Few people outside certain scholarly circles had heard the name Robert D. Putnam before 1995. But then this self-described “obscure academic” hit a nerve with a journal article called “Bowling Alone.” Suddenly he found himself invited to Camp David, his picture in People magazine, and his thesis at the center of a raging debate. In a nutshell, he argued that civil society was breaking down as Americans became more disconnected from their families, neighbors, communities, and the republic itself. The organizations that gave life to democracy were fraying. Bowling became his driving metaphor. Years ago, he wrote, thousands of people belonged to bowling leagues. Today, however, they’re more likely to bowl alone:
Television, two-career families, suburban sprawl, generational changes in values–these and other changes in American society have meant that fewer and fewer of us find that the League of Women Voters, or the United Way, or the Shriners, or the monthly bridge club, or even a Sunday picnic with friends fits the way we have come to live. Our growing social-capital deficit threatens educational performance, safe neighborhoods, equitable tax collection, democratic responsiveness, everyday honesty, and even our health and happiness.
The conclusions reached in the book Bowling Alone rest on a mountain of data gathered by Putnam and a team of researchers since his original essay appeared. Its breadth of information is astounding–yes, he really has statistics showing people are less likely to take Sunday picnics nowadays. Dozens of charts and graphs track everything from trends in PTA participation to the number of times Americans say they give “the finger” to other drivers each year. If nothing else, Bowling Alone is a fascinating collection of factoids. Yet it does seem to provide an explanation for why “we tell pollsters that we wish we lived in a more civil, more trustworthy, more collectively caring community.” What’s more, writes Putnam, “Americans are right that the bonds of our communities have withered, and we are right to fear that this transformation has very real costs.” Putnam takes a stab at suggesting how things might change, but the book’s real strength is in its diagnosis rather than its proposed solutions. Bowling Alone won’t make Putnam any less controversial, but it may come to be known as a path-breaking work of scholarship, one whose influence has a long reach into the 21st century. –John J. Miller
Customer Reviews
Remembering De Tocqueville:
In reviewing Putnam’s work it is important to remember that the discourse about social capital not only educates as to the health of individuals and societies but also as to the health of political systems. De Tocqueville marveled at Americans’ as joiners because he correctly theorized that intermediate organizations are crucial for the healthy working of modern democracies. Thus the evidence that Americans are joining fewer organizations should also cause us to question the health of American democracy.
The recent acceptance by large swaths of the American public that torture is an acceptable method in defending democracy shows a kind of extremism not far removed from that of Nazi Germany where again intermediate organizations are said to have been were few and opened the way for mass organizations and the state to isolate the individual and place him/her one on one with the demagogue and his mass party.
Differences with Germany’s case are enormous of course yet evidence that democracy is not in a healthy state should make us ask questions. It is in this light that Putnam’s work takes an even greater significance.
Sad Truth About Our Society:
The American people are more socially isolated than ever due to the increasing amount of television watching, the way our cities are designed and the way that each generation is getting more and more disengaged in American public life. There are other factors that contribute but these are the main ones.
A properly socially cohesive society will do better in terms of crime, our government, the economy, education ect. He mentions that street gangs form from a lack of social capital in the neightbor hoods and that the gangs form as a way of making up for it.
The apathy leads not only to mental but physical illness. Putname takes you on a journey filled with many graphs that give substance and proof to what he is saying.
Recommended for the thinking citizen:
This work is both scholarly and yet accessible to the average citizen. Putman documents in considerable detail the cultural trend in the U.S. away from civic organizations both formal and informal. The collection of research over many decades is quite amazing. Yet this data is presented in an understandable way with graphs and summary descriptions. The conclusion is what anyone of a certain age already knows and that is people are less social today than decades ago. One illumination for me is how that social isolation results in negative effects in areas such as crime, prosperity, education, government and even health. This appears to be well documented and is not just “shooting from the hip”.
There are a few deficiencies in this book however. First, the “cause” of this phenomena as “generational “succession” is a good observation but not a cause. Why is generational succession occurring? The arguments are incomplete. Secondly, the sub-title “…Revival of the American Community” is never really presented. The solutions to the problem (if it is indeed a problem) are the weak part of the book. Taking lessons from the “gilded age” and the turn of the 20th century don’t seem to connect with me.
In summary, I think this is an important book but is only the beginning of the discussion. From an individual perspective, there are still plenty of social groups to become involved with and they are not that hard to find. Let this book turn the light inward upon ourselves. We are relational creatures. Let’s take the initiative, turn the TV off and become involved. By the way, despite today’s over-the-top rhetoric, the church is alive and is a welcoming place. Come and get connected.
