Robert Putnam is this Harvard professor who wrote about how more ethnic diversity might lower social cohesion and retard the formation of 'social capital', the inter-connectedness of society, the provision of public goods and so on. Might a reverse process by which the aggresive assertion of identity under circumstances of increased social stratification lead to the creation of negative social capital, a surplus of public 'bads'- in short, the increasing export of hate and terror by societies which ultimately can produce nothing else?
To summarise why Putnam's original thesis might make sense (to me)- I jot down the following thoughts
The dynamics of social capital formation as impacted by differential rates of diversity- i.e. why diversity might factor in comparative rates of associativity over time- is, I imagine, a function of
1) the likelihood of negative exogenous shocks- economic or otherwise. Presumably sauve qui peut would be the more natural reaction in less homogenous contexts with both individuals and marginal communities voting with their feet as I believe has happened recently in Emporia (?) where the local Somali community decided to leave en bloc after the closing of the big meat packing plant. More generally, gold rush towns are diverse- indeed increasing diversity drives fungibility- but quickly become ghost towns for that very reason. But, this suggests the idea that Putnam’s result may reflect the perceived increased vulnerability to exogenous shocks in a globalised market since the Thatcher/Reagan years rather than the failure of multi-culturalism and the well known fact that coloured people are all muggers and rapists.
In other words diverse neighborhoods, or employers with high diversity, etc. tend - under conditions of radical uncertainty- to act like Schelling focal points for gold rush camps- i.e. places you move to when you don’t want to put down roots- and places you can move out again from by selling to the next lot of the newly rootless.
2) lowered probability of, or pre-emption of the fruits of, positive endogenous or exogenous shocks- i.e. ‘we’ve struck oil under Springfield Primary!"- let’s set up committees to decide how to spend the money! Why bother? Mr. Burns will have siphoned it all away by now. In other words the association between diversity and low social capital formation may reflect what has happened to the Kuznets curve (income distribution getting worse rather than better) as a result of those Wall Street guys- Gordon Gekko etc. etc. In other words, whereas diverse ‘gold-rush’ communities would have a strong incentive to associate if they get to keep a portion of the wind-fall, the reverse is the case when it comes to standing up to the robber barons.
3) decline of potlatch expenditure as a social solvent coz of deindustrialisation leading to higher prices for property, services and non-tradable goods thus lowering the sacrificial value of the goods consumed in the potlatch. Run away property prices might also have a hand in creating ghettos whose natural leaders have fled. Corporate and Municipal potlatch too might decline because of the watchful eye of share-holders and tax payers and so on. Presumably, diversity reduces the legitimacy of innovative potlatch since, by definition, diversity is recent rather than a settled God of the tribe.
4) intenser preference revelation problem under conditions of diversity- “no, I won’t contribute to building a skating rink. Hello! I’m Hindu, what I look like- frigging Eskimo?"- making local provision of public goods too costly to administer. Also, changes in diversity- its composition rather than absolute level - probably changes the whole matrix of external costs and benefits in an unanticipated way thus rendering civic association for the provision of public goods, or the internalisation of externalities, into a losing battle. If high diversity is associated with rapid demographic turnover- as I believe is the case- then associativity is going to be reactive, more a pooling of frustration, a gathering up of grievances, rather than anything rewarding in its own right.
5) institutionalised conflict (stasis) - gang turf wars, Public sector paralysis, the ‘doughnut effect’ etc, etc. Did I mention that all coloured people are rapists and muggers? I did? Well tick that off then.
Thinking about it, I guess au fond diversity is uncertainty. It sets up multiple signal extraction problems at every cross-roads. Goddam! I’ve just argued myself into believing diversity is bad coz ceteris paribus more uncertainty means lower economic activity- right?
Wrong. Under plausible conditions more uncertainty means nothing but economic activity, ceaseless economic activity, economic activity seeking more and more outlets and (perhaps) thus gaining the motivation to fulfill Coase’s theorem- i.e. make up for missing markets by creating new forms of non-associative associativity- & thus, fex Urbis lex Orbis, new Golgothas and new Gods.
No here's how the opposite might happen- i.e Identity politics increasing Social cohesion but producing negative Social capital and the propagation of Public 'bads"-
1) Assume Identity politics does not lead to a change in tastes such that consumption and production externalities reinforce each other to create cheaper goods for all. This would happen if Identity politics is being artificially imposed on a fragmenting Society where preference functions are going every which way. Under these circumstances, identity politics might function purely by the creation of the cheapest tradable signal of identity affirmation- viz. hate for the outgroup. You then have a free-rider problem- unlimited hate costs individuals nothing but imposes a cost on society at the margin where it encounters the other- think Gaza, think Iran.
2) Now consider the situation where the production of hate is actually subsidised by some off shore deep pockets. You then could have a society whose state apparatus is funded off shore and for a purpose wholly other than the production of public goods. Here you have an Agency Capture problem and again a flight to terror, the breakdown of the moral cohesion of the nation- think Pakistan
nonsense
ReplyDelete