Heterogenous cultures all end up looking kind of the same. Chaotic, disorderly, no common rules, little common ground. Like New York City or London or Toronto. Great for people who like novelty. But utterly different from Tokyo, or Salt Lake City, or other places where cultural homogeneity enables a sophisticated set of shared rules and norms.
I don't know about that. In my experience, with smaller places I'm familiar with, the cultural input only enriches, there's no degradation (though I am of course aware of certain areas of certain countries where they failed to handle immigration correctly and created isolated ghettos - that never goes well. But it does not have to be that way).
"sophisticated set of shared rules and norms" - I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I definitely get a bad feeling from a sentence like that though.
> “sophisticated set of shared rules and norms" - I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I definitely get a bad feeling from a sentence like that though
1) What does "sophisticated" mean in this context? What is a "sophisticated" rule, or a "sophisticated norm"?
2) If anything, "a [..] set of shared rules and norms" sounds like an environment which tries to enforce a strict template for how to behave and act and do. If that's really the case then it to me would be a terrible place to be. Like that backwater isolated village with some snooping crones keeping an eye on everything.
If you meant something totally different, please explain. Particularly the "sophisticated" point.
> 1) What does "sophisticated" mean in this context? What is a "sophisticated" rule, or a "sophisticated norm"?
The rules and norms are complex and encompass a wider and deeper range of behaviors.
> 2) If anything, "a [..] set of shared rules and norms" sounds like an environment which tries to enforce a strict template for how to behave and act and do. If that's really the case then it to me would be a terrible place to be.
Anti-social people don’t like it, to be sure. But it facilitates high trust societies that have lower social transaction costs. Paradoxically, it enables societies that have less formal policing and rule enforcement, because of the high level of informal policing and rule enforcement.
I most definitely don't see myself as anti-social, quite the opposite if anything.
I would like to see a more specific example of what you mean by sophisticated rules and norms. What would a real-life example be? I still don't get it, so I would be happy to learn what you mean by this.
Lee Kuan Yew's whole thesis re: Singapore was that multicultural societies need strict laws and punishments for those that step out of line because people don't naturally look out for each other. He learned this from going back to the UK in the 60s and seeing how social trust had degraded due to immigration.
Singapore is a counterexample to the grandparent post. It's very much a "heterogenous" culture, if the word "heterogenous" has any meaning at all, with four (!) official languages and a lot of immigration. It could not be described as "chaotic" or "disorderly."
The unsubtle explanation from someone who is not a huge Singapore fan (or from someone who is?) might be that this is simply the power of well-engineered, highly authoritarian government. But it's certainly not about choosing homogeneity or eschewing immigration.
Singapore is 75% Chinese, and immigration levels are calibrated to maintain that ratio. Accounting for religious diversity, US hasn’t been as homogenous as Singapore since the 1800s. And Singapore is also a country where the top-down authoritarian government is run based on the vision of LKY, who himself is distinctly inspired by a mix of Confucianism and Anglo culture. The other cultural groups are given wide latitude within their sphere of influence, but none have any imprint on the government and institutions. It’s like if Americans agreed that WASP culture would always dominate the government and civil institutions.
> Accounting for religious diversity, US hasn’t been as homogenous as Singapore since the 1800s.
This didn't jibe so I looked up the figures and I still don't understand why you'd write this. To be honest I don't understand why you've written most of what you've written on this thread, but, did you mean to write "ignoring religious diversity...?" The US is 63% Christian. The largest religious group in Singapore is the Buddhists, at... 31%? And unlike in the United States, two minority groups in Singapore (Christians, Muslims) have strong representation in the population, whereas in the US, not so much.
Which I guess would leave things like language, of which they have four official ones and quite a few others, with a bilingual education mandate that demands everyone learn English but recognizes that they've probably got their own as well, IIRC.
There's racial makeup, if that matters to you (I get the feeling it does). In terms of cultural dominance I would reject the idea that there's something massively different about a 69% white majority vs a 74% Chinese majority. The second on their list is Malay at 13.5% and the second on our list is Black at 12.4% and my God why are we even having this conversation
I'm pretty sure the explanation for the undeniable order there is the completely obvious explanation that does not involve "homogeneity" or immigration. It's the authoritarian system of government.
If you compare like with like, the US is more diverse on almost every dimension except language. Catholic/Protestant is a major dividing line. And if you are going to say “white” is a category, then Singapore is virtually 100% “Asian.” If you want to talk about ethnic groups, then the largest US ethnic group is German Americans, which are only about 25% of the population.
And yes the homogeneity helps Singapore’s orderliness. The overwhelming majority of the population is Asian, who in general are more collectivist and orderly than say Italians.
Gross. Anyways: after Jewish people, Mormons are the most pro-immigration religious group in the United States. Consider not using them as an example for the virtues of xenophobia, especially when making appeals to their distinctive culture.
Do you really think GP is arguing in favor of xenophobia? I'm undecided on this topic, but nothing they've said (that I've seen) suggests xenophobia. GP even indicates in a different area that they've traveled internationally, which is a difficult thing for xenophobes.
Unless you have somethign to point to that gives you confidence that GP is arguing the virtues of xenophobia, it's likely to be counter-productive to ongoing discussion.
Mormon society is well-functioning for the same reason that Japanese society is well-functioning. People share common values and culture which enables a high-level of social reinforcement of societal rules and norms. The Japanese realize that immigration would destroy their society. The Mormons don't, but that doesn't make it any less true.
I find the implicit moral assertion in your post inexplicable. Are you positing that you can have a high trust, high cohesion, orderly society that accepts lots of immigrants? If so, show me one. Otherwise, your position seems to be that immigration is a moral requirement in and of itself, regardless of the consequences it has for societal order.
> The Japanese realize that immigration would destroy their society. The Mormons don't, but that doesn't make it any less true.
Go back to the 19th century, and the LDS Church was heavily involved in encouraging people to convert to their religion and immigrate to Utah. Many of their missionaries in Europe were not just seeking converts, but also immigrants.
Nowadays, the LDS Church doesn't put any great emphasis on encouraging their overseas flock to immigrate to Utah. But if they changed their mind about that, I doubt LDS immigrants from Asia or Latin America would destroy the society of Mormon Utah, any more than 19th century European Mormon immigrants did. If anything, I think it would be less destructive than US intrastate migration of non-Mormons into Utah, which has been going on for a long time now.
I’m neither Mormon nor Japanese, so no. But I have visited Utah and Japan, and know quite a few people from both cultures. They share many common characteristics. (As someone from a different part of Asia, Mormons are the most relatable white people to me in terms of the relationship between individuals and society.)
No, not anymore at least. The church used to in its early days (mid 19th century) encourage immigration to Utah (aka "Zion"), but many years ago they declared that "gathering of Zion" should take place where people already are.
Modern-day missionaries try to build up the local church where they are. Some people do end up wanting to emigrate to Utah, but this is not something the Church encourages.
