Tuesday, July 03, 2007

Diversity, Trust, and Religion

I recently became aware of research by Robert Putnam that paints a mixed view of ethnic diversity. Here is an excerpt from the abstract of the study:
In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighborhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities.

Unsurprisingly, this study has been cited by numerous anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism folks -- usually minus the reference to the possible long term benefits. The come-back from progressives is usually to focus nearly entirely on the long term findings. I think this is equally problematic. Both the short and long term effects must be taken seriously if we care about the quality of our own lives and the lives of our neighbors – wherever they come from.

People who work with diverse populations at schools or in community settings will tend to file this study under the heading “not news”. The darker side of human nature makes diversity difficult. But diversity (and, I dare say, immigration) is here to stay, so what do we do? How do we make the short term problems as “short term” as possible? How do we get over the mistrust and “hunkering down” tendency?

I’m especially interested in thinking about what role religion (or spirituality, if you prefer) can play in the drama. It strikes me that when religion is at it’s worst, it exacerbates the problem – creating enclaves of suspicion and encouraging us to pass judgment on our neighbors. I’m sorry to say that I think this happens more often than not, but that doesn’t mean that secularism is necessarily the better answer. Secularism can just as easily lead to “me first” thinking, and suspicion of differences in manner or culture. No-holds-barred capitalism is thoroughly secular (in spite of the many Religious Right types who embrace it, seemingly contrary to biblical principles), yet it is the major cause of migration between countries, both legally and illegally. Not only are people drawn to western countries to seek opportunity, they are also “pushed” from the other direction by impossible economic situations brought on by a secular “theology” of globalism that elevates profit above any other social, political, or human good.

But what about religion as 17th century Quaker Robert Barclay experienced it?

“For when I came into the silent assemblies of God's people, I felt a secret power among them which touched my heart; and as I gave way unto it, I found the evil weakening in me and the good raised up.”

Religion at it’s best raises up the good in us and weakens the evil. It reminds us that we are all loved by God, all part of the same sacred creation. Even when we can’t manage to feel that way about our fellow human beings, good religion disciplines us to behave as if it were true anyway. (“Love thy enemy” and all that...)

I’m interested in what others think about these topics. Please share!

5 comments:

NorthCoastCouple said...

That was a very thoughtful entry, and I tend to agree with your ideas there. Just the other day, I watched the movie "Crash" which is basically about race relations in L.A. and how people of different races and ethnicities react to and interact with one another. There certainly was a lot of mistrust and isolation.
It wasn't the easiest show to watch. I found myself feeling pretty frustrated with the characters' (of all races) actions and choices. I wonder if it would be less frustrating for a person from a more diverse background to watch, since they may have a better understanding of why people of different races interact the way they do in a city like L.A.
Anyway, I agree with your last paragraph about religion at its best. Unfortunately, what gets media attention is often the opposite of people practicing religion at its best, therefore when someone hears that I'm a Christian, they already assume they know everything about me and what I stand for. They're usually wrong. I guess religion and race are similar in that way. You can't assume anything.
— Laura

Just Me said...

I am currently reading a book by Marcus J. Borg called The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith. While the specific topics of diversity and immigration are not addressed, I think it does offer some insights at a more fundamental level that may apply to the short term problems the study described with respect to immigration and ethnic diversity. Borg asserts that faith, while being at the heart of Christianity, is commonly misunderstood by many modern western Christians. For many Christians, faith results in a preoccupation with holding “right” beliefs and an afterlife. According to Borg, the history of Christianity has four primary meanings of “faith.” In this modern era of Christianity, we overemphasize faith as belief and while downplaying the other three meanings. One of these other meanings is “faith as visio”, which certainly seems applicable to the “hunker down” mentality. “Faith as visio” is faith as a way of seeing the whole, a way of seeing “what is.” In other words how we see the whole determines how we respond. We can see life as hostile and threatening. In this case we respond defensively. We seek security and act self-protectively. On the other hand, we can see the whole as life-giving and nourishing. We see the wonder and awe of the creation around us. We can see reality as gracious. This way of seeing allows us to see what God loves and love what God loves. As a result, we are less anxious, less self-preoccupied. Borg states that this way of seeing generates a “willingness to spend and be spent” for the sake of a vision that goes beyond ourselves.

