 "Welcome to club misanthrope" | 2009-04-02 |
| - Reviewed By supafly_fresh |
So, we've got this here book here filled with all kinds of pie charts and graphs and figures and studies that are very impressive looking. It says in here that once upon a time people were politically aware, civically engaged, had extensive networks built upon strong social capital and were active components of a genuine community. It also says that today, folks are indifferent, apathetic, isolated and alienated, and he thinks that's bad and something ought to be done about it. Well, isn't that special.
While the author does a good job identifying a societal trend, and describing why this change hasn't been a particularly positive one, his suggested remedies leave much to be desired and display an only partial understanding of the underlying problem. There is no disagreement that spending more time participating in the community and less time watching television are admirable goals, however all of his proposals treat the symptoms and not the disease.
A unique set of circumstances coalesced to produce the civically over-achieving pre-boomer generation. These circumstances created the conditions necessary for the organic growth of a participation culture, and its development would naturally be expected to occur. Plant a sunflower seed in a flowerpot filled with rich soil, place it in the sun and water it every day, and it should be no surprise when a sunflower is soon growing there. When one considers the conditions experienced by the post-boomer generation, the organic growth of a non-participation culture would only naturally be expected.
Every institution that stabilized society and communities has been systematically eroded or destroyed. Job security is non-existent. Marriage is a joke. The church is a fraud. The government operates with impunity in arrogant defiance of its citizens wishes. Important sectors of the domestic economy have been hollowed out and exported wholesale. Income disparity is the worst its been in a century, etc. etc. the list goes on and on, but the bottom line is, this is the first generation whose prospects are dimmer then the previous one; the first generation forced to swallow the reality of lower expectations.
Competition for scarce resources is not known to bring out the finer qualities in humanity. As resources become scarcer, and competition fiercer, life becomes harsher, and people become coarser.
If, as a society, the younger generations had the bright prospects and a future of opportunity combined with the supportive institutional structures that existed for the pre-boomers AND civic engagement was on the wane, that might be remarkable. As things stand today, its only predictable. It sounds like a very nice and pleasant time to be alive, but it was but a moment. Energy spent reminiscing a time passed by is energy that could have been better spent adapting to a diminished future. |
| |
 "North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota high levels of social capital?" | 2008-12-28 |
| - Reviewed By User: A3L5TSL9F9BEQH |
Putnam's "Bowling Alone" examines modern American society and the erosion of the good life. America has a fondness for nostalgia but it is misunderstood and/or it is not placed in its proper context. The feeling of nostalgia is in actuality a feeling that something is wrong within our society. The yearning to escape back to a time when crime was low, people cared for one and another, happiness was widespread, etc. is the fuel that will ignite a social movement that will not recreate the "good ole days" but will transform modern society into one that is socially, politically, economically, and moralistically at peace with our intrinsic view of a collective utopia.
Putnam begins this book by proving, with a mountain of evidence, that current trends in civic engagement and social capital have eroded to such a level that modern society has become a cesspool of ill morality, crime, poverty, and inequality. He correlates a decrease in social capital to the pre-mentioned ills of society while associating an increase in social capital to such positive aspects such as education, children's welfare, safe neighborhoods, productive neighborhoods, economic prosperity, health and happiness, and most importantly democracy. The evidence is unquestionable in terms of correlation but even Putnam cautions that simple correlation can not be automatically substituted for causation. However, he goes to great lengths to discredit any possible critical objections based on his specific correlations leading to causations. This leaves the reader completely at the mercy of the evidence, it is what it is.
This evidence is summarized to include pressures of time and money, specifically with the modern American family consisting of two wage earners. Suburbanization, commuting, and sprawl contribute by increasing the time restraints through longer commutes to work and the distance to coworkers and friends. Electronic entertainment or TV in particular has resulted in the largest erosion of social capital. According to Putnam, as a result of TV we have become a society of watchers rather than doers. He particularly addresses the psychological dilemma of watching TV in which the viewer attaches oneself to the characters of the show. They become a part of characters persona thus substituting real world interaction with real people with that of fake TV characters. This has an enormous effect on the decrease in social capital via less engagement. Putnam attributes as much as 25% of the overall decline in social capital to the watching of TV. Generational change accounts for almost 50% of the decline in social capital, however, there is an approximately one third of that percentage that is interrelated with the 25% decline from TV. He does address the absent piece of this puzzle as something that can not be accounted for, whether it is modern society's level of intelligence or technology. This piece accounts for approximately 15-20%.
Putnam address the distinct difference between offering a theory to academic peers which concentrate on what caused such a phenomenon versus the general public which will want a solution to this problem. Putnam offers such a solution and seems to be optimistic to its approaching realization; however, I do have some reservations concerning his optimism. His recommendations, short of a war, depression or natural disaster, to increase social capital are as follows. Society must recognize that there is a problem and to understand the problem and its implications. This is very reasonable and I have no qualms with it. Public discourse concerning this issue must be relegated to the forefront of our political, economical, and social agenda. America must increase civic engagement through education of our children concerning civics to include theory and application. Participation in extracurricular activities in school will also increase social engagement. These too seem reasonable and achievable if not fully then to a degree that should force change.
