Rating: 
Summary: Ourselves Alone
Review: Robert Putnam's 'Bowling Alone' has emerged as a seminal work on social disengagement. In this groundbreaking study on the strength of American community Putnam investigates the decline of political activity as a symptom of a broader social retrenchment. Grassroots Political participation, once the lifeblood of any polity, has been bettered by a financial transfusion. Putnam identifies an unprecedented level of professionalism and wealth among political parties that parallels the participatory decline. One conclusion to draw is that voters have become consumers in a new commercialised polity instead of partners in the democratic process. Detoqueville wrote of a democracy where political interaction extended to the lowest levels by uniting all in a unique symbiosis. It is worth asking how well this utopia fits with the mobility, insecurity, and materialism of 21st Century? Detoqueville emphasised the importance of root and branch democracy extending from the people as the founding fathers intended. The removal of politics from this umbilical cord has profound implications. Political socialisation no longer occurs in a diffuse manner. Recent manifestations of protest at proposals for war in Iraq are not unrelated to suspicions of a plutocratic, closed shop polity. However such outbursts of protest are hardly appropriate to redress the chasm in political engagement. Protest is blunt instrument with uncertain outcomes and a fleeting impact. Loose coalitions of protesters united by their frustrations are encumbered with a political illiteracy. Similarly, an increase in political contributions underwrites the commercial veneer of the modern polity. Democratic deliberation is revealed as a mix between professional detachment and amateurish disillusion.
Rating:
Summary: Anyone home?
Review: Mr. Putnam did a terrific job defining and researching each aspect of why people have become disconnected form their neighborhoods. Everyone wants the front porch nostalgia and socialization without actually having to be involved or connect with anyone. This book shows the whys and whens and the how to get it back. Fabulous reading, though there are many graphs and charts in the beginning it is well worth the time. If you have an interest in history or community this book will appeal to you. Each cause of disengagment is thoroughly cover and weighed as to its guilt. The "verdict" is then explained, and a new suspect is brought up. This would be a great book for a serious book club or community board to read.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating!
Review: I was fascinated by the depth of the statistics and the breadth of the analyses in this book. Although statistics can be dry, and it took me a while to plow through the entire book, it was terribly interesting none the less.It's worth reading, although, in a nutshell, the premise is that Americans used to be joiners and much more social animals. Now, they are either not joiners, or joining means something different, like paying dues to a national organization with no meetings, instead of paying dues to a local organization and meeting new friends and neighbors. Many national organizations that meet on local levels have suffered to the point of extinction. Even bridge clubs and bowling leagues (hence the title) have fallen out of favor.
Rating:
Summary: Absorbing
Review: Far more interesting than I expected a book on sociology could be -- even after having read the glowing reviews. Putnam explores how a variety of factors -- television, urban sprawl, declining organizational membership, etc. -- have shaped American society. The book offers a lot to think about, a good deal of which is both personal and immediate. At the end of the book, I find myself contemplating three topics. First, the implications of the decline in social capital, in particular whether it is reversible; while I can see the theoretical possiblity of increasing social capital, I can't at this point see any likely catalysts on the horizon. Second, the implications of my own lifestyle choices, specifically how to most time-effectively improve my contributions to social capital. And finally, the generational differences in attitudes toward the purpose and value of social engagement -- which apparently are much more profound than I would have expected. While the book makes few suggestions for how to remedy the situation, it does offer this: a number of really interesting observations and correlations to use as conversation starters.
Rating:
Summary: Civic engagement IS declining
Review: Regardless of whether you accept Putnam's rather inclusive defintion of social capital, I believe you cannot quarrel with his empirical results concerning the decline in civic engagement. Using an amazing array of sources, he shows that many different forms of civic participation, as well as just plain sociable interaction, have declined drastically over the past 4 decades. I am impressed by his determination to leave no stone unturned in looking for data. He uses Roper polls, Gallup polls, the General Social Survey, trade association data, Census Bureau information, and a myriad of other sources. He entertains alternative interpretations of patterns and then shows how his is, usually, at least as plausible and often better. In his thoroughness, he presents a model for other social scientists to follow when they are trying to convince skeptics about the existence of previously unnoticed events. Most impressive, he clearly explains what a "cohort effect" is, and shows that almost all of the decline in civic engagement is due to younger, less-engaged generations replacing older, more-engaged ones. That is, it is NOT a matter of people changing as they aged through the turbulent 60s and 70s, but rather a matter of our children and grandchildren failing to adopt our -- the older generation -- civic habits. I wasn't particuarly happy with his decision to use state-level measures of social capital in the last third of his book, but by then I had already become convinced of Putnam's major point: times have changed, and the 1940s and 50s were special decades. We won't see their level of civic engagement again, unless something changes radically in our society. I highly recommend this book to those of you who love Malcolm Gladwell's work. This is what Gladwell would do, if he had Putnam's training in data analysis!
