Notes on "Bowling Alone"
Putnam is interested in the links between social capital and a properly functioning democracy.
Putnam's notion of social capital refers to "features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit." (67)
When social capital is high - when people know each other and trust each other - it is easier for people to come together for communication or collective action purposes. As Tocqueville might suggest, they are not dependent on the government to get things done and they are forced to recognize the things they have in common. It is fairly easy to see how these things might be related to a well-functioning democracy.
Putnam then proceeds to outline all the ways in which our (US citizens) social capital and civic engagement has declined in the last 30 or 40 years.
1) Activities in politics and government
-decline in voter turnout
-drop in attendance at public meetings on town or school affairs
(these declines might be explained by political scandals and tragedies, but ...)
2) Organizational memberships
- churches and church groups
- labor unions
- PTA
- civic and fraternal organizations
- Boy Scouts
- Red Cross
- other volunteering
- BOWLING LEAGUES
Countertrends:
However, it might be possible that these organizations have been replaced by new organizations such as the Sierra Club, National Organization for Women, and the AARP.
Putnam argues that these organizations are obviously politically important, but they do little to increase social connectedness/social capital because they don't really create interaction between members. they only require members to occasionally write a check or read a newsletter. Thus, they are not likely to increase social trust.
A similar case can be made against nonprofit organizations - they don't increase social connectedness.
Finally, support groups have undoubtedly increased in the last 30 years. However, Putnam argues they don't play the role of traditional civic associations because they don't create the lifelong types of attachments that neighborhoods, families, and community attachments do.
3) The decline of the family
4) Neighborliness
5) Trust in others
Why is American social capital declining?
1) The movement of women into the labor force?
But, then why has men's participation in organizations declined approx. the same amount as women's?
2) Mobility?: maybe continual moving and suburbanization have decreased social rootedness.
But, residential stability now is higher now than in the 1950's.
3) Demographic Transformation? - lower marriage rates, higher divorce, fewer children, etc.
Maybe some, but Putnam argues, the real answer is ...
4) The technological transformation of leisure.
Trends in technology are privatizing our leisure time. Yes, that means TV - which makes our communities wider but shallower. It seems to be driving a wedge between our individual interests and our collective interests.
Some questions
1. what about the role of friendships in today's world? it is not as if we are truly bowling alone, after all most of us have friends that we do things with. why does putnam ignore the role of friends in his discussion? are friends the same or different from the organizations he discusses? are friends nothing more than extensions of the self (and thus incapable of helping the "i become we")? are friendships too oriented towards "having fun" (and thus oblivious to "serious" civic engagement)? what would putnam say? what would you say?
2. it is not as if we in the US are not involved in things. after all, we are all so busy, all the time, (idle hands are the devil's playthings...), and not just with our work. are there other countertrends other than the one's putnam addresses, and are they equally unsatisfying according to his thesis?
3. is putnam nothing more than a poor nostalgic fool, stuck in a time warp and unwilling to face the new realities of life today. are americans really discontent with the present situation? don't we all want more freedom to express our "inner selves"? perhaps, but we must keep in mind that every decision involves trade-offs. what have we given up for this increased freedom, and it is it worth it? is this situation stable for the long term?
4. putnam seems to ignore power in his discussion. he acts as if people are making these decisions, independent of any external influences or constraints. does the "decline of democracy" serve some groups' interests? which groups? how might these groups be encouraging the weakening bonds of civil society?
Bowling together? Not quite…
Putnam finds that things did change a little bit after September 11, but that he did not expect the changes to last. Why not? b/c changes in beliefs without an underlying change in social structure will be fleeting/ephemeral/etc. moreover, even if people wanted to get involved in organizations, they lacked the know-how, experience, etc to do so, or the ability to sustain participation over time.
Which might just go to show that the less social capital you have, the harder it is to get it. So we might expect for the end of this decline to be nowhere in sight, and it might, in fact, increase at an increasingly faster rate. Yikes.
Bellah et al. remind us that this may not just be purely structural – that these beliefs which we appear to share my not be as strong and cohesive as we would like to believe. Often, in order to share a community of meaning, we must sacrifice meaningful content to do so (which in some ways sounds likes Putnam’s take on television…)