It also encourages people to isolate themselves in
enclaves where people that share certain expectations
of behavior can shut out others and deal with those
that are at least somewhat considerate of whatever
behaviors the group cares about.
This. Yes. Hat tip.
It isn't even the slight bit humorous anymore how much of these kind of exclusionary tactics play out in those "communities" that cry gentrification at the slightest degree of outsider intrusion, into their "districts" where certain unspoken rules of law evasion, creative law-flouting and outright prejudicially illegal behavior are propped up by the ingroup [1] members.
This is precisely why I am not very empathetic to cries of gentrification, in places like SF.
With these communities, it is most often not a debate of economic displacement but one of selective self-imposed seclusion.
Simply put, they don't want you there not because you are economically displacing them and thereby a threat. They don't want you in their cafes, their bars, their parks and stores just because you are not like them.
I resist elaborating for it should resemble a rant.
I'm not so sure that self-imposed cultural isolation is such a bad thing, at least inherently. It seems like a potentially better way for global society to support an extremely wide range of cultural norms than for every set of norms to be distributed evenly and tons of effort spent futilely teaching people to be "tolerant."
A problem with social isolation of groups leads to tension between groups. It is very easy to demonize a group when you have no contact with anyone from that group.
Case in point: Gays in the US. Acceptance of gays an gay marriage has increased DRAMATICALLY over the last decade in the US. Why? It is thought because people are starting to know gay people. Gay people are coming out and becoming visible. When you find out your neighbor or coworker or friend or even child is gay, your views of gays change. Suddenly they aren't the demonized other. In 1993 22% of Americans report having a close friend or family member who is gay. Now? 65%.
I also think social isolation leads to radicalization. When you start feeling its US vs THEM. It also leads to a loss of personal freedoms. One isn't free to integrate into a culture that is hostile to them and they lose that freedom of choice of lifestyle.
Like it or not, the US is a multi ethnic multi racial multi cultural place. I think even the majorty of countries have minority populations.
I don't think isolation of cultures is a good thing for a society.
> A problem with social isolation of groups leads to tension between groups.
I don't know. It seems like having mutually exclusive social norms together leads to tension between groups. Obviously both happen, and history is filled with examples of both.
I'm not sure I accept that tolerance is too hard to teach, therefore we should allow people to avoid other cultures. I think many small issues is preferable to a few large ones, in this case.
I really don't think it's unreasonable or bad for someone to avoid other cultures. I think it's bad to be ignorant of other cultures, and certainly to be intolerant or bigoted, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to live and be around people who largely share your culture.
I don't disagree with that, but cultural isolation is a strong term with strong connotations for me.
I think history shows us that if it's easy for people to remain ignorant of others through cultural isolation, some subset will do so. I'm not against people carving out a cultural niche, but I think that the point we can use the word isolation to describe it, we have a problem. The problem isn't one direction, either. Cultural isolation can keep outsiders from understanding and tolerance as well, which leads to discrimination, which may lead to more isolation and reciprocated feelings towards the outside.
It isn't even the slight bit humorous anymore how much of these kind of exclusionary tactics play out in those "communities" that cry gentrification at the slightest degree of outsider intrusion, into their "districts" where certain unspoken rules of law evasion, creative law-flouting and outright prejudicially illegal behavior are propped up by the ingroup [1] members.
This is precisely why I am not very empathetic to cries of gentrification, in places like SF.
With these communities, it is most often not a debate of economic displacement but one of selective self-imposed seclusion.
Simply put, they don't want you there not because you are economically displacing them and thereby a threat. They don't want you in their cafes, their bars, their parks and stores just because you are not like them.
I resist elaborating for it should resemble a rant.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups