Does Diversity Have a Downside?

For the last ten years, a husband and wife team of economists at UCLA, Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn, have been pouring through piles of data on soldiers who fought for the Union Army in the American Civil War. The result of their research is a new book entitled Heroes and Cowards: The Social Face of War, which promotes the idea that diversity has a dark side.

Costa and Kahn's "cradle-to-grave" examination of 41,000 Union soldiers revealed that men were most loyal to men "who looked like themselves," meaning those who were connected by race, occupation, hometown, age, or blood. Both white soldiers and former slaves, they found, had much lower rates of desertion if they fought with guys just like themselves. Homogeneity had a positive effect on how soldiers fared in gruesome prisoner of war camps as well. If you were locked up with people you knew, it turns out, your chances of survival improved by a lot. As the authors point out, during one of the most ideological wars in American history, ideology didn't matter very much. It was serving with your buddies that really counted.

Diversity, even in the 1860s, was not without merit, however. Former slaves from diverse companies picked up writing skills at higher rates than their counterparts in more homogeneous units. "In companies comprised almost exclusively of former slaves, only 16 percent of soldiers learned to write during their tour of duty. That number nearly doubled in companies in which former slaves mixed with freemen," according to UCLA. And former slaves in diverse companies were also more likely to change their names, signaling their new lease on life, and to move away from home after the war--something the economists call "the Zagat Guide effect."

Set to be released on Jan. 21 -- the day after the inauguration of America's first black president -- Heroes concludes that diversity, therefore, is "a double-edged sword" -- it makes individuals "less likely to be altruistic than they might be in a more homogeneous setting but also inspires them to scale new intellectual heights and to explore new horizons." My former graduate school thesis advisor, Dr. David Courtwright, who reviewed the book this week in the Wall Street Journal restates the book's message in more depressing terms. "When we contemplate helping others, whether through volunteer organizations or welfare-state transfers, we are less likely to provide for -- and more likely to abandon -- those who are unlike ourselves."

The double-edged sword of diversity may be real, although the question of whether our prejudiced allegiances are "hardwired" into us, as the authors suggest in their interview with UCLA, may be better suited for Steven Pinker or George Church. But it doesn't make sense to celebrate 100-year old data as fully applicable to the way we live now. UCLA's article on Heroes contends that, "research into lower rates of volunteerism and lack of taxpayer support for local projects in diverse communities has reached similar conclusions." And I don't claim to be able to refute that. But that very data indirectly supports one of the central criticisms in Dr. Courtwright's review: that a soldiers' behavior during war should be evaluated in the context of trauma. "A paradox lurks in the authors' findings," writes Courtwright. "Social cohesion was good for morale, and good morale kept men fighting. But soldiering on in this particular war -- fought before aseptic surgery but after the advent of rifled musketry -- could have unusually deadly consequences."

Today, America is as diverse as ever. Despite setbacks, it is also rich and powerful. If the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth were singularly committed to helping those who looked like her, the world would be a sad place indeed. A century and a half since the Civil War, America is more engaged globally than ever before--for better or worse. And the descendants of its Union soldiers have elected as its president a man who is decidedly unlike them. Big Think, where I am executive editor, has two interviews with Ivy League university presidents that remind us of the importance of diversity. As we move toward a truly global society, we should hardwire ourselves to help all people in need, whether they look like us or not.

Comments

[ailbhe]

Prejudice is hardwired into us for survival reasons, any look at history would prove that. What do you think people are fighting over with all these wars in the world? They really do hate each other, until somebody more different comes along and they will join together for mutual survival.

The old British tradition of 'divide and conquer' was used to take over the world. Same thing is happening today with globalisation. When you bring to many incomers from opposing cultures into a community, people divide and recoil into their own 'groups'. Imposing too much diversity is dangerous unless you actually want to cause damage.

People need to identify with others at a base level, that has little to do with race, religion etc.... unless the race, religion is the dividing factor. Identity politics divides, therefore creating suspicion and paranoia of the 'other'. Each identity group is created to fight for supremacy of that group over the 'others'. Ban identity politics and the demagoguery that goes with it and unite people under the banner of 'American'.

[RobinSeattle]

The aphorism of "birds of a feather flock together" is seemingly displayed here.

There are merits to this study, but the caveat here is that these surveys were taken from a time when racial segregation and distrust of whites among blacks and vice versa was pretty pronounced. That each group would feel more comfortable while engaging in battle with those similar to them isn't that much of a surprise.

So the role of socialization isn't really factored in, it appears from your description.

It isn't diversity itself that is bad, it is how children are taught to react to it. And the Civil War was indeed racially regressive, even in the North.

An illustration of this is what happened in Appalachia when railroads were being built. Foreigners were brought in, including europeans, to bolster the labor force for the project and they soon had to have separate camps because of cultural clashes, even among whites of different nationalities, resulted in brawls and resentments.