Contact alone does not enable fluent multi-ethnic interaction.

Evidence

Relatedly, this orientation also maintains that it is not regularized ‘contact’ and ‘ties’ (Putnam, 2007: 143–44) that presages a fluent basis for multi-ethnic interaction. An emphasis on ‘contact’, posited as a valuable social good in its own right (Cantle, 2001; Hewstone, 2014), has increasingly skewed the imagination of a sociology still wedded to ideals of integration. What Amin (2012: 18) deplores as a troublingly resilient ‘sociology of ties’ continues to frame a range of prominent ideological positions regarding difference: non-existent (liberal universalism), sub­ sumed (integration) or formally recognized (multiculturalism). Conviviality helps undercut this heritage, moving the emphasis beyond ‘coexistence and contact in itself’ (Williams, 2013: 50) to the anti-racist, anti-communitarian moral economy which allows for fluent interaction across putative lines of difference. — Sivamohan Valluvan, Conviviality and Multiculture, 17

Categorization

• QUESTION: What would empirical evidence distinguishing convivial habits from mere contact look like, and has anyone operationalized this test?
• XREF: Connects to contact hypothesis literature (Allport) and Putnam’s ‘hunkering down’ social capital work, which conviviality theory is implicitly critiquing. — connects to: Contact alone fails to reduce prejudice outside controlled conditions. — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2491; Contact reduces prejudice only under equal-status, intimate, stereotype-defying conditions — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1665; Learning facts about outgroups is not the main way contact reduces prejudice — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 1846 (+2 more)
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — Sivamohan Valluvan, Conviviality and Multiculture: A…, 17

Related

• Contact alone fails to reduce prejudice outside controlled conditions. (similarity 0.86)
• Frequent interracial contact alone did nothing to soften apartheid’s hierarchy. (similarity 0.84)
• Learning facts about outgroups is not the main way contact reduces prejudice (similarity 0.82)
• Everyday multiethnic contact complicates, yet coexists with, media-amplified racial prejudices. (similarity 0.80)
• Boundary-crossing arises from habits, not from belonging ties. (similarity 0.79)
• Contact reduces prejudice only under equal-status, intimate, stereotype-defying conditions (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Contact alone fails to reduce prejudice outside controlled conditions. #corroborates (0.75) — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 2491
• Learning facts about outgroups is not the main way contact reduces prejudice #expands (0.72) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1846
• Contact reduces prejudice only under equal-status, intimate, stereotype-defying conditions #corroborates (0.70) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1665
• Interracial interactions are structured by racial categories, not individual identity #expands (0.70) — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1823