn.
. . .
So how to explain New York, London, Rio de Janiero, Los Angeles—the
great melting-pot cities that drive the world's creative and financial
The image of civic lassitude dragging down more diverse communities
is at odds with the vigor often associated with urban centers, where
ethnic diversity is greatest. It turns out there is a flip side to the
discomfort diversity can cause. If ethnic diversity, at least in the
short run, is a liability for social connectedness, a parallel line of
emerging research suggests it can be a big asset when it comes to
driving productivity and innovation. In high-skill workplace settings,
says Scott Page, the University of Michigan political scientist, the
different ways of thinking among people from different cultures can be
“Because they see the world and think about the world differently than you, that's challenging,” says Page, author of The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies.
“But by hanging out with people different than you, you're likely to
get more insights. Diverse teams tend to be more productive.”
In other words, those in more diverse communities may do more
bowling alone, but the creative tensions unleashed by those differences
in the workplace may vault those same places to the cutting edge of the
economy and of creative culture.
Page calls it the “diversity paradox.” He thinks the contrasting
positive and negative effects of diversity can coexist in communities,
but “there's got to be a limit.” If civic engagement falls off too far,
he says, it's easy to imagine the positive effects of diversity
beginning to wane as well. “That's what's unsettling about his
findings,” Page says of Putnam's new work.
Meanwhile, by drawing a portrait of civic engagement in which more
homogeneous communities seem much healthier, some of Putnam's worst
fears about how his results could be used have been realized. A stream
of conservative commentary has begun—from places like the Manhattan
Institute and “The American Conservative”—highlighting the harm the
study suggests will come from large-scale immigration. But Putnam says
he's also received hundreds of complimentary emails laced with bigoted
language. “It certainly is not pleasant when David Duke's website hails
me as the guy who found out racism is good,” he says.
In the final quarter of his paper, Putnam puts the diversity
challenge in a broader context by describing how social identity can
change over time. Experience shows that social divisions can eventually
give way to “more encompassing identities” that create a “new, more
capacious sense of ‘we,’” he writes.
Growing up in the 1950s in small Midwestern town, Putnam knew the
religion of virtually every member of his high school graduating class
because, he says, such information was crucial to the question of “who
was a possible mate or date.” The importance of marrying within one's
faith, he says, has largely faded since then, at least among many
mainline Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.
While acknowledging that racial and ethnic divisions may prove more
stubborn, Putnam argues that such examples bode well for the long-term
prospects for social capital in a multiethnic America.
In his paper, Putnam cites the work done by Page and others, and
uses it to help frame his conclusion that increasing diversity in
America is not only inevitable, but ultimately valuable and enriching.
As for smoothing over the divisions that hinder civic engagement,
Putnam argues that Americans can help that process along through
targeted efforts. He suggests expanding support for English-language
instruction and investing in community centers and other places that
allow for “meaningful interaction across ethnic lines.”
Some critics have found his prescriptions underwhelming. And in
offering ideas for mitigating his findings, Putnam has drawn scorn for
stepping out of the role of dispassionate researcher. “You're just
supposed to tell your peers what you found,” says John Leo, senior
fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. “I don't
expect academics to fret about these matters.”
But fretting about the state of American civic health is exactly
what Putnam has spent more than a decade doing. While continuing to
research questions involving social capital, he has directed the
Saguaro Seminar, a project he started at Harvard's Kennedy School of
Government that promotes efforts throughout the country to increase
civic connections in communities.
“Social scientists are both scientists and citizens,” says Alan
Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public
Life at Boston College, who sees nothing wrong in Putnam's efforts to
affect some of the phenomena he studies.
Wolfe says what is unusual is that Putnam has published findings as
a social scientist that are not the ones he would have wished for as a
civic leader. There are plenty of social scientists, says Wolfe, who
never produce research results at odds with their own worldview.
“The problem too often,” says Wolfe, “is people are never uncomfortable about their findings.”
Michael Jonas is acting editor of CommonWealth magazine, published by MassINC, a nonpartisan public-policy think tank in Boston.
Robert Putnam is a faculty associate at the Weatherhead Center and
Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy.