Contact Theory Vs. Conflict Theory is what Robert D.Putnam discusses in his article “E.Pluribus Unum”. The contact theory in Putnam’s eyes essentially means that people who are surrounded by those like them feel more comfortable in the environment as opposed to with people of different nationalities. The comfort would eventually lead to a greater and more productive working environment for the workers. The theory also fosters that people are more likely to look after one another if they are of the same background and trust develops amongst them. The other theory Putnam discusses is the Conflict theory, which states that, “diversity fosters out-group distrust and in-group solidarity”. This means that as diversity is increased, the trust existing between groups will be lower in general.

I found both theories interesting because I can see how both can play a role in society. For example, I know that many people of my nationality, for example Russians, feel more comfortable working with other Russians most of the time because of similar work ethics. However, sometimes this system can run haywire and follow the second theory. The resisting of forming other social groups results in solidarity within a group of people.

Overall, this article really confused me. The idea that diversity directly correlates to levels of trust felt weird. Does Putnam mean the trust among and between everyone in general? Or just the level of trust displayed from one race to another race? But past all of this confusion, I like that he focused on some positive aspects of immigration as well.

Putnam says that immigration leads to more knowledge prizes won, which indicates that those living in America as a whole become smarter when there are more immigrants. Not only do non-American immigrants have an incredible chance at become Nobel prize winners, but these immigrants are able to share their knowledge with their folks in their home countries. Diversity and immigration lead to better nations overall. That’s one of the reasons why colleges strive to create a diverse environment. People learn from each other’s differences. And why would you not trust someone who can help you become a better you?

Robert Putnam, in his “E Pluribus Unum” paper, discusses how immigration and diversity impact a society both negatively and positively. He introduces diversity and immigration in a really positive tone, presenting many study-determined facts that portray these two concept as steadily increasing. Particularly, these two factors are predicted to improve democracy, solidarity, economic growth; they also seem to be associated with increase in creativity, contribution to Social Security..etc. Thus, diversity and immigration seem to be extremely positive for a society. However, after introducing the concept that “social networks have value”, as they can impact a person’s average income or a neighborhood crime rates, Putnam presents two main theories on how diversity and immigration impact a community.

• The social contact theory. It predicts that if two races are in contact with each other, they are most likely to accept and care for each other. It predicts that in an ethnically diverse  neighborhood there is more social trust and erosion in distinctions between two groups.
• The social conflict theory. It predicts that if two or more races live close to each other, they will start noticing the differences between them and will be even more unable to accept them. It predicts that with increased ethnic diversity, there will be lower social trust.

The studies that Putnam and other surveys have conducted do not prove either, as the more ethically diverse a neighborhood is, the less people are likely to trust different groups but even their own group.

Social trust, however, has been proven to increase when the social difference between two groups is smaller.

Sara Camnasio

In this article, Putnam explores the nature of diversity and its effect on individuals and the community. The widely accepted theory is that diversity promotes in-group solidarity while discouraging out-group solidarity. In other words, diversity leads to increased trust with people of their own race and decreased trust with people of other races. However, Putnam argues that diversity results in social isolation in general and decreases trust in people of both their own race and of other races. Putnam then suggests that in order to benefit from diversity society must reconstruct their social identity and erase the line between races in order to mutually progress together.

Here Putnam encourages the hyphenated identity of immigrants in order to create something in common with the greater community and to mix into society. I thought this was problematic because the hyphen, in a title such as Chinese-American, creates a hybrid identity instead. This can lead to conflicting feelings for second generation Americans, or the children of immigrants. They are ethnically one identity and can associate with the culture of their parents. Yet they are Americans by birth and learn English and participate in American culture, such as eating pizza and watching American television, as well. They cannot truly be one or the other.

In addition to this, Putnam suggests the reconstruction of identity as “we”. I feel this is a good idea in theory. However, people are always going hesitate when faced with something or someone new. Since immigration will continue to increase diversity in different nations, people are going to continue to feel a separation between those who were already there and those who are the new arrivals. I feel that in order for this sense of “we” to come about, there must be a sense of standing still in a community. People learn to trust those that they have come to known, and only then do the differences that come with ethnicity not matter.

-Wendy Li

Putnam clearly demonstrates both the short-term and long-term effects of immigration in relation to several broad factors: public health, trust, economic well-being, and perceptions of quality of life.  Putnam frames E Pluribus Unu in the context of the global phenomenon of ethnic diversification.  Almost every country in the world is experiencing an increase in the diversity of its populace.  Much of this is spurred by an increase in immigration made possible by more accepting cultures, and the advent of quicker and cheaper modes of long distance transportation.  Putnam recognizes that immigration does not always necessarily mean increased diversity, but he asserts that they are closely correlated in most cases.

By referencing multiple studies, Putnam provides a plethora of evidence suggesting that the initial effects of immigration and diversification within a community are not positive. Residents in diverse areas are less likely to take part in local politics, trust neighbors or the local news, participate in volunteering efforts, give to charity, have a large group of friends, and have a good perception of their quality of life.  Putnam argues that residents in such communities tend to “close” themselves to the outside world and spend more times in doors, alone, and watching television.  This reaction to  diversification can be traced throughout history to a very common psychological concept; Those who have a great deal of interaction with “outsiders”, are more likely to trust them.  For example, when the American Army was segregated, soldiers who had spent time living and working alongside black soldiers were more open to the idea of military integration than those who had not.  This has important implications for contemporary society.  Modern public schools try to place an emphasis on maintaining racially and socio-economically diverse student bodies.  This has been shown to encourage in class learning and awareness and respect of other cultures.

Such findings are certainly salient political issues in American society.  Competitive universities, both public and private, are known for “sculpting their classes” to be as diverse as possible.  Although they are not allowed to have a “race quota”, they are currently allowed to use race as one deciding factor in college admissions.  This concept has been challenged in the judicial system and a case pertaining to this method of college selection is currently being tried in the Supreme Court. Putnam would most likely keep the process as it currently stands.  He states that, “In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits”.  Although there are certainly considerable growing-pains, the lasting effects of immigration and diversity in all areas of society, greatly outweigh the initial problems they cause.

-Victor Rerick

Putnam makes it clear that he finds immigration and ethnic diversity to be very beneficial in the long run, even though they may inhibit the growth in amount of so-called “social capital”. Putnam’s quote from a 2003 piece by Alba and Nee provides a good definition of the concept. “’When social distance is small, there is a feeling of common identity, closeness, and shared experiences. But when social distance is great, people perceive and treat the other as belonging to a different category’” (159). When a high amount of social capital exists, there is trust between neighbors, and many members of the community know each other, thus forming a social network. As an example of the value of social capital, Putnam mentions that there are studies which show that labor markets are all about networks, with most people getting jobs, either directly or indirectly, through an acquaintance, a friend, a family member. This claim was further supported by “Moving On: Chinese Garment Workers after 9/11”, in which we saw that because the majority of Chinese garment factory workers didn’t know too many people, or, in other words, lacked networks, when they lost their garment factory jobs upon the closing of factories in Chinatown, they couldn’t find new jobs.

Putnam also makes a key distinction that can’t go without mentioning. He explains that immigration and diversity are not one and the same, a concept that can be easily overlooked. In the U.S., there is much diversity as there are people living here whose ancestors came from Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, virtually every corner of the world. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that immigration rates are currently high in the United States. Many African-American families have been here for generations, and members of these families who are living today can’t be considered immigrants. The people who came to the U.S. when England colonized and remained permanently can be considered immigrants, but if you go down their family trees to the generation living now, you can’t consider its members to be immigrants, while they certainly contribute to the diversity of the population. Although the U.S. is a cultural melting pot, there is not one, unifying, American culture. Most people living in the U.S. retain some of the beliefs and traditions that they brought with them from their homelands, making the U.S. an extremely diverse nation, regardless of whether or not immigration is occurring.

Having read this article, I wonder whether or not diversity would severely diminish if immigration was to wholly cease. Without immigration, would a single culture eventually develop? If so, would this development be more rapid in the U.S. than in other diverse nations, since it is such a melting pot?

Right away from the beginning of reading this article’s introductory paragraph it was shocking to see its negative view of diversity. I can honestly say I have never seen a published article express negativity toward diversity like this before, and I actually thought people wouldn’t want to do something like this if they don’t want to appear nationalist or racist. This is an absolutely unique point of view because it seems that in NYC diversity is constantly encouraged.

The trust question was interesting: the article cited evidence that the more different types of people interact with each other, the more okay they are with the idea of racial integration, and yet then it says that the more people are around those different from them, the more they stick to their own and trust the others less. What is really amazing is that the anti-diversity statement is cited from a really large number of researches, this makes it look very convincing. I did notice that most of them are not recent though: only one is from the past decade.
It is difficult for me to understand this concept. If people are more okay with other ethnic groups the more they interact with them, why would those interactions coincide with a lower trust, group cohesion, and satisfaction?

It also didn’t make sense to me that people trust other races more if they are never around them. I’m referring to this quote: “Inter-racial trust is relatively high in homogeneous South Dakota and relatively low in heterogeneous San Francisco or Los Angeles.” I was wondering why would a person decide that they trust somebody until they even meet them? I feel like this is a slightly racist generalization. It seems strange to assume that one trusts an entire race of people because of their race.

Also, a bit later the article pretty much concluded that people who live in diverse communities don’t trust anyone. I never really encountered that point of view while living in NYC and I actually feel that a lack of trust was more prevalent in my completely homogenous hometown (meaning lack of trust toward strangers though, not people one is familiar with). The reasons for a lack of trust there were very solid: after the collapse of the Soviet Union crime skyrocketed and a lot of people were actually looking to trick others out of their money. In NYC, I never felt like people have a lack of trust toward those around them. My hometown also fits other dissatisfactions described, such as the lack of trust in the government and one’s political power, but that is also very logical because everyone knows the government is awful and the politics are corrupt. This is making me think that maybe its not the ethnic diversity that has to do with such sentiments, but the actual government people have there.

Putnam states that diversity is a valuable asset to all nations. He also states that Scott Page states that diversity produces much better, faster problem solving. This data is only correlational; it does not mean that diversity actually does produce creativity, or better and faster problem solving. How do we know that the immigrants who won such prestigious awards didn’t just win because they themselves were smart or creative enough to come from their own countries? After all, the immigration to a place like America, or anywhere else, is not random. You would have to have at least some grand sum of money to be able to afford to immigrate. How would we also know that it isn’t because of the experiences the individuals had that caused them to become more creative or intellectual than Americans? I feel like there are too many variables that would affect this to ultimately assume that diversity produced creativity and better as well as faster problem solving.

Putnam’s correlational study was interesting to read. One thing that could’ve supplemented this was the actual survey itself. Surveys can be misleading sometimes, especially the questions asked, and sometimes people who are taking the survey might not take it seriously. Surveys however, can have high reliability but low validity. The results that Putnam has now, would they change in the future? Putnam gave the example of how people marry as a result of having the same religion changed into people marrying regardless of religion. In the future, would race also be the same? Would interracial marriage cause people to identify themselves differently?