Diversity and politics
11:35am Wednesday, 13th February 2008
Is ethnic diversity at the root of our current political malaise? I'm coming a bit late to this debate, but one of Robert Putnam's recent articles shows that (in the short term at least) diversity is correlated with lower public trust in institutions, decline of voter registration and a weaker sense that ordinary people can change things. Of course, his case isn't conclusive, but it raises some very interesting questions.
If Putnam is right, then problems like low turnout might simply be a transitional phase. The rise of identity politics is an overdue renegotiation of the way the British state interacts with society, particularly with minorities. Identity politics might, in fact, be the necessary first step towards helping new social and political understanding emerge - look at the Sons of Norway or Knights of Columbus in early 20th century America.
The fact that power structures are being renegotiated is disrupting the traditional ways that society has operated, and the fact that the debate is being conducted at a high political level leaves ordinary people feeling anxious but powerless. As Putnam suggests, that may lead the public to join social movements and mount protests instead of voting. As new understandings and structures coalesce in society, a more stable kind of politics as usual may start to assert itself.
Putnam's broader point is that diversity is bad for social trust - it not only leads to mistrust between ethnic groups, but reduces trust within them as well. His response is refreshingly hopeful. Diversity is a good thing for societies economically and socially. The current low levels of trust are part of a transitional phase as societies absorb newcomers - America has successfully absorbed several waves of immigration. We need to broaden our sense of identity so we can learn to live with diversity.
If Putnam is right, then problems like low turnout might simply be a transitional phase. The rise of identity politics is an overdue renegotiation of the way the British state interacts with society, particularly with minorities. Identity politics might, in fact, be the necessary first step towards helping new social and political understanding emerge - look at the Sons of Norway or Knights of Columbus in early 20th century America.
The fact that power structures are being renegotiated is disrupting the traditional ways that society has operated, and the fact that the debate is being conducted at a high political level leaves ordinary people feeling anxious but powerless. As Putnam suggests, that may lead the public to join social movements and mount protests instead of voting. As new understandings and structures coalesce in society, a more stable kind of politics as usual may start to assert itself.
Putnam's broader point is that diversity is bad for social trust - it not only leads to mistrust between ethnic groups, but reduces trust within them as well. His response is refreshingly hopeful. Diversity is a good thing for societies economically and socially. The current low levels of trust are part of a transitional phase as societies absorb newcomers - America has successfully absorbed several waves of immigration. We need to broaden our sense of identity so we can learn to live with diversity.
LOGIN to add comments
Comments