Some have said that America’s dynamic is beginning to shift, as communities become more homogenized and the nation becomes more fragmented than ever before. This was a central point of discussion at “Can the United States Remain United?”, a conference hosted by the Center for Social Cohesion on June 10th, 2011. The event presented a number of perspectives surrounding the benefits and consequences of this increasing local homogeneity, and how united these communities truly are.

While there is much to be gained from localized connectedness, it is also important to assess whether homogenized communities are actually working together or growing apart. The conference provided context to this conversation, as panelists explained that the American population is “moving from involuntary balkanization to voluntary balkanization.” In essence, people are choosing to move to communities where their own values are shared by the area’s general population, creating “lifestyle communities.” These divisions have become so pronounced that in their book Patchwork Nation, James Gimpel and Dante Chinni were able to analyze demographic, economic, cultural, and political data to divide the nation’s 3,141 counties into just “12 statistically distinct ‘types of places.’”

Their analysis also brought into view one of the nation’s largest dividers: income. With 14.3% of the U.S. population below the poverty line in 2009, income remains a significant factor in determining to which communities one may belong. Randall Kennedy, the Michael R. Klein Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the keynote speaker at the conference, stated that poverty is indeed the biggest fault line of the population, as its 43.6 million members live “apart [from] the U.S. society”.

The divides in the U.S. population can run deep, creating cultural, political, and socio-economic boundaries. Regardless, the central question is whether these groups can remain in conversation with one another, and if this cohesion would pave the way toward progress. A recent NCoC article by Karlo Marcelo (”Does Encouraging Sameness Sprout Diversity and Collaboration?”) stated that these homogenous communities are necessary players as they engage in dialogue through social media and technology. Many have attributed the importance of technology in connecting these communities with one another, ensuring that a level of collaboration and connection remain present amidst growing divisions.

Relying on technology, however, brings with it a number of inherent risks. For example, Internet users can fall into a “filter bubble,” a concept explained by Eli Pariser. He stated that individuals who use the Internet to communicate can create their own online world, never “getting exposed to information that could challenge or broaden [their] worldview.” At the same time, another study supported by the MacArthur Foundation countered notions that internet users are unlikely to be exposed to divergent political views, arguing against what some call the “echo chamber” effect. The inaccessibility of the Internet amongst the poor is also creating a “digital divide,” preventing low-income individuals from regularly accessing information, services, and being represented in cross-demographic conversations that are expected to occur online. A study conducted by Cornell University and the University of Toronto found that “rich people are connected to the Internet more than poor people,” possibly creating what some fear as an “electronic underclass.”

Increasing access to the Internet within underrepresented communities has proved to be beneficial in several instances. The same study showed that those below the poverty line actually used the Internet for more time when they did have access to it, an average of 3.9 hours more a week, contributed to a lower “opportunity cost of leisure time.” A U.S. Impact Study from the University of Washington indicated that over 44% of low-income adults “used computers and the Internet at their public libraries [to make a] significant impact in four critical areas: employment, education, health, and making community connections.” The role of Internet access and civic engagement was also evidenced in the 2010 Civic Health Index, which found that “adults who use the Internet on a regular basis, regardless of where they access it, are more likely to be civically engaged.”

America is indeed moving into a new social dynamic, but it is difficult to discern whether it is one of united diversity or fragmented divisiveness. Technology seems to be one of the most promising and unifying mediums, but given its inherent risks, is it as reliable and encompassing as many would like to think?