Bowling Alone : The Collapse and Revival of American Community

Rating:
Summary: by James A. Montanyne
Review: Robert Putnam's 1995 essay on civic disengagement in the United States ("Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital," Journal of Democracy 6 [January 1995]: 65-78) piqued the interest of conservatives and neoliberals alike en route to becoming perhaps the most discussed social science article of the twentieth century. Conservatives read Putnam's essay as a demonstration of the crowding out of private civic and humanitarian organizations by the rising tide of government social programs. Neoliberals, in contrast, saw an opportunity to advance public welfare by using government to promote programs geared toward rebuilding the social-capital infrastructure in the United States, which Putnam argued had depreciated during the last third of the twentieth century.

Conservatives are unlikely to be persuaded by the data and arguments Putnam has marshaled in this book-length version of the essay, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. Neoliberals, on the other hand, will find reasons to rejoice, not only because of the book's new material and policy prescriptions but also because attempts to meet the challenges Putnam has posed would revitalize the flagging communitarian social program. Whether or not scholars and policy analysts accept Putnam's analysis and conclusions, they must be prepared to deal with the points Putnam has raised because his book promises to have cachet in policy circles for a long time.

The book's central theme is simply stated: "For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century a powerful tide bore Americans into ever deeper engagement in the life of their communities, but a few decades ago-silently, without warning-that tide reversed and we were overtaken by a treacherous rip current. Without at first noticing, we have been pulled apart from one another and from our communities over the last third of the century" (p. 27).

The book is organized in four major sections. In the first, Putnam describes trends in civic disengagement that he claims have dissipated social capital in recent years. "[T]he broad picture is one of declining membership in community organizations. During the last third of the twentieth century formal membership in organizations in general has edged downward by perhaps 10-20 percent. Most important, active involvement in clubs and other voluntary associations has collapsed at an astonishing rate, more than halving most indexes of participation within barely a few decades" (p. 63).

In the book's second section, Putnam identifies the perceived causes of this deterioration-causes that he argues have left "Americans today feel[ing] vaguely and uncomfortably disconnected," a conclusion based in part on social surveys showing that "we wish to live in a more civil, more trustworthy, more collectively caring community" (p. 402).

In the book's third section, Putnam identifies the negative consequences of America's declining social capital for education and children's welfare, safe and productive neighborhoods, economic prosperity, health and happiness, and democracy. He admits that too much and the wrong kind of social capital also can have deleterious consequences-"too much fraternity is bad for liberty and equality" (p. 351), leading, for example, to an increase of organized crime-but he believes that on balance the benefits of copious social capital broadly outweigh those costs.

Putnam concludes the book by recounting the social movements that characterized the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era-political epochs that gave rise to the stock of social capital that Putnam argues dissipated during the last third of the twentieth century.

The book, however, offers no systematic demonstration that the benefits of its utopian agenda would outweigh the costs of "using government" to bring it into being. Any attempt to establish that conclusion almost certainly would fail: universal happiness and well-being have yet to flow from utopian social policies. The fact that private and public life presents a series of trade-offs fully escapes Putnam's purview: his policy prescription has superficial appeal (to the extent that it appeals at all) because he almost entirely ignores the costs of bringing it about. Consequently, no offhand proposal is too outlandish. For example, "why not [require] employer-provided space and time for civic discussion groups and service clubs?" (p. 407). The correct answer to questions of this sort is widely known, though not frequently acknowledged: because the market process resolves such issues in total far more efficiently than does legislative fiat.

Economic theory teaches that individuals seek to maximize the expected utility they can derive from their environment. "Social organization" is merely a composite view of individuals interacting in ways that enhance their separate private utilities. Coercing individuals to live and interact differently through the compulsions of law, as Putnam proposes, cannot increase aggregate social welfare; doing so would merely move most individuals away from their revealed optima while increasing the far-reaching disutility that is an unavoidable cost of coercive public policy. Putnam's proposals ultimately rest on the weakest and most potentially dangerous implication of the Standard Social Science Model that an omnipotent state pursuing normative policy ends can and indeed ought to treat individuals like sheep.