A exhaustive work calls for a long review (sorry):
I greatly respect what Dr. Putnam is trying to do with this book; so I want to be charitable in my review. I purchased this book because I have recently felt a bit `disconnected’ from society personally. I wanted to do some evaluation of my own experience vs. his presentation of mass changes in social trends. To put it simply: Am I `bowling alone’ because of ME or because of some greater social trends in America I happen to be living through?
My review is long because this is a very `dense’ work, as another review put it. The book is greatly bolstered with supporting statistics (ad infinitum, it seems). I realize that there is virtue in supporting your thesis with hard quantifiable numbers. I wish more would do that. The conflict or down side of that is - that statistical presentation is frankly… boring. So this is not an entertaining or fast read; it’s not a page-turner. It certainly is not literary bubble-gum. This is a full academic social study presented to the general populace.
However, his efforts and objective is wonderful, and to be lauded. One has to respect that. There is some humor peppered here and there. It would be great if he could put his statistical data off in some kind of sidebar and separate it out from anecdote, examples and generalities - to make the reading a little smoother. I confess I found myself skipping over some statistics just to get his real point. The hard statistics and whatever examples he presents are all mashed together in the same paragraph.
He does a great job of staying quite neutral with respect to political, social or religious ideologies and groups. Thankfully, the writer is not an alarmist. Except for the thought that this trend is dangerous, he has largely left out his own feelings with some excellent academic objectivity. [I wish more academics would do THAT!] He avoids nostalgia and emotion, simply making a case for the decline and revival of American social connectedness (stated as `social capital’). It’s just that he goes through a GREAT deal of statistics to do so. There’s even a graphic chart depicting how often people observe stop signs vs. glide through the intersection - down through the decades! It’s called, `The Changing Observance of Stop Signs’ (page 143). At times he digresses into tangents that have minor bearing on social connectedness, in my opinion. This lengthens the book a bit, but that point is minor.
I definitely will take some good thoughts with me from this book. (It is this disconnectedness that has largely caused the current great rift between right and left, liberals and conservatives.) It’s good to have some light on the phenomena we see in our civic and social circles.
Excellent Data, Interesting Story… may be limited by logical fallacy:
This is a well written book about the decline of certain activities that have historically been central to the “social capital” of American society and the pervasive consequences on American lives. While I think much of Putnam’s story is on the mark, I believe his diagnosis of the problem depends on several logical flaws and this could potentially imply that different conclusions should be reached. Let me explain:
The book basically says, “here’s a laundry list of activities that Americans don’t do as often as they used to including clubs, religious activities, unions, house parties, picnics, etc.” The evidence is overwhelming that all of these activities have become less common as a share of American activities. They’re all major components of what we typically consider social activities. Putnam therefore concludes that Americans are building less social capital. Does this evidence lead to this conclusion? Let’s replace some of the words and concepts and perhaps we can illustrate why it may not.
Assume Americans are spending less money (or a smaller percentage of their income) on makeup, perfume, and hair salons (I don’t necessarily believe this is true, but for the sake of the example). We consider all of these activities beautification. Now would a reduction in the share of household wealth spent on these activities necessarily imply that Americans care less about beauty or are less beautiful? What if we “forget” to mention (or simply miss) that people are now spending a huge share of wealth on plastic surgery and that this didn’t even exist in our “reference period?” What if people are spending less on makeup because they get far more “beauty” for the same amount of money today?
To be truly conclusive, Putnam needs to not only prove that people are spending less total time on social activities but that these social activities are less rewarding on the whole (and what we’ve replaced them with are not more rewarding than our losses).
Critical to this point is the question, “what is it that social capital is supposed to deliver?” I took the time to write this review instead of socializing. I won’t necessarily receive any direct compensation from a reader as I might have gotten from the friend (emotional support, contact to a job, introduction to a significant other, fun of company). It appears that I’ve lost social capital. BUT, how many of your friends would you have needed to ask before you got a review like this (or others submitted here). How many friendships would I have had to make to get the benefit of the other reviews that I’ve read on Amazon. Am I worse off or have I simply participated in a less personal exchange that is of much greater value to society (and in the long run to myself)?
In the same vein, I may not go hang out with my friends the way my parents did, but I can IM and TXT my friends no matter where they are in the country. I may not meet my neighbor but I can share interest in games or politics or economics with people around the country and I’d like to think I get a lot out of my participation in these kinds of communities. Is my life really worse if I can’t invite all of these people to the bowling alley with me? Is my life or my participation in society really diminished if I don’t attend a meeting in their physical presence?
If I had no friends in town, certainly the cost would be real. But I would never trade my deep personal relationships with friends in New York, Pittsburgh, and Chicago for a dozen bowling buddies here in Columbus.
Despite my concerns regarding the specific arguments and conclusions, I actually enjoyed the book and encourage people to read it. However, the book only receives 4 stars because the data may not necessarily justify the conclusions and readers are therefore cautioned about taking it all at face value.
