Donnie McLeodDecember 10, 2007 12:55 EST

We talk about diversity conflicting with tribes. It seems the perspective of tribes is usually in the context of a culture defined by something like colour of skin. I think tribes can be defined from almost any way; a company that treats employees fairly often takes on the perspective of a tribe. A religious domination can take on tribal characteristics with its language and culture. But I content tribes is not granular enough, we need to focus at smaller grouping than tribes.

A tribe is too many people. We are still looking from the perspective of the state or the tribe level. And we are incredibly burdened by our religions, especially with the social conservative misleading to protect the infallibility of the Bible. The latent religious thinking burdens the discussion of being a successful species relative to other competitive approaches to success. The Bible stops us from seeing how the individual is a key part of success of the species. Why for example does a polar bear, a successful species, count a lone human individual as an easy opportunity but counts 5 as more than just 1 individual plus 4 more individuals? They see 5 in a group as more than the sum of its parts. They count 5 as a threat. What does that say about the individuals fit in our species, which was successful because we team well?

I suggest we will learn that the tribe is not as important as the small team of people we work with in a grouping of 5, 6 or 7. Each person dong what they do well while working with the others who have complimentary skills. Incentive and motivation comes from the “action of doing with others”. It does not matter the color of skin, sex, religion or political bias. What does matter is the level of trust of all the individuals in the group.

That groups need for trust excludes my brother-in law Lyle from any grouping. He has not a once of fairness in his genetic make up. Lyle and others like him, for example Judas, will do anything for a few silver shekels. Judas was 1 of 12. I take that as a good enough survey to state that 8.3% of any populations are like Lyle and Judas. They think only “what is in this for me”. And they are proof of evolution. We are descendants of single cell animals that always make one rational decision “its all about me”. Count the number of incredibly selfish people in your life? Is it closer to 3%, 10% or 30%. If they are family you have to live with it. If they are in your personal or your business life, make changes, today.

“Its all about me” is not the human character trait that made our species successful. Our competitive advantage as a species came with being fair. Fairness is way up and much later on in the evolutionary path towards success. Selfishness started way back in the primordial soup of creation, where it belongs. Fairness is easily fostered in various degrees in 91.7% of the population. But Lyle and Judas have to be excluded from the group and eliminated from any position of influence. That is why the team grouping has to be small such as 5, 6 or 7. In today’s world, 7 are too many because you can’t find a table in a restaurant that sits 7. Getting a table defines the maximum size to 6.

If every single Canadian with a bit of fairness can be helped to find their fit with 4 or 5 other people in a team the issues of tribes will solve itself. It is finding each individual’s fit in a team that society should worry about not the barriers of old tribes. It is exploiting and not ignoring what made our species successful that will provide the answers needed for today’s complex world.

AnonymousJanuary 17, 2008 18:31 EST

It is unfortunate that Mr. Alexander has taken Robert Putnam's work and, with only a perfunctory reflection upon its meaning and implications, has used it as the only "evidence" for his rather impressionistic article and thesis. In fact, he may not have read Putnam's entire paper, as in the later parts Putnam in fact suggests something akin to Canada's multicultural model to solve the social mistrust brought on by increasing ethnic diversity.

Putnam's well done research suggested that social trust is negatively associated with ethnic diversity. But this social mistrust extends not only to people of other races, but also to people of one's own race. So rather than diversity causing bad race relations, it, in the short and medium term, causes people to "hunker down" and retreat into their shells like turtles, as Putnam puts it. Thus diversity is associated with low levels of bridging capital (the social relations/capital between people of different races, in this case), as well as bonding capital (the social capital within people of the same race). One of his conclusions was that bridging and bonding capital were not mutually exclusive, and that bonding capital in certain cases can foster bridging capital.

Cities have always been composed of enclaves divided by some social force. Rich people tend to live with other rich people. Areas of the city that have one predominant ethnic group are nothing new. Multiculturalism in Canada has simply given an implicit blessing to people so that, for example, they can live in an area where they are close to their synagogue and the local kosher bakery, and go to those places without shame. Multiculturalism has gone further and stated that by virtue of attending your local synagogue and eating at your kosher bakery, you remain entirely Canadian, and in fact you are adding something new. This is bonding capital, and is a force against social mistrust. Multiculturalism then assists with fostering bridging capital by helping these ethnic groups become part of the national dialogue, whether it is by celebrating a cultural holiday at Nathan Phillips Square in the company of the mayor, or recruiting people of different ethnic communities to the police force. Of course, some people choose to remain within their enclave, as do some people in Rosedale chose to not venture outside their community. But when those bridging opportunties are available, there are those who will avail themselves of it. They may still live in an area where they can easily go to their local synagogue and kosher bakery, but they are equally involved in other areas of the larger community. Ultimately, our multicultural approach that encourages participation in activities of one's ethnic culture actually may, in part, reduce the social mistrust associated with diversity...these "enclaves" are a precursor to integration.

Finally, Mr. Alexander tends to exoticize "other" people's "values". By virtue of the fact that most "other" people are law abiding citizens, they without a doubt share our overarching values. Putnam's research was based on diversity in race as related to social mistrust - not diversity of values. We must always remember that the reasonable accommodation debate in Quebec emerged from a community that had very little to accommodate.

Certainly Mr. Alexander can make his point in an article like this, but to use important research in a reckless way serves to skew Robert Putnam's work and give faux scientific authority to an argument devoid of any.