Rating:
Summary: Putnam hits on some important issues you can't ignore
Review: First of all, this is a relatively easy read and very intriguing. I just couldn't put it down. Putnam presents good evidence that social capital has indeed declined. Most of his statistical work is in good order. Most people would have a tough time disproving Putnam's evidence. But I am also a critical reader. I think he fell a little short in the "Why" section. I feel that the nature of social capital is changing (as technology and civilization progress) and Putnam doesn't touch on that enough. Also, some of his graphs and charts in this section are arbitrary. Overall it is a good book that looks at a potentially serious problem. All that being said, I recommend this book to anyone who cares about the society they live in. It is certainly an eye opener.

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Work
Review: If this book made no contribution whatsoever to the study of political science it could still be handed out to aspiring authors as a treatise on how to write a scholarly work.

In "Bowling Alone", Robet Putnam has managed to find a wonderful balance between academic rigor and readability, producing a book that is, at once, informative and a pleasure to read. On the academic side, the body of information Putnam has sifted through is simply amazing; there is almost no fact that Putnam has not probed underneath and no idea that he has not already thought of. Despite the scholarly nature of this book, though, Putnam's prose is well-written and littered with livid examples that make the text flow by at breakneck speed.

Like many other books, "Bowling Alone" is a polemic against an aspect of American society; unlike many other polemics "Bowling Alone" does not contain rhetorical flourish and incindeary calls-to-arms. Rather Putnam calmly and methodically presents his analysis and lets the facts speak for themselves. This is apprciated and gives Putnams work all the more validity.

Putman's thesis is that a decline in social connectedness among Americans has had rippling effects throughout several diverse aspects of society. Putnam characterizes the social connctions we make as 'social capital' (analoagous to other forms of capital, such as factories) and argues that the loss of social capital also leads to a loss of other things such as reciprocity among neighbors and trust.

In the first section of "Bowling Alone" Putnam presents his evidence for the decline of social capital in America. What makes Putnam's evidence convincing is the magnitude and breadth of information presented. Putnam finds evidence of social decline in many diverse studies, and in each piece of evidence he presents Putnam does his best to rule out explanations other than the one he is positing.

After displaying his evidence for social decline, Putnam moves on to offer a explanations as to why this has happened. These explanations, while valid, are certainly far from the last word on the topic, a point which Putnam wisely conceedes in the introduction to this section. In the next section Putnam explains to us why the decline in social capital is bad for America, in effect asking 'so what', and again providing voluminous data and expelling other explnations (although not as rigoriously as in the first section). Lastly, Putnam offers a few words as to what is to be done.

The strength of this book is in the evidence it marshalls in favor of a decline of social capital in America. The other portions of this book, why, so what, and what is to be done, are well written, but are clearly not as definitive as the first section. However, Putnam cannot be held too responsible for this; satisfactory explorations of these topics would take several more books.

Overall, in "Bowling Alone" Putnam has done a service to his country by alerting us to a disturbing trend in American society. Hopefully now that Putnam has raised the alarum, others will follow his lead, some producing more work on this important topic, others doing their part to reverse the decline of social capital by participating in their communities.

Rating:
Summary: isolation yields less loyalty and lower productivity
Review: Putnam's book is the outgrowth of an article he wrote for theJanuary 1995 issue of the Journal of Democracy called "BowlingAlone: America's Declining Social Capital."...The article wasbased on his take that civic involvement in America was in seriousdecline. The tie to the shriveling of bowling leagues gave him hisclever title. The article made the rounds and created quite a buzz inpublic policy circle. His take is that while business has replacedcommunity as the primary place where people have their socialconnections, few of the friendships formed in the workplace achievethe same level of intimacy as friendships in the neighborhood orcommunity had in the past. The problem is exacerbated when you addthe growth of the cotingent workforce that results in high transiencein the workplace. Intimacy is down and so too is loyalty to thebusiness. The end result of all of this is increasing isolation whichin the workplace can have a major adverse impact on productivity aswell as loyalty. The book is provocative, full of deep research, and agood starting point for a discussion on the state of individuals insociety.

Rating:
Summary: Disengagement
Review: Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community Robert Putnam, Simon & Schuster, 2000

Review

If you can read only one purportedly academic book this year choose this one. Despite being statistically dense, it reads like a business bestseller - a sort of Tipping Point with meat. Through a exhaustive use of polling and other socioeconomic indices, Putnam paints a compelling picture of a nation fragmenting into smaller and smaller pockets of disjointed individuals. A must read for anyone interested in political action into the next decades.

Synopsis

The basic premise here is that a growing social disconnect can be identified in trends of American public opinion over the course of the last century though analysis of "social capital" activities. Social capital is the connection - and the strength, utility and cohesion of these linkages - between individuals in a society.

Rather than a lamentation on this collapse of civics, Putnam traces polling, voting, memberships and leisure activities to debunk most of the myths that attempt to explain the failure of politics to engage the US public. We still have the same 19-20 hours for relaxation per week and work, with its focal points of 'team' capitalism and heightened customer service does not seemingly translate outside the office. By then bringing in Tocqueville's 'self interest, rightly served' [135] a clear trail of the decline of American civility is clearly traced.

The salient thought roaring through Bowling Alone is that "A society characterized by generalized reciprocity is more efficient than a distrustful society, for the same reason that money is more efficient than barter." [21] This is the basic finding that such a simple premise forms the basis of all the political upheavals in America - and with little retinking, Canada - over the past century and of greater importance, since the silent reversal - 'disjunctive pattern of decline' - of civic connectives in the middle 70's.

The criticisms of Bowling Alone hinge primarily on the seeming Ozzie & Harriet lamentation for the good old days [see Mark Kingwell's The World We Want, 2000] when everyone liked each other, but they sorely miss the point of the work. Given that more people bowl in leagues than voted in the 1998 US congressional election , perhaps a look-see at Pleasantville is warranted. Putnam's prescriptions are not 'civic broccoli' or predicated on the ubiquitous they coming to our rescue, but simple, easy to articulate and ultimately deliverable.

Detail

Putnam typifies 2-type of social capital: bonding and bridging which provides a useful distinction in the book. Bonding capital coalesces similar groups while bridging arches socioeconomic groups. This differentiation provides Although this is a subtle distinction it is at the core of the thesis of Bowling Alone. It allows for a plausible explanation of the rise of chequebook participation and the proliferation of letterheads over civic action by individuals. Collective goals and causes have become secondary to personal growth with thin and cool trust.

Putnam's exploration of the causes of this decline follows leads from the number of personal injury lawyers, through television into bureaucratization of community action. He sees troubling social tendencies to 'hire organizations' for community action and the development of virtual social capital consciousness, which must be regarded as oxymoronic at best. These activities become captives of zealot 'dictators' or dilute their effectiveness as they denigrate into gab-feast anarchies. Thus, Putnam questions the effectiveness of the internet as a tool of bonding social capital as it has a tendency to create joy-stick democracy of the paramount individual. This "sociological Astroturf, suitable only where the real thing won't grow." [107]

Thus, although widespread discontent exists, incumbents are re-elected as astonishing rates in America as there are few focal points for the coalescing social disconnect. This raises the specter of niche markets in politics where single issue consumers' end up supporting causes that in effect erode the social cohesion of their communities. This finding is most troubling for today's youth whose values are filtered through the abstraction of the media - and especially by television the "single most consistent predicator" [229] of declining civic involvement - and are tuned out to organized civic action.

