In “E Pluribus Unum”, Robert Putnam discusses contact  theory and conflict theory, two theories that explain interracial relationships. Ideally, the former of the two theories  is the one we wish to be true. Contact theory explains that when different races are situated in close contact with each other, the groups will grow tolerant of each other’s unique culture. Groups will eventually grow to value and even appreciate once unfamiliar groups. Conflict theory is the exact opposite. Conflict theory states that when different races are placed in close proximity to one another, racial groups will stick together and avoid interracial interaction. The different races can develop distrust toward one another. Antagonism between the different groups may also arise.

Both contact theory and conflict theory can be examined in New York City. New York is known as a melting pot of diversity, an obvious nod to contact theory. However, the city is also known by many of its iconic homogeneous neighborhoods, such as Chinatown or Spanish Harlem. Both contact and conflict theory are deeply rooted in New York City

Out of many, one – says the title of Putnam’s article “E Pluribus Unum”, but does it speak the truth? According to Putnam, there are two possible outcomes when people of different cultures live in one area. The contact theory states that people will eventually come to accept each other and embrace their differences. The conflict theory, on the other hand, states that the more diversity there is in a neighborhood, the less trusting people are of one another. But why? What causes this rising distrust among people of different cultures and beliefs? Both of these theories are seen in New York City. Many ethnic neighborhoods with numerous cultures present exist and with these neighborhoods come both harmony and disagreement. Some neighborhoods, like Ditmas Park, display a truly interwoven mix of cultures but others, such as Black and Spanish Harlem demonstrate the conflicts that exist among different races/nationalities. How will these conflicts change over time? Will they ever change?

In his article “E.Pluribus Unum”, Putnam discusses two extremely different theories: the contact theory and the conflict theory. These two theories contrast each other greatly. When two different ethnic groups are placed into the same neighborhood, two different situations can occur. The contact theory states that when two different races are placed into the same neighborhood, they will eventually come to accept the other’s culture, as well as become comfortable with the people of the other culture.

In contrast, the contact theory states the complete opposite. It states that because two different ethnic groups are placed into the same neighborhood, their differences will be more enhanced, which would make it much harder for the two to accept one another’s cultures. This theory is all about trust. The more groups there are, the less trust there is between the two groups.

Robert Putnam discusses contact theory vs. conflict theory in his article “E.Pluribus Unum.” In simpler terms, the contact theory is that two races in contact with each other will be more likely to accept each other. Ethnically diverse areas will have groups more inclined to care for each other and there is a high level of trust between different groups. In contrast, the conflict theory predicts that raves living near each other will see differences between each other quickly and there will be less trust.

Surveys support the conflict theory more than the contact theory. In homogenous areas, interracial trust was high while heterogeneous areas had low interracial trust. Yet another study showed that people have less trust with their neighbors in a diverse community. Putnam mentions that people living in diverse communities will not be close with their neighbors or their community because they are distrustful.

Before delving into the Putnam article, I was interested in discovering what exactly was meant by the title, “E Pluribus Unum.” I know that it translates as “Out of Many One” form Latin to English, but how does this relate to the United States and immigration? Well, as it turns out, it is a popular saying found on most US coins and “refers to the idea that the United States is made up of individual states and populated by individual citizens, but we come together as a single country.” This theme of diversity sets the tone for the rest of this particular article. Putnam discusses two very different theories of societal interactions in neighborhoods that are dominated by diversity: contact theory versus conflict theory. In contact theory, Putnam argues that in a diverse society toleration of differences in race becomes more tolerable because people become accustomed to one another. Conflict theory, however, argues the exact opposite. It states that diversity actually causes ethnic groups to flock towards people that are similar to themselves (ethnically) and lack of trust between different ethnic groups escalates. I can understand what Putnam is getting at with the “distrust” present amongst a diverse neighborhood. I grew up in a completely Puerto Rican household, and I definitely have seen my family automatically trust people more so of the same race than of a different kind. People understandably feel more comfortable with people of their own race because on the shared commonalities and the concept of being new to America. This is often a popular thing amongst new immigrants because it’s already a confusing and lonely time, so it’s often comforting to find someone of the same background as you so that you may relate better to the person in general and the hard times that you are both experiencing. However, I think that growing up in New York City, one of the most diverse cities in the country, has shown me through first-hand experience just how diversity can foster ethnic tolerance and even acceptance. New York City is filled with all kinds of people from all different kinds of backgrounds, but most people seem accepting of this to the point where differences aren’t even acknowledged as such. I think that there’s definitely a mixture of both theories present in diverse neighborhoods.

In his article “E Pluribus Unum”, Robert Putnam discusses two opposing theories, that oddly enough coexist, on how diversity and immigration effect a community. The two theories are the social contact theory and the social conflict theory.

