[Cynus]

In 2006 Harvard researcher Robert Putnam released the results of his long-awaited research that showed that increased diversity lead to a reduction in social capital. Putnam’s massive study concluded that greater diversity lead to less civic participation, less charity, less trust, less voting, less church attendance, less contribution to community projects. “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.”

When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust. “They don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” said Prof Putnam. “The only thing there’s more of is protest marches and TV watching.”(http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4ac4a74-570f ... e2340.html)


These startling results had less of an effect on public discourse that one would expect, in part because they are so profound, but also because Putnam did not offer an explanation for his findings. Why does diversity destroy social capital? What is the process by which this occurs? These questions are not addressed in Putnam’s study. This has allowed commentators to claim that Putnam’s results confirmed their pre-existing perspective: liberals saw it as confirmation of persistent prejudice and racism, conservatives saw it as a confirmation that multiculturalism is destructive to society. Since one could interpret Putnam’s findings as confirmation of whatever one already believed, the discussion has not stayed in the public consciousness to the degree one would expect. This post explains why and how diversity destroys social capital and thus gives a way of understanding the consequences of Putnam’s findings.

To answer this question will require looking into recent work in the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind. Specifically, it will use University of Connecticut philosopher Ruth Millikan’s work to explain why diversity destroys social capital. Millikan’s work has revolutionized the study of language and semantics, mind and psychology, cognitive science and epistemology, and has obvious application to the study of intercultural interaction. Millikan’s great insight was to look at the biological origins of language, thought, and behavior. Starting from an understanding of biological functioning Millikan is able to move up into the sphere of intentionality, meaning, and interpersonal communication. For Millikan, biological items like hearts and kidneys get their functions not by what they do, but by possessing a certain history. Hearts, for example, have pumping blood as their function because they are produced by genetic mechanisms that have proliferated by natural selection because of their ability to produce these items that pump blood. Manufactured items like hammers have driving nails as their function because it was the ability to drive nails that has lead to the copying of these artifacts.

For each item that possesses a function in this sense there will be an explanation of how the item has historically managed to perform this function. This explanation will mention how the structure of the item in question has managed to “do its job” historically, what conditions were in effect, what the environment was like that allowed the item to successfully perform it function. Millikan calls such an explanation a “Normal” explanation and the conditions that have historically held in order for the item to succeed in performing its function “Normal” conditions.(1) “Normal” is capitalized to prevent confusion that might occur if one was to think that such conditions are average or frequent. Just think of how few sperm manage to perform their function of fertilizing an egg, or how infrequently the skull needs to perform its function of protecting the brain. In abNormal conditions an item will fail to perform its function, or at least fail to accomplish it in accordance with a Normal explanation. Diseased hearts are in abNormal condition, but so is being underwater an abNormal condition for otherwise healthy lungs, and whatever it is that prevents a specific sperm from fertilizing an egg is also an abNormal condition.

Behaviors have functions as well. The function of turning on the light switch is to illuminate the room, the function of animal mating displays is to attract mates, the function of asking someone to pass the salt is to bring it about that you receive the salt. In the case of communication, both the one initiating the communication and its intended recipient must be so situated so that communication can proceed Normally. In other words, communication requires that the producer and consumer of the utterance be coordinated to one another so that the producer produces and the consumer consumes Normally. For instance, the hearer must be prepared to respond to ones utterance of “dog” such as to know that it refers to dogs. It will do no good to utter “dog” amongst those who are not coordinated with the speaker so as to respond to this utterance appropriately, i.e., in accordance with a Normal explanation.


Speakers within a language community are, simply, adapted to an environment in which hearers are responding, sufficiently often, to the forms speakers produce in ways that reinforce these speaker productions. Correlatively, hearers in the community are, simply, adapted to conditions under which speakers, sufficiently often, produce these language forms in circumstances such that making conventional responses to them aids those hearers. (Language: A Biological Model, p. 57)

Animal displays and communication are clear examples of this coordination of producer and consumer. Bees for example are adapted to interpret bee "dances" to determine the direction of nectar. Animal danger signals are are another such case; beavers slap their tails in order to communicate to interpreter beavers that danger is present. Likewise in the case of human language people continue to utter “dog” in order to refer to dogs only insofar as listeners often enough continue to respond to this utterance appropriately. It is in both the speaker’s and hearer’s interest to continue to respond in this way since the hearer is liable to gain useful information and the speaker is liable to meet his goal of spreading such information. "Dog" has been copied from person to person for generations because it is successful in doing so. Thus using “dog” to refer to dogs will remain in use as long as it manages to perform its function of stabilizing speakers and hearers. The “stabilizing function” a linguistic form performs is one of the aspects of the term’s meaning.(2)

