One of the most challenges passages in the Bible is the Parable in the Talent. In it, initial resources are distributed to the servants in a highly unequal manner, with a 10x ratio between the highest and lowest recipient. And then that which was held by the least endowed servant was redistributed upward to the person with the most resources. It concludes with the famous line, “For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.”
There are many elements to falling trust, but ethnic/racial diversity is an important one. High trust societies are rare even in homogenous ethnostates, but when you replace that with ethnic diversity, every study shows that is is associated with declining social trust. There is no example of a racially-diverse, high-trust society. I hate to say it, but as America's demographics change from an overwhelmingly White society to a diverse one with no-one having a large racial majority, it is pretty much guaranteed to become a low-trust society.
This would hold true even if race is biologically insignificant, provided race demarcates different cultures and subcultures, which most assuredly is the case.
Low trust is the norm. It takes a remarkable degree of cultural AND racial homogeneity to achieve high trust as it requires viewing the other people as basically extended family. This is how Japanese and Scandinavians have viewed each other, along with many other ethnically homogenous European nations. Nation actually comes from the latin word natio - born, and refers to people born of a common (sometimes notional) ancestor. If two or more groups visibly do not share even a notional common ancestor, they are not even distant relatives, and they cannot have the level of trust associated with that. Of course, common race is not enough. You can ALSO be divided and have low trust due to different regional cultures or religions.
I'm not sure there's a suitable nation-scale test case for the hypothesis that racial distinction is an insurmountable obstacle to a high trust society. Where do we find a racially diverse state with extremely high levels of cultural homogeneity, a long history of integration and high levels of ethics and competency?
Then there's the question as to whether racial distinction would be sustained in such a nation, if it did exist. Intermarriage would blur the distinction within a few generations, I imagine.
God's Word, Holy Spirit, Jesus and the Father, my wife, my mom and dad and about 75% of my sisters and a few other relatives. There is my trust list. Truthfully I keep an eye out on everyone after the Father.
I recently learned that Robert Putnam (of "Bowling Alone") hid his findings about the relationship between increased ethnic diversity and lower social trust.
"(This is not entirely a matter of trust. Suburbanites also are more willing to back public investment because they believe it will benefit them personally rather than being redistributed to lower income people, but higher trust is also a factor)."
I'm having trouble understanding the role "trust" plays in the contrasted urban setting when it's juxtaposed with spending that benefits one personally. If urbanites are not expecting tax money being spent in a way that benefits them, what would they be trusting the government to do? In a homo economicus sense, if they're not going to benefit anyway, what difference does it make if the money is squandered vs. spent on low income people?
I like what Doug Wilson likes to say, “there are no problem passages.” In other words, if you understand the passage but disagree with it, that’s a you problem, not a Christ problem.
Anyway, I think we will have a great deal to ponder about how to remake trust in a trust-less world… will likely be the central drama of American (and post-American?) life the next few decades….
on a related quasi-apocalyptic note, i thought you’d like my piece on Pentecost in Negative World, which as you can guess by the title mentions you a lot!
By welcoming do you mean they have relatively open immigration policies? They don't exist. The biggest stand alone factor in developing high social trust is strict control over who lives in your community. Scandinavian countries used to have very high social trust this has been severely eroded as they have allowed high levels of immigration and refugee resettlement. Japan has mostly kept high social trust by operating under tight immigration controls. Although there is significant pressure to relax immigration restrictions because of their very low native birthrates. There are certainly other factors as well, but you can't have high social trust without controlling who moves into the community.
Right. The other factors are enforcing social norms, particularly ethical treatment of neighbors, but also an agreed upon system of manners. Tight immigration is necessary for two reasons, first, because it's impossible to significantly alter the behavior of a large mass of people, and second, because it takes time to develop a deep sense of being fellow citizens. History matters.
As the sage Dalrock documented:
"Diversity + Proximity = War"
And war is the epitome of low trust.
There are many elements to falling trust, but ethnic/racial diversity is an important one. High trust societies are rare even in homogenous ethnostates, but when you replace that with ethnic diversity, every study shows that is is associated with declining social trust. There is no example of a racially-diverse, high-trust society. I hate to say it, but as America's demographics change from an overwhelmingly White society to a diverse one with no-one having a large racial majority, it is pretty much guaranteed to become a low-trust society.
This would hold true even if race is biologically insignificant, provided race demarcates different cultures and subcultures, which most assuredly is the case.
Low trust is the norm. It takes a remarkable degree of cultural AND racial homogeneity to achieve high trust as it requires viewing the other people as basically extended family. This is how Japanese and Scandinavians have viewed each other, along with many other ethnically homogenous European nations. Nation actually comes from the latin word natio - born, and refers to people born of a common (sometimes notional) ancestor. If two or more groups visibly do not share even a notional common ancestor, they are not even distant relatives, and they cannot have the level of trust associated with that. Of course, common race is not enough. You can ALSO be divided and have low trust due to different regional cultures or religions.
I'm not sure there's a suitable nation-scale test case for the hypothesis that racial distinction is an insurmountable obstacle to a high trust society. Where do we find a racially diverse state with extremely high levels of cultural homogeneity, a long history of integration and high levels of ethics and competency?
Then there's the question as to whether racial distinction would be sustained in such a nation, if it did exist. Intermarriage would blur the distinction within a few generations, I imagine.
God's Word, Holy Spirit, Jesus and the Father, my wife, my mom and dad and about 75% of my sisters and a few other relatives. There is my trust list. Truthfully I keep an eye out on everyone after the Father.
I recently learned that Robert Putnam (of "Bowling Alone") hid his findings about the relationship between increased ethnic diversity and lower social trust.
"(This is not entirely a matter of trust. Suburbanites also are more willing to back public investment because they believe it will benefit them personally rather than being redistributed to lower income people, but higher trust is also a factor)."
I'm having trouble understanding the role "trust" plays in the contrasted urban setting when it's juxtaposed with spending that benefits one personally. If urbanites are not expecting tax money being spent in a way that benefits them, what would they be trusting the government to do? In a homo economicus sense, if they're not going to benefit anyway, what difference does it make if the money is squandered vs. spent on low income people?
I also did not understand that bit.
I like what Doug Wilson likes to say, “there are no problem passages.” In other words, if you understand the passage but disagree with it, that’s a you problem, not a Christ problem.
Anyway, I think we will have a great deal to ponder about how to remake trust in a trust-less world… will likely be the central drama of American (and post-American?) life the next few decades….
on a related quasi-apocalyptic note, i thought you’d like my piece on Pentecost in Negative World, which as you can guess by the title mentions you a lot!
https://gaty.substack.com/p/pentecost-in-negative-world
I would love to see a chart of some expatriate locations that are welcoming that have high trust.
By welcoming do you mean they have relatively open immigration policies? They don't exist. The biggest stand alone factor in developing high social trust is strict control over who lives in your community. Scandinavian countries used to have very high social trust this has been severely eroded as they have allowed high levels of immigration and refugee resettlement. Japan has mostly kept high social trust by operating under tight immigration controls. Although there is significant pressure to relax immigration restrictions because of their very low native birthrates. There are certainly other factors as well, but you can't have high social trust without controlling who moves into the community.
Right. The other factors are enforcing social norms, particularly ethical treatment of neighbors, but also an agreed upon system of manners. Tight immigration is necessary for two reasons, first, because it's impossible to significantly alter the behavior of a large mass of people, and second, because it takes time to develop a deep sense of being fellow citizens. History matters.