Jag tog nyss del av denna rapport på Twitter. Med anledning av att övriga riksdagspartier alltid hävdar att vi i SD inte har stöd i forskningen för vår slutsats att mångkulturella samhällen drabbas av splittring (stödet i forskningen har vi haft hela tiden och det tänker jag återkomma till när jag har tid) är jag bara tvungen att tipsa om den! Jag citerar några relevanta stycken och låter er läsa resten själva.

Thus, according to these empirical results, the social-psychological idea that similarity fosters trust is mistaken. Rather, homogeneity, social as well as ethnic, seems to foster trust, irrespective of the individual’s distance from or similarity to the ‘others’.

The results of the analysis are quite straightforward. While the homogeneity hypothesis is strongly supported, the findings speak against the similarity hypothesis. These findings also have important policy implications. The influence of contextual composition on trust leads us to emphasize some specific political measures to handle the negative effects of diversity. In essence, it involves fostering a shared sense of community

At the core, it is about fostering a shared sense of community or ‘shared citizenship’. In a general sense, Putnam argues in the same manner. He emphasizes the importance of similarity and therefore holds that policies should focus on ways of reconstructing identities over time, through assimilation and trying to play down the importance of differences through policies that support ‘interaction across ethnic lines’ (Putnam, 2007: 164). As identities change very slowly, he also concludes that there is a clear trade-off between diversity and community in the short run.

We are absolutely not against these measures. However, they miss the importance of how trust is actually shaped in interaction between the individual and the network and therefore also miss more immediate political action. In the same manner as equal and fair treatment in policies and local administration ‘mirror the moral standing of the “others” ’ (Kumlin and Rothstein, 2007: 18; cf. Oskarsson et al., 2009a, b), it seems to be the case that the properties of the network, such as equality and homogeneity, in themselves function as signals of the moral standard, moral commitment, or the degree of trustworthiness that applies. The fact that individuals also perceive the ‘others’ to be less egoistic and more trustworthy within egalitarian and homogenous social contexts supports this interpretation. Therefore, it also seems less risky to trust in these environments even if you yourself are different from the majority, the ‘others’. In terms of policies, this indicates that one should promote income equality and counteract tendencies toward segregation where minority groups have less chance of experiencing the ‘others’. As Kumlin and Rothstein hold, minority groups should not be ‘too large or dominant in particular geographical areas’ (2007: 18) in order to be included in meaningful encounters with ‘others’.

The melting pot in a form in which a sense of shared citizenship thrives may not come into being easily. In order to take steps in this direction, society has to implement policies in terms of which everybody is treated fairly, and which foster equality and build upon the sense of community already in place at the homogenous cores.