It is important to understand that the stabilizing proper functions can be destroyed by abNormal conditions. If a speaker never receives the Normal response from its intended consumers, speakers will come to cease trying to get their purpose across by means of using language in conventional ways. And if speakers do not use linguistic forms Normally, a hearer will soon stop trying to extract useful information from them from which to form beliefs. To take an obvious example, just think about being placed in a country that speaks a different language. If you approach a person and try to get information from them by using the inquisitive mood, but they do not respond by using language forms that you understand, conditions are abNormal for the use of the inquisitive mood in ones language and meaning has broken down. You may try your luck with a few other people hoping that one of them will be adapted to respond to your language production, but after a few tries you will soon stop trying to communicate with others by the means of your native language. The same goes if someone approaches you and begins producing sounds to which you are not properly adapted for interpreting. You will soon either try to communicate in some other way, by gestures perhaps, and thereby try to direct the person to someone who may be able to help, but you will probably cease to try to communicate by using your language. If you have ever been in a situation where either no one can understand your language, or where someone continues to speak to you in a language you do not understand you will know what an anxiety producing situation it can be.

Meaning can be destroyed in less extreme cases as well. Take the case of the use of the indicative mood. Its proper function is to produce true beliefs in its listeners and it does this Normally when the speaker/producer has a true belief, tells the fact to the listener/consumer, and they then come to possess a true belief. This function can be destroyed by abNormality when the speaker does not have a true belief (but thinks they do), has true beliefs but spreads a false statement (lies), or when the consumer misunderstands or refuses to believe the statement. For example, in authoritarian regimes where people come to realize that the government media can not be trusted to provide the truth, people will longer believe what is being told to them. Likewise, an individual who has proven them self to be untrustworthy will soon find it impossible to be believed. And someone who is so stubborn that they refuse to believe anything that is told to them will soon find that few people will make the effort to tell them anything.

In the case of the imperative mood, the function is to produce action in the listener. This happens Normally when the action in question is to the benefit of both the speaker and listener. The Normal functioning of the imperative mood can be impeded when the listener no longer believes that the orders that are given them are in their best interest. They will come to stop obeying the commands that are given. And if the listeners stop following the commands given by the imperative mood, speakers will soon stop using it to try to cause behavior in others.

Millikan has not given a name for the process by which the meaning of a term (its stabilizing proper function) is undermined by abNormal conditions but I propose we call it “meaning decay,” and the end state of this process in which one no longer produces such language items, “meaning extinction.”

We are now in a position to address the nature of social capital and how diversity undermines it. It should be fairly obvious that the point of the preceding discussion is this: social capital exists to the extent that interpersonal communication proceeds Normally, and is lost to the extent that abNormal conditions prevent successful functioning and causes meaning decay. Social capital just is the presence of Normal conditions for culture and language and diversity destroys social capital by preventing their Normal functioning. To take some examples: we have already discussed how being in the presence of those who can not understand ones language—that is, where a producer reproduces a linguistic form in the absence of a Normal consumer—will eventually result in the producer to stop producing. The degree to which cultural diversity results in the presence of many speakers of another language the more liable it is to produce abNormal conditions and thus meaning decay. But it is not only the failure to use the same words to mean the same things that can produce this effect. Even the collection of distinctive inflections, phonemes, and emphasis that we call an accent has its proper functions. If one feels that ones listeners are not picking up on the subtleties that are conveyed with an accent, meaning decay is the result and one will quickly either adopt the regional accent or go find others who are situated as to appreciate it. Listeners that don’t get your joke, react to you in unexpected ways, have different habits, moral standards, or mannerisms will produce similar results.

There are ways of communicating Normally besides through the use of language. Any case where a sign has been designed to coordinate between producer and consumer will do. For example, soldiers wear their ranks on their uniforms where they can be clearly perceived by their intended audience. The insignia both tells consumers what the rank is and so prescribes appropriate behavior.(3) Likewise, wedding rings convey the information that its bearer is married. Most attire possesses natural information, although not as explicitly as in the case of uniforms. Dressing like a businessman, or punk, or goth, or hippy, or any other distinctive attire is a way to tell both other members and non-members of your group of your membership.

