There has been a barrage of comments and reactions in response to Robert D. Putnam’s article entitled “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century, The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.” I would argue that Putnam’s “findings” should not be so surprising and they should not scare us. On the contrary, they should embolden us in our commitment to achieve a better and more dignified society (our walk toward achieving humanity).

But which are his “findings”? Putnam presents three main arguments:
1) Ethnic diversity will increase substantially in all modern societies over the next several decades.
2) Ethnic diversity challenges social solidarity and inhibits social capital.
3) The central challenge for modern, diversifying societies is to create a new, broader sense of “we”.

The bulk of Putnam’s discussion concentrates on argument No. 2, the most controversial of the three. The controversial aspect should be obvious today because of the enormous mobilization and debate regarding immigration within the United States. Those who have been less than welcoming toward immigrants in the United States have used Putnam’s arguments to bolster their discourse. Those on the other side of the debate have been furious because of the detrimental side-effects distilling from Putnam’s article.

I question if the diminished “solidarity” (bonding and bridging) Putnam “finds” should even be a surprise for those of us that have been critical about the toxicity of the arrangements we inhabit and have inherited. Should not we think of this “lack of bonding and bridging” solidarity as a sign of a historical inflexion point, indicating the heighten fluidity of the times and the need to re-think our institutional arrangements impacting our “self-interest” and “socially constructed identities”? Because of Putnam’s focus on his second point, he makes his analysis and discourse limited and toxic to our present reality. This toxicity is not alleviated or eliminated by his admonishment to “a politically correct progressivism” and “an ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism”. On the contrary, it heightens it by presenting a sort of “middle-of-the-road solution”, with tremendous ambiguity not apt for our present historical situation.

 

 

“What do we need to embrace as a society to confront the recurrent challenges toward achieving humanity and avoid remaining among the hogs? ‘HOPE’.”
- Hiram José Irizarry Osorio

 

Nevertheless, I do think that Putnam’s arguments present many strategic hooks (although misused and misconstrued) for advancing and broadening our mainstream debate on “diversity”, “immigration”, “democracy”, among others. Exactly because of Putnam’s status and the barrage of comments and reactions following his article, new possibilities have been open for the public at large to talk about and re-think these issues. If we do not want to move as a society through life with antiquated guiding principles because of their lack of affinity with a reality for a better and more dignified society, we need to revisit those principles and match them with our current society (and I mean all members of our society). If not, we are destined to “remain among the hogs” as W.E.B. Du Bois once stated.

The third point that Putnam underscored (creating a new, broader sense of “we”) is of essence, but because of his focus on his second point, the article reads as incomplete and magnifies the toxicity of our inhabiting and inherited arrangements. I think that striving to create a broader sense of “we” is something we need to do as a society not to reclaim our humanity, but to realize it.

I once heard that “hope had two beautiful daughters: anger and courage. Anger at the way things are and courage to change them.” How angry and courageous are we as a society with how things are? Current and future generations depend on our level of anger and courage to remain hopeful. I am hopeful! What about you?