I think that homogeneity is largely a myth. I calculated the heterogeneity coefficient for different countries for one of my research projects - whi8ch conceptually similar to Gini index and represent the probability that two randomly selected individuals will belong to two different social-linguistic or religious groups.
Sociolinguistic heterogeneity for Sweden is 0.35 - not as much as for India (0.65) or Pakistan (0.71) but more than Ireland (0.03), Japan (0.02), South Korea (0.002), Mexico (0.14) or for that matter the US (0.25). The same index for Finland is 0.13 and for Norway 0.07).
As I said in my discussion with Chris on a related subject, there are two aspects of social heterogeneity - statistical (defined above) and cognitive which is really a perception and tolerance of heterogeneity. So you may a statistically heterogeneous society, but if these people have a high cognitive tolerance of diversity they may not see themselves as heterogeneous. The reverse may be true as well - a highly statistically homogenous society may have very low cognitive tolerance of diversity and perceive minute differences as substantial qualitative differences.
A good example is the perception of racial differences in the US (especially in the south) and in Brazil. Brazilians have high cognitive tolerance of diversity and differentiate between shades of darkness that are perceived as different categories of people. The white US-ers, otoh, who generally tend to have low tolerance of any differences, cognitive collapse them into two groups - pure white and blacks - shades do not matter. I also understand that the US blacks are more likely to differentiate between shades of darkness.
I would thus say that the perception of homogeneity or diversity of any given society is largely in the eye of the beholder.
> in reality, what i see (and perhaps i am missing the larger picture)
> when i think of the left in the US, is a sort of debate for debate's
> sake... often about trivial points... and i am sure i have been guilty
> of that myself, on this list.
>
I agree. We tend to be what Gramsci called "traditional" intellectuals as opposed to "organic" intellectuals, protestations of Cmdes Cox and Chuck0 notwithstanding.
Speaking of the youth rebellion. I just watched the documentary _Guerilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst_ on PBS http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/guerrilla/ Although the 1970s usually hit a soft spot in me, I was struck by how pathetically naïve this whole movement, not just the Symbionese Liberation Army, but the whole Berkeley counterculture was. It was all talk and posturing and a search for the thrill and the exotic - completely detached from the reality (I had a chance of experiencing the remnants of it in Santa Cruz in the 1980s). So in the end, all the movement members are either shot dead by the police, or serving long prison sentences, except the rich girl who walked free and with apologies from liberal presidents Carter and Clinton (so much for the US "justice"). Not only nothing was accomplished, but the left ideology was further compromised. Pathetic!
Not that the Europeans did not have their share of hot-headedness cf. Brigadi Rossi or Bader-Meinhof - but the main difference is that Europeans also have well-established organic left institutions and left intellectuals, whereas the US does not. In the US leftism is not organic - it is either youth contumacy, quickly outgrown when the affected individuals enter the real world of working, paying mortgage and raising family, or the domain of traditional intellectuals, armchair social reformers who live their detached from reality lives in ivory tower academic institutions or think tanks.
Wojtek