Putnam, diversity, and social capital

[Discussion list for COMM-ORG]

[ed:  thanks to Ashwani for engaging the discussion.]

From: Ashwani Vasishth, vasishth at csun.edu

There is a now long-standing hypothesis in ecology which holds that 
increases in biodiversity enhance ecosystem stability.  (The addendum 
most often postulated to this is that there is a threshold above which 
further increases in diversity make the relational connectivities so 
"thick" that the system begins to choke itself to death.  Robert May has 
done a lot of this work.)

David Tilman has looked in some detail at the hypothesized relationship 
between diversity and stability in grassland ecosystems. Interestingly, 
he finds that increased biodiversity is both good and bad for 
stability.  (Rittel & Webber rule!)  At the level of the population (of 
any single species), increased species diversity reduces stability.  
This is probably because as the number of species in the community begin 
to increase, individuals within any one species group now have to work 
harder to grab nutrients and resources, and survival becomes more 
competitive.  At the level of the community (of an interacting set of 
species), however, increased species diversity enhances stability.  This 
is perhaps because more species means the ecosystem has more pathways 
from which to derive functions necessary to its own wellbeing.

My point is two-fold.  First, we can debate what diversity means in the 
context of human communities-racial, ethnic, economic, ecological, 
occupational, cultural, ideological, political, behavioral, and so 
on-and how we might measure it.  Under what conditions do we hold 
diversity to have increased?

Second, the sorts of things that Dr. Putnam is said to have found to 
have decreased with "increased diversity" (however defined)-civic 
mindedness (voter participation), communal interactions (casual 
interactions between proximate neighbors), and so on-may not be the 
sorts of "good" that actually derive from increased diversity (again, 
however defined).

But in the end, the error may lie simply in the assumption that there is 
a one-size-fits-all rule to be drawn about human behavior.  We know, 
irrespective of how this came to be, that about 20-30% of us would 
prefer to live in an "urban" setting (stereotypically Manhattan? with 
lots of different sorts of folks, doing lots of different sorts of 
things, with lots of different sorts of interests and tastes, and where 
we can listen to jazz, punk rock, and ghazals on any one night), and 
that about 30-40% of us would prefer to live in a "suburban" setting 
(stereotypical homogeneous in racial and socio-economic status, and with 
clean divisions between land uses). Perhaps it is that the things the 
urbanites find valuable in their "high diversity" environments are just 
different from the things that the suburbanites find desirable in their 
"homogeneous" environments? And then the question of implications might 
simply be moot.

Cheers,
-
  Ashwani
     Vasishth            vasishth at csun.edu          (818) 677-6137
                    http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
            http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth

Discussion list for COMM-ORG wrote:
> --------
> This is a COMM-ORG 'colist' message.
> All replies to this message come to COMM-ORG only.
> --------
>  
> [ed:  the article Kathy refers to is only available for free until 
> August 30 so make sure you get it by then.]
>
> From: Kathy Partridge <interfaithfunders at yahoo.com>
>
>
> For the Comm-Org list,
>
> Perhaps you've been hearing the buzz about Robert Putnam's new research 
> on the impact of diversity on social capital (for example, see below 
> Jenifer Fernandez Ancona's blog that suggests the value of multi-ethnic 
> community organizing can counter the impact).  So, when I found his 
> actual recent article, available free online via Putnam's Saguaro 
> Research Center website.  Also, if you are interested in knowing more 
> about ,the center (funded by Carnegie, Hewlett, Rockefeller and 
> Rockefellers Bros.) and their focus, here's a link to their site.  Note 
> the upcoming research on faith, politics and social capital.
>
> http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/saguaro/saguaroresearch.htm
>
>  Robert Putnam's article is here:
>
> http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x?cookieSet=1 
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kathy Partridge
> Executive Director
> Interfaith Funders
> www.interfaithfunders.org
> 2719 Denver Ave.
> Longmont, CO  80503
> Voice 720-494-9011
> Fax 708-585-6434  Cell 303-594-6434
>
>
> Subject: Curing 'Diversity Malaise'
> http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=826
>
>
>  Curing 'Diversity Malaise'
> by: Jenifer Fernandez Ancona
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Colist maillist  - send messages to Colist at comm-org.wisc.edu
>
> To change your subscription, go to http://comm-org.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/colist
>
> All messages are archived at http://comm-org.wisc.edu/pipermail/colist/
>
> Please contact original message authors to request permission to forward messages. 
>
>