As in the language examples above, meaning decay can occur when one wears an article of clothing or insignia amongst those who are not the Normal consumers. The meaning of the stripes on a soldiers uniform decays when worn among civilians who do not know their significance. It is being produced, but the Normal consumers (other members of the military) are missing. From the consumer’s side, seeing someone wearing something with obvious meaning, but for whom you are not historically attuned, causes meaning decay as well. Examples of this are the Muslim head scarf and other religious and/or cultural garb when worn among those brought up in different traditions. The head scarf is a sign of modesty, of imitating the wives of Muhammad, and it indicates this Normally when the wearer and perceiver are historically adapted to interpret it is this way. In such a case meaning decay does not occur merely because one does not understand the meaning, something which might quickly be corrected by asking (or looking it up on Wikipedia), it is that when worn amongst non-members it also indicates that you are not the intended consumer; that you are outside the Normal producer/consumer pair. It thus produces such meaning decay and its corresponding destruction of social capital.

Celebrations, festivals, holidays, and the like, even if they are welcoming to outsiders, also carry the implication that one is an outsider and is not the intended Normal consumer of the occasion.

As people become familiar with the phenomena of meaning decay, they learn to identify signs that may indicate its possibility and come to either avoid getting themselves into such a situation, or to prefer situations where they have no reason to expect it. This is what Putnam describes as “hunkering down” or metaphorically as pulling in like a turtle. Anything that indicates a different culture, origin, or history is liable to lead one to expect meaning decay. Thus the expectation of meaning decay can come to have a negative affect on social capital just as much as actual instances of it. It is important to note that there is no bigotry, racism, or prejudice involved in preferring the presence of those with whom one can communicate Normally. These vices can themselves cause meaning decay if they lead you to not benefit by acquiring new knowledge, or doing what is in your best interest, because you blindly refuse to believe what is said by someone against whom you are prejudiced. But preferring the presence of those one can expect to communicate with Normally is not immoral or a vice. The benefits of living in a place with high social capital are many and research shows that people are far happier in such places. The reasons for avoiding meaning decay are the same as those for having language, culture, and communication in the first place. It should thus be clear why social capital and diversity are incompatible, and why efforts to make diversity and social capital compatible are bound to fail.

[PrestonSturges]

Celebrations, festivals, holidays, and the like, even if they are welcoming to outsiders, also carry the implication that one is an outsider and is not the intended Normal consumer of the occasion.

It's true! We weren't getting anything done the day after St.Patricks day.

[TWilliam]

Interesting read Cynus, thanks.

One can clearly see this process at work in the 'cliqueing' behavior of young adolescents. One can also see by this particular example that race is, at most, an incidental filter.

[rangerone314]

I should sell "Diversity is a crock" T-shirts... LOL!

[PrestonSturges]

Seriously though, you may want to spend some time with Mein Kampf, because that was Hitler's pitch until he got his ass kicked by all us inferior racial mongrels.

[dinopello]

Variety is the spice of life.

Malkovich, malkovich ?

[Cynus]

Seriously though, you may want to spend some time with Mein Kampf, because that was Hitler's pitch until he got his ass kicked by all us inferior racial mongrels.

Usually when people make idiotic replies I ignore them. But this one is so absolutely assinine that I'll make an exception. You obviously didn't read the post or didn't understand it.

[vision-master]

1st off, Jewish ppl ain't a race.

[Quinny]

This is old news and an even older study. It was based on organisational capital which has declined not just because of diversity but because of other economic and social factors.

Why has this suddenly raised it's head? The study was published a few years ago and a mjor criticism of it is that the actual study was done years before.

[threadbear]

Why has this suddenly raised it's head? The study was published a few years ago and a mjor criticism of it is that the actual study was done years before.

Because the Wolfgang Wannabee-tards that make up the Aryan BOTHERhood on this board, put down their beer steins, got off their pimply asses and waddled over to their 'puters, that's why.

[Quinny]

mmm..

Methinks you might have a point there TB.

[TWilliam]

mmm..

Methinks you might have a point there TB.

Yeaaaa but if she brushes her hair right, no one notices...