The social contact theory states that if two or more races live with each other, they are most likely to accept and be tolerant for one another. It predicts that in an ethnically diverse neighborhood there is a lot of social trust, whereas the social conflict theory predicts the opposite. The social conflict theory predicts that when two or more races live with each other they grow to distrust each other and are unable to accept their neighbors. So far there has been no conclusive evidence to fully show that either of these theories is correct.

Another interesting thing about this article is that Putnam actually interviewed people of various ethnicities and cultures and the results were extremely varied however many people did say that they did not trust their neighbors. This was a very thought provoking notion because it made me stop and question my own personal views on this issue and where my neighborhood stands in terms of diversity and such.

The thing that I found interesting about this article is the fact that places with greater ethnic heterogeneity tend to have less cohesion. This is due to the issue of lack of trust in different people in the neighborhood. According to Putnam, even in games, people playing in more ethnically diverse groups tend to cheat more. The notion of ethnic diversity seems to promote the lone-wolf mindset and survival of the fittest, where it is every man for himself. This may be due to the mindset that people who are not like you do not understand you because they are not from the same backgrounds. People tend to trust others from the same background because they feel more comfortable and protected that these similar-looking people will support them in whatever views they have. This reflects in the lower political voice of ethnically diverse neighborhoods because people there have little confidence that their views would actually be supported by others in the neighborhood anyway.

In order to tackle our lack of cohesion in diverse neighborhoods, we need to emphasize on our similarities, like religion, immigration status, and our life-long goal of achieving the American Dream. Schools and recreation centers are also very good facilitators in promoting more comfort and toleration of different ethnicities due to the intermingling of these different groups of people in these places.

Robert Putnam raises several very interesting points in his article, E Pluribus Unum. The first thing that struck me was that he approached subject by defining it as both a social issue and an economic one. Social Capital refers to a nation’s population (and therefore, its workforce). Avoiding the issue of “good” or “bad,” the first few paragraphs are dedicated to the effects, or externalities that result from increased diversity: “friends may improve health, whereas civic groups strengthen democracy… Al Qaeda… [enables] participants to accomplish goals they could not accomplish without that network.”

Contact theory is a familiar story. It’s what we are told since kindergarden: diversity makes us more accepting, more well-rounded. I do not, for a second, disagree with this teaching model: having grown up in an ethnically diverse school district, I can personally attest to the fact that (for the most part) all “groups” felt comfortable around each other. But until having read about conflict theory, it had never occurred to me that the self-inflicted segregation of various “groups” in high school (by which I refer to race, not by cliques) was strict. We were a salad bowl, tolerant and peaceful, but never really the “melting pot” which had all heard so much about.

The most striking aspect of the article was the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey; according to the results, there is a negative correlation between inter-racial trust and diversity. The more homogeneous a community, the more they believe they would trust someone of another race. As Robert Putnam states, this is totally consistent with conflict-theory. Perhaps because of my own upbringing, political beliefs, or biases, I had always imagined that the opposite would be true: meaning, the more homogenous a community, the more distrusting they would be of outsiders, especially those of a different race.

Finally, I was astonished that racial diversity was so directly linked to social involvement. Putnam cites evidence that in areas of greater diversity, people demonstrate lower confidence in local government, are less of a tendency to become involved in politics or community efforts, have fewer friends, and have a lower perceived quality of life. Of course, this makes sense in the context of everything else that Putnam explores in his article, but it goes against everything that I had been taught as a child.

Fortunately, not all hope is lost. Putnam gives anecdotes about the US Army, Evangelical congregations, to support the claim that over time, inter-racial trust can, and is, built. What’s more, in the long run, he argues, smart policies will “ameliorate” the effects of conflict theory, vastly increasing America’s social capital.

In the article, “ E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the Twenty-First Century”, Robert D. Putnam discusses the short-run vs. long-run effects of immigration. He proposes that in the long run, immigration had cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits but in the short run, there is a reduction in social solidarity and social capital. I feel I have experienced the short run effects in my neighborhood of Jamaica, NY.  I grew up with a knowing only a few Bangladeshi neighbors and now Jamaica (Hillside Ave) is filled with Bangladeshi supermarkets, restaurants, clothing stores, mosques, and PEOPLE. There is a reduction in social solidarity because the newer immigrants tend to congregate in Jamaica, while immigrants that came before tend to spread out. The values and reasons my parents and their friends had when they came to the US is very different than the values and reasons of the newer immigrants, making their stories different.

When discussing ethnicities and races, I think the quote at the end really gives us a new perspective on the issues discussed by Putnam. The British Commission on Equality and Human Rights stated, “We need to respect people’s ethnicity but also give them, at some point in the week, an opportunity to meet and want to be with people with whom they have something in common that is not defined by their ethnicity”. It implies that people shouldn’t be restricted to live their lives according to socially constructed standards. Social identity can be constructed and reconstructed in many ways so why expect people to follow arbitrary labels they might not feel applies to them.