Overall, Putnam provides clear and compelling evidence that a catalyst is needed to re-engage Americans in collective civic action to address pressing social and growing economic ills that face the nation. Or in a chilling insight, he believes that we are bottoming out in "drive-by" civics.

Rating:
Summary: A bunch of gobbltigook by any other name...
Review: This book disappoints me. It seems as though it were written with the knowledge that it would sell no matter what it said. Also, the data provided often left much to be desired, and I think failed to show the real picture. Putnams conclusion was very weak.

Rating:
Summary: How about Universal Youth Service?
Review: Bowling Alone is a great book. I was surprised, however, that the author did not mention the possibility of introducing Universal Youth Service (UYS) in the United States as a way of helping bring young people from all walks of life together to learn the habits of work and socialization.

This idea does not mean a return to the draft, though it might contain a military option. Rather, it would offer young men and women a chance to work in various areas of interest: one person might build trails and plant trees in the national forests; another might bring hot meals and companionship to urban shut ins. One might apprentice to a rural veterinarion and someone else could learn skills building low income housing. You get the point.

Having fulfilled a UYS requirement of one to two years, young people would obtain educational assistance - similar to the old GI Bill - and this boost would be a secondary benefit in a country which seems determined to start off our young people in life up to their ears in debt.

Be interested to know if Professor Putnam is interested in this idea.

Rating:
Summary: Most important book for the 21st century
Review: This book confirms our intuition that society is less connected than it used to be. It discusses the imporance of the connections. One idea I found especially useful was the idea of "bonding" vs. "bridging" relationships.

Bonding helps us get by, like family and close friends. Bridging helps us get ahead, relationships with people unlike ourselves. The book documents the importance of bridging relationships on the development of the country and even on personal health.

This book is incredibly important because it shows without a doubt the issues that are confronting us and what we need to do to help society and individuals stay healthy.

Rating:
Summary: Deals with an important issue.
Review: Bowling Alone studies the disintegration of American community and its consequences. The first and largest section deals with documenting this collapse. This section is full of interesting statistics, but is not the most important part of the book. I believe very few people would doubt that as a society we are becoming more disconnected from one another.

The second section speculates as to what is causing this change for the worse, bringing up such factors as longer hours at work, urban sprawl and the negative effects of mass media, particularly television. One factor Putnam discusses, generational change, may be more of a symptom than a cause of the collapse of community. Understanding what has caused the loss of community in America is possibly the most difficult aspect of the book. None the less, I wish it could have been expanded.

The third section deals with the consequences, from the more obvious effects on neighborhoods and schools, to our economic prosperity and individual health and happiness. The effect of a loss of community on our democracy is also documented. The increased use of professional campaign staff to replace volunteers and the need for corporate and other special interest money to maintain this form of "democracy" is a profound danger. This section is the most chilling part of the book and is the most important reason to read Bowling Alone.

The fourth section deals with remedies for our predicament. The strongest part of this section is the comparison between our turn of the century and the previous one where we went from the Gilded Age to the Progressive Era. In this section and the end of the previous one, some negative forms of community are discussed. These are institutions that are exclusive in nature and have negatively contributed to people's images of what it means to be a "joiner." Putnam effectively distinguishes between the type of community organization whose effect is positive and these others.

Bowling Alone is a somewhat scholarly work and not pure entertainment. But it is important and enlightening and will hopefully contribute to the revival of American community that it seeks.

Rating:
Summary: Just Looking
Review: I started to read this book recently. Putnam is an example of the kind of professor that Harvard likes to hire--a popularizer. He writes well and does thorough research. However, his thinking seems to be flaccid. By focuing his study on "mainstream" organizations, and ignoring "alternative" organizations, he sacrifices intellectual rigor to make an argument. He cannot accept that the subject of his interest is too generalized to be explained by statistical variables. He does make some provocative points about "social capital" and its perceived decline.