(Sorry TB j/k... couldn't resist an opportunity to drag out that old saw... )

[Cynus]

This is old news and an even older study. It was based on organisational capital which has declined not just because of diversity but because of other economic and social factors.

Why has this suddenly raised it's head? The study was published a few years ago and a mjor criticism of it is that the actual study was done years before.

Wrong. Putnam controlled for economic and social factors in his study.
The delay in its publication was because Putnam was scared of publishing his own findings. It didn't affect he validity of his study at all.
The reason I posted it is because I live in a "multicultural community" and, as Putnam's findings document, there is no sense of community in the multicultural community. "Parallel societies" would be a better description; the lack of social capital is palpable. I find this distressing and wanted to understand why this would be so and why similar results are found around the world. I believe the answer lies in the nature of communication and that recent work in language and communication could help us to understand this phenomenon, as my most argued.

[rangerone314]

Seriously though, you may want to spend some time with Mein Kampf, because that was Hitler's pitch until he got his ass kicked by all us inferior racial mongrels.

Usually when people make idiotic replies I ignore them. But this one is so absolutely assinine that I'll make an exception. You obviously didn't read the post or didn't understand it.

Racism has nothing to do with the original post.

Why does that idiot Hitler always come up? Even if Hitler had been right about Germans being the master race, what made him think Germany, Japan and Italy could take on Russia, China, the US, Britain, France, and India (as being part of British Empire)? He was hopelessly outnumbered. Try and imagine Germany, Japan and Italy fighting the US, Russia, China, India, France and Britain now??? It's laughable.

A large enough horde can overwhelm better technology etc, just look at Custer's last stand, or some of the Zulu battle against the British where there were like 10,000 Zulu with impi spears against 200 British with guns.

[eastbay]

Why has this suddenly raised it's head? The study was published a few years ago and a mjor criticism of it is that the actual study was done years before.

Because the Wolfgang Wannabee-tards that make up the Aryan BOTHERhood on this board, put down their beer steins, got off their pimply asses and waddled over to their 'puters, that's why.

TB, I strongly suspect there are no members of prison gangs accessing this website. Not even one.

[Esie]

hello,..!!
eastbay,,,,thanks for the info,..
Why does that idiot Hitler always come up?
Thanks,....btw i am newbie her,

regards,..

[Cloud9]

Some of this comes from the fact that we just recently have walked out of the tall grass. Our mega cities and internet represent mere moments in our long history.

There is a reason the word Balkanized comes from the Balkans. It is a place of multiculturalism brought about by invasion after invasion. It is home to sectarian violence and genocide. The stranger represents the recon for the advancing horde, the out cast, the exiled malefactor, the bearer of disease. Xenophobia is programmed into our DNA.

You guys really need to read Becoming Evil by James Waller

[polka]

Seriously though, you may want to spend some time with Mein Kampf, because that was Hitler's pitch until he got his ass kicked by all us inferior racial mongrels.

Usually when people make idiotic replies I ignore them. But this one is so absolutely assinine that I'll make an exception. You obviously didn't read the post or didn't understand it.

Racism has nothing to do with the original post.

Why does that idiot Hitler always come up? Even if Hitler had been right about Germans being the master race, what made him think Germany, Japan and Italy could take on Russia, China, the US, Britain, France, and India (as being part of British Empire)? He was hopelessly outnumbered. Try and imagine Germany, Japan and Italy fighting the US, Russia, China, India, France and Britain now??? It's laughable.

A large enough horde can overwhelm better technology etc, just look at Custer's last stand, or some of the Zulu battle against the British where there were like 10,000 Zulu with impi spears against 200 British with guns.

At the Battle of the Little Bighorn, the Sioux had an arsenal of at least 200 Henry, Spencer, and Winchester repeating rifles (7 shots before reload).

The 7th Cavalry used Springfield bolt-action rifles (one shot, reload).

From what I've read, if the USA hadn't equipped both the British and Russians via lend-lease from the outset (long before we entered the war), it could have turned out very differently.

How would Pizarro fit in with your examples?

[Cloud9]

The seventh used 45/70 trap door springfields. The first bolt action was the 3/40 craig and saw its first action in Cuba.

[polka]

Ah, thanks for the corretion. Now what was this thread about?

Seriously, from the little bit I read, I don't think the study is particularly meaningful. It's tainted by the fact that the most multicultural areas also happen to be the most urban (which to me = most impersonal).