Putnam insists that the workplace must become more family friendly, allowing for the social growth of its workers through application of diversity and the bridging of race and ethnicity. Americans need to spend less time traveling to distant recreational sites and more time enjoying the pleasures in our local surrounding community. He would rather one spend a Sunday afternoon at the local park in one's suburb versus traveling 10 miles to watch a movie at a giant mega-plex theater. The Internet will be used to increase face to face interaction versus substituting for it. The digital divide must be eliminated allowing for equal access to all regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, or social status. The emphasis that Putnam places on increasing political involvement is vital to any chance of reversing the trend of declining social capital. However, one of his recommendations seems like a mountain that I am not sure can be climbed. He states that campaign reform should emphasize social capital building versus financial capital. This in my opinion would require a grassroots movement so momentous that it would take on the look of a mini revolution. I have a hard time believing that campaign reform can eliminate or reduce effectively campaign finances for the established infrastructure that feeds this machinery is very powerful. Similar to the big oil companies controlling the type of fuel guzzling vehicles that are produced the same can be said for big politics. The large corporations and institutions will no doubt put up a fight. A real solution to crime will place many in the criminal justice system out of work. Imagine all the attorneys fearing a loss of their very significant financial compensation. I think the capitalistic society we live in will naturally fight the solution that Putnam offers.
He concludes that social capital is the single most important contribution to a healthy society that must be understood, nurtured, and maintained. I couldn't agree more although as I noted previously, I am not sure I hold the same enthusiasm as he does that it can be reversed to a point that can be maintained. The one bright spot concerning any attempts to reverse this trend is that it may be cyclically attributed to our type of society. History repeats itself, if it holds true, is a blessing not usually associated with this saying.
I did find an interesting little oddity within his research that I am sure has been studied. Higher levels of social capital are found in the upper Midwest states of North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota where a very large concentration of Scandinavian immigrants settled. He also states that the Scandinavian counties in Europe have the highest levels of social capital of western democracies while also being the biggest spending welfare states. This he can't explain other to say that maybe social capital encourages welfare spending or that welfare spending encourages social capital or maybe both of these possibilities are the result of something else. I wonder if that something else could be of a socio-biological nature. Scandinavians are more predisposed culturally to Altruism, Honesty, Trust, and Reciprocity?
Overall I enjoyed this well written and researched book. I purchased this book as it was a recommended reading for a course on Community Development but never made the attempt to read it until I used it for a course on Sociological Theory.
|
| |
 "Tons of data seems to miss the point" | 2008-06-01 |
| - Reviewed By brucec39 |
I admit I didn't finish the book. I was bored by much of it and read parts here and there. But what I looked for and didn't find was what seems to me to be obvious...We're less social because we're more mobile. Corporations shuttle families around the nation so rapidly that after a few generations of this nobody is really part of any community anymore, they're just living/working/earning there. Nobody you grew up with lives near you. You have no reputation to protect. We're a nation of strangers. I think it's less important that people join formal groups and more important that they actually know each other and relate in a way that indicates that the relationship is permanent. But in our mobile society it's not permanent.
I know from being displaced myself that when you move to a new area you don't expect to be in long, you simply do not care about it in the same way as "home". And related to that, the inhabitants there sure do not care for you!
I agree with another review that overcrowding and urbanization may be a part of the problem too. If you're constantly having to deal with crowding on roads and in shops and at events, you may just prefer a nice basement media room to sitting on the porch chatting up neighbors.
Also, if you know you're living with people for the next 40 years, your attitude toward them is quite different than if you're just a transient in their lives for the next year or so. Till you either change jobs, move to another suburb, or retire to where you really want to live. Corporations' needs for workers in different cities force us to either choose financial security or social stability. There is little effort given to ensuring workers can have a career in one city anymore. Even fractional advantages in costs/etc will cause companies to move hundreds of workers. I've been affected by it.
Overall, a very disappointing book that had a good premise but came to the wrong conclusions. |
| |
| "Bawling Alone: Fundamental Flaws" | 2008-04-01 |
| - Reviewed By ubiq1 |
Putnam accurately articulates that odd malaise many boomers deeply feel; loss of "community" (whatever one may take that to mean). He then tangentially reasons that the culprit is "diversity". The fact is that this particular boomer angst is far more the product of population density. In the '50s and '60s (his "Golden Age") solitude was far more easily acquired. Even in urbania, a short walk or a brief drive could deliver the needed dose of peace and quiet that reknits the "ravell'd sleeve of care". No more. Today, we can't get away from the crowd. It is overpopulation that drives us to seek relative social isolation. And whether the crowd looks like we do or not, it is still the crowd.