Rating:
Summary: Hope You Like Statistical Analysis
Review: Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone is not an extended essay on how the author feels that people in America are not engaging socially with one another as much as they used to. Its emphasis is on looking at a myriad of statistics that prove that we are not as socially engaged as we used to be. He looks at the declining memberships in all the clubs and organizations and he examines the decline in informal socializing such as playing card games and having friends over for dinner. He then examines why we are less socially engaged. He thinks that it is mainly because the civic generation that was coming of age or in adulthood during the WWII and the civil rights era is dying off. It seems that a crisis like a war increases peoples' civic consciousness as they pull together to solve the crisis. He also blames TV watching since it is an increasingly private entertainment that discourages people from seeking out more social entertainments. Two career families and commuting also have a smaller adverse effect on "social capital", that term he uses to identify the social engagement of a nation. Putnam again analyzes statistics for this section to prove what is deciminating social capital. In the 3rd section, Putnam explains why it is important for a democratic society to have social capital. He looks at stats of states that have high social capital such as the upper midwest and upper northeast and compares them to the low capital states of the south and NV. He comes to the conclusion that people are happier, healthier, wealthier, more productive, more tolerant, and safer in states where there is high social capital. Surprisingly, he proves that communities are not repressive when they nurture, which runs contrary to my experience. The fourth section talks about how we can increase social capital by looking at what people did at the turn of the century to increase it when the capital was running low. A lot of our present organizations were organized then. He also says that we should increase our bonding social capital among homogeneous groups and our bridging capital among diverse groups. Putnam says it is unclear whether diversity destroys community. He says that homogeneous communities do not interact as much as diverse ones, and people should engage with others that they are different from or even hostile to. Putnam explains that the northern midwestern and the most northeastern states have a traditional communitarian culture of high social capital because they are more egalitarian than other states that are more libertarian or elitist. Bowling Alone makes a nice companion piece to The Fourth Turning for those who like to study the discimination and rebuilding of societies in different eras of history. --Oh and I guess we could be more socialable.
Rating:
Summary: Changed the way I think about life
Review: I saw this book quoted in the newspaper and decided to read it. Now I'm almost done with it and have been amazed by nearly every page. The discussion about the importance of social groups was eye-opening. Putnam would not be surprised that I, as a generation Xer, had never before given social groups much thought. Now I realize I've really been missing out. The discussions about social isolation and its potential causes were fascinating. I was pleased to find out about the effects cars and urban sprawl have on our lives. I was stunned to find out how much people watch television. Putnam's approach is wonderful. He backs himself up with scientific evidence and says so when the evidence is substandard or when he is giving his opinion. He tries hard to present the big picture and doesn't hesitate to consider disparate viewpoints. Putnam is obviously deeply concerned about the direction of American society, and I believe he has given us something of great value for making the future a better one. I recommend this book for anyone who wants to develop an understanding of how to make America a better place by improving his or her own life.
Rating: 
Summary: good dry data
Review: ... Reading this book was like walking through a mud bog, but it's a good summary of lots of data that put together is very interesting. My favorite correlation drawn: People who's primary form of entertainment is watching TV are three times more likely to give a fellow driver the finger.
Rating:
Summary: A paradigm shift in thinking about ourselves
Review: As an inveterate reader of non-fiction, especially in the social sciences, I can't think of when I last wanted to give an individual book to virtually everyone I know! But that's how I feel about "Bowling Alone" by Robert Putnam. I want to give it to my fellow Girl Guide leaders as we struggle to find ways of maintaining membership among girls today. I want to give it to several friends who work in public health as they talk about ways of improving community health in tough economic times. I want to give it to friends who are parents of teenagers worrying about the future for their children. And I want to give it to friends who don't necessarily fall into any of those categories because it's just such an exciting and stimulating read.
I should make it clear: That doesn't mean it's an easy read. It's not. Putnam's writing style is clear and remarkably free of sociological jargon, but this is still reading you have to work at. The book is full of graphs, charts, tables and results of countless sociological studies. That's part of what I really liked about it. It's not just one man's opinion, no matter how interesting that opinion might be. Every single conclusion Putnam draws is copiously backed up with facts and evidence from the many studies. It's also challenging reading because there are so many conclusions that make you stop and think, and challenge the ways we've all thought about our communities and what's changed about them and what's gone wrong with them in the past 20 or 30 years.
Much of the criticism of Putnam's work has been that he just wants to turn the clock back to the days of "Leave it to Beaver" and "Father Knows Best." I don't think that's true. He recognizes clearly that those days in the '50s and '60s when the sense of community was at its highest also had their own problems -- racism, classism, and gender inequality among them. He doesn't want to return to that.
Rather what I see him challenging us all to do is to build on the much greater tolerance we've built up today, and try to combine that with a renewed sense of community with all the benefits that could bring.
I think it's a challenge that should be taken up by every single community in North America.
Rating: 
Summary: Limited view of history and sociology
Review: Mr. Putnam makes the same mistake of all social commentators with a tunnel vision view of things.He writes as though societies should't change because change is inherently bad.He makes it sound as though the change of social paradigm is a new phenomenon in human civilization.He laments the fading away of the old lodges and elk clubs and the like,but fails to register the fact that these staples of fifty years ago were also new at one time and replaced older social orders.If we are a more closed off and separated society it is because we have chosen to be.If poeple still wanted bridge clubs then we'd have them,but people don't.Putnam does a good job of cataloging the shift in our society,but falls back into the sentimentality of longing for the good ole days,which by the way never exist except in people's minds.Such an incredible amount of change and speed of change has marked the last 20-30 years;it's only natural that new social paradigms are emerging as older ones fade out.A much better book could've been written on why people fear change and why people cannot accept the inevitable fact of change.
| 
