Interview With Robert Putnam: On Diversity, Megachurches, and Barack Obama

by: Jenifer Fernandez Ancona

Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 16:00


Following my post looking at Harvard social scientist Robert Putnam's latest research on diversity and civic engagement, I got a chance to talk with Putnam and get his full perspective on what the research means from a progressive perspective. Putnam, a progressive himself, said much of his views have been omitted or downplayed by the conservative pundits and traditional media, who have seized on the reports to push an anti-diversity and anti-immigrant agenda. As always, full disclosure: I work for Vote Hope, which is independently supporting Barack Obama for president as well as state and local candidates in California.

Growing up in the 1950s, Robert Putnam knew the religion of everyone in his high school classes - particularly the attractive girls. To this day, he says, he could look at a yearbook and tell you who was Catholic, Protestant or Jewish. Why? Because back then, dating outside of one's religion was not common practice, and to a teenager, little is more important than who you could or could not date.

"Now, over those 50 years, that line of social distinction has more or less vanished," he said. "Everybody still knows what their own religion is, but we stopped using it as a line of distinction among us."

Putnam tells the story to illustrate one of the key interpretations of his new research, which focuses on the "social capital" of diverse communities in America - mainly its effect on civic engagement. He believes a similar re-imagining of ourselves and our common identity is possible in America, as we become more and more diverse over the next 20 to 30 years.

"We are going to become more diverse, and it's great, with lots of long-term benefits," Putnam said. "But in the short term, adjusting to diversity is not a simple matter."

The latter part of his statement is what much of the traditional media - egged on by right-wing conservatives who have distorted the findings to fit their nativist, anti-immigrant agenda - has focused on. But Putnam said there is a lot for progressives to learn from the data.

The core of the research shows that people who live in more diverse neighborhoods tend to "hunker down." It's not the same as conflict, Putnam said, but it's a phenomenon of everyone pulling in and trusting each other less. It's true for everyone, he said - all racial groups, rich and poor, younger people as well as older folks. "It means you volunteer less, give to charity less, have fewer friends and are less likely to work on community projects," Putnam said. "The only things that go up are protests/marches, and TV watching." The statistical analysis Putnam and his team conducted did take into account outside factors like economics and the different nature of cities and suburbs. Through it all, he still found a higher correlation of diversity and "hunkering down."

Which brings Putnam to the progressive opportunity to help nurture these increasingly diverse neighborhoods and communities for long-term social change. There are two main points, which he argues in more detail in his recent journal article:

Jenifer Fernandez Ancona :: Interview With Robert Putnam: On Diversity, Megachurches, and Barack Obama

1. These lines can change, and have changed in our history.

"These lines that we draw on each other are not God-given and immutable," Putnam said. "One of the great achievements of human civilizations is the ability to erase lines between different kinds of people."

Similar to his story about religious lines being erased, Putnam says ethnic lines have changed socially in America as well. He relates the story of two friends, a woman who has an Irish background and a man who has an Italian background. "When they got married in the 60s, they called it a mixed marriage," he said. "Today that seems absurd. We've successfully erased that line."

Putnam acknowledges that lines between groups such as whites and African Americans will be more difficult to change, but points out that erasing lines such as those across white ethnic groups only seems easy now because we've done it. Back then, the physical differences were seen as quite stark and were a line of social demarcation, whereas now they are not.

It's not that people with those ethnicities have lost their identity, Putnam stressed, it's that the rest of us do not condition our behavior based on their ethnicity. This is an important point, because Putnam is in no way advocating for "colorblind" policies, which are also often pushed by right-wing conservatives to harm people of color.

2. Proactive effort and common purpose in communities can speed up the process.

In the course of his research for an upcoming book on religion, Putnam visited one of the nation's largest evangelical megachurches, Lakewood, in Houston. It was a Friday night, so the former basketball arena wasn't as packed as it usually is - only 6,000 people. In his "pew" were a blonde woman, a Korean couple, and an African American couple - and that was how it was throughout the arena, he said. In that setting, people were not "hunkered down," but were quite comfortable around each other.

"For part of the week, there is some identity that is more important to them than their ethnic identity," Putnam said. "Progressives ought to be encouraging people, not to give up their identity, but to see one another at least part of the time in some other terms."

Megachurches like Lakewood are an example of where that's happening now, Putnam said, and the other one he uses in his paper is the U.S. military. But there are plenty of other possibilities, he said, politics certainly being one of them.

Putnam's disclaimer is that he thinks all of the current Democratic Party candidates are great, and would be happy if any of them were elected. But he said there is much to be learned from Sen. Barack Obama, in terms of what is possible to re-imagine a more common identity.

"Obama embodies the fact that people can across connect racial lines - he wouldn't exist if people couldn't connect," Putnam said.

Putnam agreed that progressive community organizing is a good solution to the short-term effects of diverse communities, and said perhaps Obama's experience as a community organizer helped shape the abilities he sees in him now.