Putnam commits the endemic error of improperly linking cause and effect. Because the America he bemoans the loss of was whiter and far more insular, he attributes its unfortunate transformation to diversity. Anyone who has studied mammalian behavior will know that once a certain population density is reached, the behaviors that Putnam collectively refers to as "community" drastically decline. |
| |
| "A little dull...." | 2008-04-01 |
| - Reviewed By bhagavanw |
| It's rather drier and more academic than I'd hoped for, though terrifically erudite. It's enormous too. A fascinating subject, and a very important book, but hard to sustain an interest in. Suited to the more academic reader. |
| |
| "A Lonelier Crowd" | 2008-02-14 |
| - Reviewed By arcellura |
Robert D. Putnam's BOWLING ALONE provides what is, arguably, the most robust scientific treatment in a single volume of the conversation about friendship and its benefits begun by Aristotle nearly twenty-four centuries ago, a conversation about what has now come to be called `social capital.':
"...how can prosperity be guarded and preserved without friends...And in poverty and in other misfortunes men think friends are the only refuge. It helps the young, too, to keep them from error; it aids older people by ministering to their needs and supplementing the activities that are failing from weakness; those in the prime of life it stimulates to noble action." [And,] "Friendship seems too to hold states together..." (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics).
In BOWLING ALONE, Putnam joins earlier 20th Century writers to enlarge Adam Smith's emphasis on the productive effects of `capital.' Smith wrote:
...the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own....A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work... (Introduction to Book II, Wealth of Nations)
BOWLING ALONE demonstrates how this "stock of goods" including acts of friendship, reciprocity, sympathy, trust, and integrity, become the "materials and tools" fundamental to the health of the community. Thus, emphasizing the productive nature of affiliation, social capital - a smile, a kind word, a helping hand, group participation - gets "saved," in our rolodexes or their hippocampal versions, to be used advantageously another day. Here one notes that, though little emphasized by most contemporary cheerleaders for unfettered Capitalism, Adam Smith, too, emphasized sympathy, rather than selfishness, as one of Capitalism's essential ingredients.
Putnam provides a vast array of empirical data documenting the productive effects of friendship and communal action on politics (Chap. 2), community involvement (Chap. 3), religious participation (Chap. 4), workplace association (Chap. 5), informal social activity (Chap. 6) and altruistic activity (Chap. 7). In any of these venues, reciprocity, honesty, and trust compose the yeast for productive social activity (Chap. 8).
Putnam's interpretation of the data convincingly indicates that some generations are equaler than others. Over the half-century leading up to the publication of Putnam's book, the combination of television, suburbanization, the changing nature of work, have been factors in the dwindling of our social "goods." But most significantly, shifts in generational norms (Chaps. 10-15), have resulted in "anticivic contagion," the substantial decline in the activities that generate social capital (Chaps. 2-8), though there are exceptions (Chap. 9). In astonishing geographic detail, Putnam graphs (Figures 80-89) the correlations between social capital and its deficits in American community life, public affairs, volunteerism, sociability and trust (Chaps. 16). These are tied quite demonstrably to costs for education and children's welfare (Chap. 17), safe and productive neighborhoods (Chap. 18), economic prosperity (Chap. 19), health and happiness (Chap 20), and participatory democracy (Chap. 21). In the last two chapters (Chaps. 23, 24) he details what might be done to replenish social capital and "walking the walk" has introduced websites and seminars promoting social capital under the auspices of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Putnam recognizes other earlier uses of the phrase with varying degrees of specificity, tracing its earliest use to L. J. Hanifan, a state superintendent of rural schools in 1916:
"good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse...[result in] an accumulation of social capital which may immediately satisfy [the individuals] needs and which may bear a social potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the whole community."
Others who have used the phrase include Jane Jacobs who applied it to the health of neighborhoods (The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961), and Pierre Bourdieu who emphasized it in the contexts of social competition (The forms of capital. In: John G. Richardson (ed.): Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press 1986). But, Putnam goes further than any earlier writer, applying the concept to the communal health of our nation.
The concept of social capital, and particularly Putnam's rendering of it, is not without its critics whose objections are on semantic, philosophical, empirical and policy terms. Andy Blunden objects to its quantification and to the causal ambiguity of correlations that Putnam uses to support his inferences, though I think Putnam does not dismiss the likelihood of hidden variables that might be influencing the more apparent ones. The eminent sociologist Alejandro Portes takes up similar issues (Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology, Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998. 24:1.24), though, in fairness, his critique was on Putnam's earlier work in this area and BOWLING ALONE effectively addresses some of them. Theda Skocpol tellingly argues that Putnam's approach essentially blames the victim (cf. Unraveling From Above, The American Prospect no. 25 (March-April 1996): 20-25.), A. R. Cellura's The Genomic Environment and Niche-Experience (Cedar Springs Press, 2006) demonstrates the interrelated effects of social capital up and down the conceptual ladder from the genome to community life.
|
| |
Expedited Available
