Robert Putnam, Tuning In, Tuning Out: the Strange Disappearance of Social Capital In

Robert Putnam, "Tuning in, Tuning out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in

America."

Definition of social capital is “features of social life—networks, norms, and trust—that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives.” Social capital relates to human relationships. Theory of social capital presumes that the more we connect with other people, the more we trust them. Which way does causation flow (joining and trusting): see Brehm and Rahn (1995).

American interest in politics may have remained stable or grown in the last three decades, but collective participation has fallen (Rosenstone and Hansen 1993).

Solution to decline in social capital must meet certain standards: Is the proposed explanatory factor correlated with trust and civic engagement; Is the correlation spurious; Is the proposed explanatory factor changing in the relevant way; Is the proposed explanatory factor vulnerable to the claim that it might be the result and not the cause of civic disengagement?

*People who spend longer hours working are more likely to spend more time volunteering and joining civic groups and less time watching TV (Robinson 1990); thus, long work hours do not prevent civic engagement.

Television as culprit:

1. The timing fits: the last generation to be civically inclined was the last to grow up without television. In 1950, 10% of American homes had TVs, by 1959, 90% had TVs.
2. TV is associated with low social capital just as newspaper reading is associated with high social capital.
3. Time displacement: watching TV inhibits participation outside of the home. TV watching comes at the expense of nearly every social activity outside the home.
4. “mean world effect”: heavy watchers of TV are unusually skeptical about the benevolence of other people; heavy TV watching may increase pessimism (Gerbner) and TV may increase passivity (Postman 1985).

“Bowling Alone”

Social capital: political participation, civic participation, religious participation, informal social connections, workplace connections, volunteering/philanthropy, and reciprocity/trust. No general measure of social capital.

Putnam defines social capital as “features of social life—networks, norms, and trust—that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives.” The theory of social capital relates to human relationships and it presumes that the more we connect with other people, the more we trust them.

The term of “social capital” has been used by social theorists and since the 1950s in studying the vitality of American communities. Recently, interest has been shown in the concept of social capital by political scientists and political psychologists in understanding and determining the strength of democratic societies. Using the bond of social capital, a group of self-interested individuals can be translated into a working community.

John S. Coleman (1988). “Social capital in the creation of human capital.” American Journal of

Sociology, vol. 94, S95-S120.

-social capital is contained within the structure of relations between individuals, not in the

individuals.

-three forms of social capital: obligations and expectations, information flow, and norms and sanctions.

Putnam, Robert (1995). Bowling Alone.

-declining perceptions of morality and trust 1952-1998 (pg. 139)

Paxton, Pamela (1999). “Is Social Capital Declining in the United States? A Multiple Indicator

Assessment.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 105, 88-127.

-2 components of social capital:

1. trust: a subjective tie between individuals

-perceptions of trustworthiness rather than actual placement of trust; at aggregate levels, people may not have the full choice in plaement of trust; ex. paying taxes or waking up in the morning.

-trust in individuals: “people are helpful”; “people can be trusted”; “people are fair.”

-trust in institutions: religion, education, legislature/executive.

1. association: an objective tie between individuals (a connection in a social space)

-indicators that increase an individual’s unobserved level of association: evenings with neighbor, evenings with a friend, group memberships. [causes of a general level of association]

-indicators that are influenced by an increase in an individual’s general level of association: satisfaction with place of residence, satisfaction with friendships.

Green, Melanie C. and Timothy C. Brock (1998). “Trust, Mood, and Outcomes of Friendship

Determine Preferences for Real versus Ersatz Social Capital.” Political Psychology, vol.

19, 527-44.

-important to understand what drives variance in levels of social interaction. Article emphasizes the interplay between mood and trust.

-experiment

-low-trust individuals choose more real social activities when in a positive mood or when benefits of friendship were salient, whereas they tend to choose alternate, media-based, activities when in a bad mood or when the costs of friendship were salient. High-trust individuals are more likely to choose real social activities regardless of mood or their perception of the salience of friendships.

-social capital is rooted in individual choices (conceptualized on an individual level, not community level).

Rahn, Wendy and John E. Transue (1998). “Social Trust and Value Change: The Decline of

Social in American Youth, 1976-1995.” Political Psychology, vol. 19, 545-65.

-familiar predictors of trust, such as TV viewing and voluntary activity, did not account for the drop in trust between the period of 1976-1995; instead, an increase in materialism contributed substantially to decline in trust.

Uslaner, Eric (1998). “Social Capital, Television, and the “Mean World”: Trust, Optimism, and

Civic Participation.” Political Psychology, vol. 19, 441-67.

-Thesis: Television is not an explanation for why social capital has declined; instead, look at optimism.

-Optimism as an indicator of trust (reflect expectations for the long run). Television does not effect indicators of optimism, which are used as determinants of trust: satisfied with friends, unfair to bring a child into the world, lot of average person getting worse, officials don’t care for average person, confidence in science.