With that said, it seems to me that for the most part religion in the organized sense of the word will be reluctant to play a role in this drama. Jesus was a radical who fought against the injustices (social, economic, and political) of the ruling elite of his day. According to Borg, since the 4th century, Christianity has been the religion of the dominant culture and the “powers that be”. As a result Christians have seldom “engaged in radical criticism of the social order.” The political voices of the Bible are not emphasized by religion today. Instead much of the focus is now on personal salvation and the afterlife. This to me parallels secularism’s “me first” thinking. For me, this type of religion is unappealing and has little power to change the world.

naturalmom said...

Laura, I haven't seen that movie, but I've heard lots about it. I should see it some time. I totally agree that people make too many presumptions based on labels that we give ourselves or others. The more aware I become of this, the more reluctant I am to describe myself with common labels -- even those that seem accurate to me. You never know how someone else is interpreting it.

Kimberly,
You keep adding to my reading list! First "Better Off", now this Borg book! ;o) I think Borg's distinctions about the various meanings of faith sound fascinating. I read his book "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time", and really enjoyed it.

I also agree with you that modern Christians are not nearly as socially radical as Jesus's example would indicate. Being in the majority begets comfort and a bit of complacency I guess. Of course this is true not only of Christians but of any religious or philosophical group that moves from the margins to the mainstream.

"Instead much of the focus is now on personal salvation and the afterlife. This to me parallels secularism’s “me first” thinking."

Great observation. I agree.

Stephanie

Paper Dali said...

Hm. How can I limit all my thoughts on ethnic diversity to a small comment on a blog? I'll try and fail, but I'll at least be able to get some snippets of thought in ...

I've lived in the mountainous areas of the East Coast, the deep South, the Southwest and the West. In all areas, there have been definite areas of "hunkered-down" ehtnic groups. Without fail. However, I would say that some of those areas, the Eastern town where I spent a lot of time for example, the areas remained fragmented due to the persecution from other groups. There were clear deep divisions. I don't know why there wasn't very much cross-over between the groups. I had no group. We were the only Latinos in town. But it seemed that each group, with it strong, rich, intense culture, celebrated itself so deeply to the exclusion of other group. There wasn't a continued pouring in from any motherland, so maybe they clung to their group for the sake of not being "watered down" by other groups. I don't know why it was that way.

Where I live now, our area is extremely diverse, and once again, every group has its own section of the city. Korean, Vietnamese, Mexican, the white supremacist (which is not really an ethnic group, but they still have their own neighborhood), Chinese, etc. I have found, though, that the third and fourth generations of each group is totally comfortable in crossing into other groups. The ones who arrive here freshly from their homelands or even the first-generation Americans tend to gravitate towards the same ethnic group if a neighborhood has been set up.

Because I did not have an Argentine neighborhood in which to keep the customs and traditions of my parents' homeland, I found myself crossing over to all sorts of groups. And I find many of my friends, second and third generation Americans, all have fully integrated and crossed into various ethnic groups. My own little family is a blend of the Latino and my DH's Mayflower-ishy background.

If you read the news, you'd think our area was so deeply divided that no one will ever get along. I think the main division comes from money more than anything else. Yes, there are times when the darkest side of human nature comes out. Extreme wealth beside extreme poverty creates extreme distress and anger. And outbreaks of that happen. I find that the media tends to thrive on the division and sets up movies, t.v. shows, etc. to promote the division. People getting along or people attempting to live in peace despite differences is not good television.

But for the regular folks, the hard-working average family, the diversity means more variety in music, restaurants, t.v. programs, clothing, festivals to attend, movies to see, friends to have. For the most part, because everyone here has come from somewhere else, you have Koreans going to eat at Mexican restaurants, Vietnamese marrying non-Vietnamese people, Filipinos and Chinese celebrating at church together, etc.

The role of religion? It depends on the religion. Some religions preach hatred. (And I am not talking about the followers of the religion, but the actual text of that religion. The actual TEACHING is hate itself.) Some religions do not.

The teachings of the Catholic Church (of which I am a member) is to love all people, regardless of race, creed, color, etc. All people are to be loved as my brothers and sisters. Has the Church sometimes veered away from this? Yes, for the members of the Church have failed horrifically sometimes. Yet, the hate/ugliness that the members committed is not due to the teachings, which have remained steady and constant, but due to the failings and ugliness of the members.

When the talk of the role of religion is discussed, I always find it important to differentiate between the actual teachings of a religion and the people themselves. For example, both truly holy people and terrible killers have claimed to be Christian, but obviously, some veered away from the teaching while others embraced it. Is it the fault of Christianity? I'd say no. It was the failing of the person.

I know there are times when I fail to be as loving as I should be. Is it the fault of Jesus? No, it's definitely me.

naturalmom said...

Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this Maria. It seems that your observations in your city would bear out Putnam's research.