A look at national identity and the benefits and challenges of diversity.
Link: No motto please, we're British.
Very key thoughts re dealing positively with diversity. paper on extension.
A recent model (see footnote 2) suggests that there are four main components to social identity. These are:
1. constitutive norms - the formal and informal rules that govern group membership.
2. social purposes - the goals shared by members of the group
3. relational comparisons - identities defined by comparison to other groups i.e. where there is a strong, threatening 'out-group', 'in-group' identity and cohesion can be strengthened.
4. cognitive models - the worldviews or understandings of political and material conditions and interests shaped by particular identities.
=====================================================
No motto please, we're British
NOV 2007
News that the government was launching a consultation on a National Statement of British Values has led various newspapers to run competitions on a 'national motto'. Popular suggestions from Times' readers included 'Dipso Fatso Bingo Asbo Tesco', 'Sorry, is this the queue', and 'National mottos are for wimps'.
Whilst the idea of a national motto has been a source of mirth, there is an underlying issue which the political scientist, Francis Fukuyama believes to be of vital importance. Writing in Prospect magazine in February he says: 'Modern liberal societies have weak collective identities. Postmodern elites, especially in Europe, believe they have evolved beyond identities defined by religion and nation.'
Fukuyama goes as far as to say that unless we can uncover those positive virtues which define what it means to be a member of our wider society we are in danger of being 'challenged by migrants who are more sure about who they are.'
Whilst Fukuyama has focused on the importance of shared values that shape our identity and the ways in which we inter-relate, Robert Putnam, one of the leading figures in the field of social capital has been exercised by the dilemma of diversity. Simply put, the dilemma is that diversity within work teams, communities or at a national level can be both beneficial and damaging. Diverse teams, for example, have been shown to find better solutions to problems, but to experience more conflict. Putnam’s findings (from empirical studies in the US) highlight some of the dangers:
Diversity does not produce bad race relations or ethnically defined group hostility, our findings suggest. Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life. To distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. Note that this pattern encompasses attitude and behaviour, bridging and bonding social capital, public and private connections. Diversity at least in the short run, seems to bring out the turtle in all of us. (see footnote 1)
Putnam also summarised evidence from other studies. In teams, more diversity is generally associated with lower group cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover. In countries, greater ethic diversity is associated with lower social trust and in local communities with less voluntary activity, or maintenance of shared infrastructure.
If these are the challenges, how do we overcome them to harness the benefits of diversity?
A good place to start is to recognise and value the benefits of diversity. One of the most important is around the increased creativity, innovation and the better decision-making that comes from 'cognitive diversity' - that is, different ways of thinking. A recent book by Scott Page (The Difference: how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools and societies. Princeton University Press 2007) provides a detailed and fascinating explanation of why diverse groups find better answers. But Page acknowledges that diversity in 'fundamental preferences' - what we want to achieve and the values we adhere to - are more likely to give rise to conflict.
A recent model (see footnote 2) suggests that there are four main components to social identity. These are:
1. constitutive norms - the formal and informal rules that govern group membership.
2. social purposes - the goals shared by members of the group
3. relational comparisons - identities defined by comparison to other groups i.e. where there is a strong, threatening 'out-group', 'in-group' identity and cohesion can be strengthened.
4. cognitive models - the worldviews or understandings of political and material conditions and interests shaped by particular identities.
If diversity is most likely to be beneficial, then this model suggests we need to find agreement on the rules and purposes of the group, and to be careful about who we define ourselves against (one Times' reader suggested a motto of 'At least we're not French').
If we want relationships to be characterised by trust, solidarity and reciprocity - as well as being creative and innovative - then shared purposes and values, embodied in shared stories about the past and the future are important.
Putnam is, in the end, optimistic. While demonstrating that in the short run there is a trade-off between community and diversity he believes that 'over time wise policies (both public and private) can ameliorate that trade-off'. The one great achievement of human civilisation, according to Putman, 'is our ability to redraw more inclusive lines of social identity.'
The motto on the Great Seal of the Unites States, shown on the US dollar note is e pluribus unum, and this reflects precisely that objective - namely to create a novel 'one' out of a diverse 'many'. While we may joke about a national motto, if we want our society and local communities to be marked by healthy relationships then we do need to be clear on what we hold in common.
JOHN ASHCROFT
Footnote 1: Putnam R 'E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century', 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture, Scandinavian Political Studies Vol 30 No 2, 2007 pp137-174
Footnote 2: Abdelal, R., Herrera Y., Johnston A., and McDermott R 'Identity as a Variable' Perspectives on Politics Vol 4 No. 4 December 2006.
Comments