Diversity and Liberty

Yesterday, sfgate.com released a story about Robert Lemon, a student at UC Berkeley who is doing a survey-based examination of Oakland neighborhoods; How ethnic groups change Oakland neighborhoods .

The take-home message, at least presented from this article, is that urban planners and developers need to begin considering neighborhoods in a much more flexible light: one overarching plan may not suit a diverse population’s needs, especially since it is almost so obvious as to be laughable to be reminded that ethnic groups tend to self-segregate. A ‘diverse population’ is diverse in the sense that it has a collection of communities which are not similar, that is, a number of fairly homogenous communities which, taken as a whole rather than individual parts, seem heterogeneous.

This ethnic preference for different neighborhood spaces can also be seen through a social capital lens. It could be suggested that a culture bearing a consistent cross-generational preference for certain kinds of space (ie broad, unpopulated fields or shoulder-to-shoulder urban masses) can help members of that group build social capital amongst themselves. Similarly, if space-based preferences regularly align with other principles, be it cultural or ethical or whatever, then as people migrate into neighborhoods to their liking, they are more likely to find a community in which they are easily able to network and increase their social capital gains.
The other side of this coin is that as neighborhoods become more and more welcoming to a specific group, it will then become less and less welcoming to at least some others. This looks to me as a reinforcement of existing bonding capital: as neighborhoods become more to one’s liking, the less one needs to look out of the neighborhood for social or commercial capital. Whether this is a positive or a negative thing is up for grabs: I would imagine that it would be beneficial for individuals seeking to improve their own neighborhood, but as the bonding capital grew, it could challenge some kinds of inclusive cross-neighborhood coalition building, especially if there are irreconcilable differences between two cultural groups – these differences would not pose a problem if the groups were mixed evenly among the population, maybe, but as they gain significant in-group network density, their ability to self-identify and self-advocate could go up, to the chagrin of other, disagreeable, networks.

Social capital is a two-sided coin: self-advocacy and in-group identification can benefit individuals and communities, but it can also spur on the growth of the kind of dangerous positive liberty Berlin warns us about.