When a rather diverse part of Europe becomes synonymous with centuries of ethnic distrust and violence–”Balkanized”–you’d think a study like this wouldn’t be so shocking. The study cofirms the suppressed common sense that anyone who has lived in an ethnically mixed neighborhood quickly learns: diversity reduces trust, and people in diverse neighborhoods tend to stick with and trust their own kind. The counsel of “diversity makes us stronger” simply does not stand up to scrutiny; many diverse societies are fractured messes–Lebanon comes to mind–while unified societies like Japan are notable for their extraordinarily low crime rates and high degrees of cooperative behavior.
Why is this? Lots of reasons, but probably in part because our ethnicities, language groups and the like are indicators of broadly similar values, customs, and interests. We can cooperate and trust those like us more readily because we can figure out their motivations and size up danger by recognizing patterns we see in ourselves.
Plus there is probably a caveman genetic component there too: those who look like us and share the same heritage are in a sense distant cousins; by helping them, we help our broadly defined genetic selves.
Subscribe To This Feed
It’s human nature to want to associate with others who are like oneself in many ways. It doesn’t matter whether you think that’s good or bad, it’s just a fact. And it may be more important to people than ever today, in a complex and quickly changing world ââ¬â we need psychological anchor points. Shared backgrounds, language, and values reassure us that we are not afloat in an alien universe whose realities are self-created and arbitrary.
The Liberal Establishment has confused the meaning of diversity. There is no need to create diversity ââ¬â it already exists, in plenty. The contemporary idea of diversity is more akin to denying diversity by insisting on a homogenized culture, a drive that is doomed to failure because forcing people together does not eliminate the differences, contrary to what it “should” do. Liberals believe that if people don’t behave the way they should in Utopian theory, they must be made to under the threat of penalty. But all that legal and economic sanctions can produce is outward conformity to the supposedly desirable outcome; they can’t eliminate the underlying differences, or the resentment caused by lack of freedom of association.
It’s good when people voluntarily associate with others of different races, nationalities, religions, and cultures. Encouraging diversity can be justified; requiring it negates almost all of its value and can lead to precisely the kind of anger and strife it is meant to avoid.
It seems you define diversity very narrowly. So, when I look at my wife I see something different from me and when I look at a man I see something similar. So, what would you say if I decided the man is more trustworthly and thus live amoung men from now on. Maybe, everyone is different anyhow so I probably need to become a hermit.
Diversity is usually meant to mean ethnic diversity. As in the vacuous expression “diversity is our strength” to redefine the apparent chaos of mass immigration as an asset. So, it seems while this means we all get to eat at more diverse restaurants–not an insignificant good–we probably have to lock our doors more than we would otherwise and run the risk of massive ethnic riots every few years, plus less trust all around which impedes commerce and convivilaity.