He said he has observed Obama in settings of people with very diverse opinions and backgrounds, and has been impressed with his ability to get people to find common ground.

"Community organizing 101 is to have people tell their stories, and look for commonalities, especially across racial lines," Putnam said.

He said the large multi-racial crowds Obama is attracting in diverse parts of the country are also an important phenomenon. Americans feel very divided from one another right now, he said, but in reality we don't disagree as much as we think we do.

"Obama has the ability to help us see that the things we have in common are more important than the things that divide us," Putnam said. "It's a remarkable ability."


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Erasing lines (0.00 / 0)
Great that you got Putnam to expand on his findings. I've learned a lot from reading him.

I think in California we have an emerging society parts of which are well along on erasing some of the lines people once thought were immutable. Plus, I think people get simply tired of hunkering down and being embattled -- we're definitely more relaxed about some lines than we were in the mid-90s. Concretely, that manifests itself in the fact that the epicenter of nativism is now in Colorado with Tancredo, not just in Orange Country with the Minutemen.

Can it happen here?


I Wish I Could Jump In Right Away, But (4.00 / 1)
I can only steal a few minutes from editing and re-rewrite work I've got to get done today.  But I promise to be back.  I just wanted to say that being a teenager in the 1960s, I was very aware of the sorts of things Putnam is talking about, even as they were rapidly changing.

For example, one day my sister said to me, "Do you realize that all our friends are Catholic?"  (She meant our friends at school, and in the neighborhood.  At Unitarian Church, all our friends were Jewish.  Well, almost all.)

I thought about it a minute, and realized that she was had a point.  I actually had one friend who was Eastern Orthodox, and I probably counted one Mormon as a friend whom she didn't.  But aside from one Episcopalian, when I stopped and thought about it, I couldn't think of any other Protestant that we hung out with. 

We discussed it a bit, and decided that rebelling against authority was a significant common factor.  They were also very smart, but we didn't hang out with smart conformists, who were much more uniformly Protestant.

The thing is, at that point in time there was still a fair amount of that 1950s awareness of other people's relgiious background, but it was something we could know but not even think about until my sister pointed it out one day.

That's what a process of transition looks like.

More later, I hope.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Class divisions source of political divisions (4.00 / 1)
Despite Mr. Obama's rhetoric, his biggest financial backer is nuclear industry firm, Exelon.  Also, he's heavily financed by General Dynamics-linked Crown family of Chicago. So class divisions will tend to reduce the political support that his campaign can get from anti-war working-class people in the USA.  The Black Agenda Report's site, for instance, recently criticized Mr. Obama for not ruling out the possibility that an Obama Administration would unilaterally make a military move into Pakistan. Most Democratic voters are, by now, opposed to the current system of U.S. imperialism, even if it's transformed into a system of "multi-cultural imperialism" or "matriarchal imperialism" by a new Democratic administration in 2009.

class divisions (0.00 / 0)
Anti-war working class people are the people who work for those companies.  And in general I suspect they are proud of the work they do.

[ Parent ]
A little underwhelming (0.00 / 0)
When an Irish/Italian marriage goes from mixed to endogenous, Putnam claims that no internal loss of identity has taken place, but rather that actions based upon perceived external identities have changed.  While this is undoubtedly true in some cases, I'd like to know how Putnam supports such a claim, for it seems to fly in the face of reality as I know it.

I know of few historians who would disagree with the observation that a push towards racial identification operated alongside a push away from ethnic identification for much of the 20th century, which largely explains phenomena such as his megachurch and US military.  Certainly, there are active ethnic orgs all across the country, but this seems to accentuate the lack of community felt by their members (in a spatial sense, at least).  And if I've learned anything from my students, it's that as soon as they're two generations "off the boat" they have almost no ethnic identification to speak of (regardless of race).  So we're left with the question that I suspect fuels most right-wing dissonance:  what gets lost in the process?  (I'll not comment on the irony that most right-wingers fail to grasp the crucial role that classical liberalism and capitalist economies play in this whole process). 

To me, this can only be explained through reference to the development of mass society (where the WWII-era military played a huge role) and nationalism.  Putnam seems to imply that a dissolving of the "old lines of division" means that the "new lines" are more porous.  How many members of that racially diverse megachurch will consider marrying non-Christian religions, atheists, or perhaps even Catholics?  How many of them will vote alike in national contests, thus indicating a very clear political identification of "us" and "them"?  (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the voting patterns of evangelicals rather homogenous?) 

To sum up:  yes, I agree that Americans are (at least some of the time) identifying less and less along ethnic lines, but I think it's far too generalized and taken out of context to have direct political implications.  This whole notion of "hunkering down" doesn't address the atomizing nature of the modern economy which many social scientists see as the heart of civic disengagement and loss of community.
 


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox