Community Matters
By Robert Putnam
Posted Tuesday, June 13, 2000, at 1:59 PM ETDear Nick:
Thanks for your compliment on my word-smithing. You raise some interesting questions worthy of debate, and I look forward to our exchanges over the next few days.
Among those debatable questions is not whether Americans' social connections have become weaker. Beyond your own "deep commitments," you don't really offer any evidence for your claim except to cite the book by Ladd. I have remained silent on that book since Ladd's sad, premature death last year, because I was taught not to speak ill of the dead. (He actually died before my book was completed, so his book was hardly a response to mine.) However, since you and one or two other commentators have cited his work in critique of mine, I must comment on his work briefly.
Ev Ladd had a productive career as a political scientist, but his last book was not his best. The alleged evidence of civic vitality offered in the book is puzzlingly selective. For reasons of space I cite only a single example among many: Ladd cites Roper data from surveys in 1981, 1990, and 1995 that purport to show steady or rising political participation, but he fails to tell his readers that he selected those three surveys from a series of more than 200 identical surveys over the last quarter century. I report the full series in my book, and they unmistakably show steady long-term declines of 40 percent to 50 percent since the early 1970s. (As you know, I will be making those data, along with all the other original data in my book, publicly available at my Web site so that anyone can check both my arithmetic and my inferences.) Sadly, it is hard to avoid the inference that Ladd intentionally chose three isolated data points from the full set of more than 200 to suggest a contrary trend. It's like selecting one hot July day in 1980 and one frigid January day in 1990 from daily temperature records to deny global warming. Why did Ladd not report the entire series of surveys from his own archive if he were seeking the truth?
Leaving poor Ladd aside, a reader of your comments who has not yet had a chance to read my book might assume that my evidence was limited to membership in old-fashioned organizations like the WCTU, but any reader of the book (like you) knows that is not true. On topics from philanthropy to road rage and from Mall marches to self-help groups, I present so many figures and tables that more than one reviewer has been left groaning at evidentiary "overkill." When I present my argument to public audiences, as I did yesterday to 450 folks in Philadelphia and today to 300 in Chicago, there is lots of lively debate about the implications of Americans' growing social isolation, but virtually no one questions the facts, because ordinary Americans know that what I've described fits their own experience. The Wall Street Journal, normally sympathetic to Ladd's conservative views, concluded that Bowling Alone
is a minutely documented catalog of social disengagement of virtually every kind: political apathy, retreat from church attendance, eroding union membership, the decline of bridge clubs and dinner parties, volunteering and blood donation. There is a graph or chart for every one of them. ... Mr. Putnam has proved his main point and proved it to what should be the satisfaction of any fair-minded reader.
I'd be happy to continue our debate over the next two days about whether American's civic engagement is rising or falling, since the facts overwhelming confirm my case, but would it not be more productive to move on to debate the meaning of this disengagement for American communities?
So let me try to move us to that more contestable terrain. As you know, though I explicitly dissociate myself from the view that everything has gone wrong in America since the 1960s, I do argue that the decline in social and civic engagement since then has been a net loss. I present lots of evidence that where social capital is more abundant, children and adults live longer, healthier, happier lives and democracy works better. Americans' current worries about weakening bonds of family and community represent not vague nostalgia for a warm and cuddly past but a sensible aspiration for a more satisfying future. Overwhelming, Americans believe that community matters, and the facts (at least as I read them) confirm that belief.
I'm confused, however, about your own view, Nick. At the outset of your remarks, you concede parenthetically that "we may be closer in agreement on the related issue of whether 'social capital' is a prerequisite for a happy and satisfied life," but toward the end you offer a florid defense of our current prosperity, and conclude that "If such progress has come at the expense of the measures you use to tally civic involvement, who really wants to complain that the social register is a bit short at the end of night?" So which is it, Nick? Do community bonds matter or not?
Bob
Community Matters
By Robert Putnam
Posted Tuesday, June 13, 2000, at 1:59 PM ET
This week, Nick Gillespie grills Robert Putnam on his book Bowling Alone (click here to read the first chapter of the book, and click here to buy it). Gillespie is the editor of Reason and a frequent contributor to the Web site suck.com, where he writes under the name Mr. Mxyzptlk. Robert Putnam is a professor of public policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Reader Response from The Fray--to be read after the final entry:
It seems to me that income inequality is the elephant in the middle of the room that nobody's talking about here. Mr Putnam's findings that social capital multiplied until about 1970 and has dwindled since at least coincides in time with the pattern of income inequality, which dropped steadily until the 1973 oil-crisis and has risen every year since then. Dr Richard Wilkinson, an English epidemiologist, has written a very provocative book called Unhealthy Societies which suggests that the reason public health suffers as income inequality increases is that more unequal societies are less socially cohesive than more equal ones. The fine points of his argument are too involved to go into here, but Dr Wilkinson's basic reasoning is definitely intuitively plausible: He figures that in relatively unequal societies where people live at similar standards of living, it's far easier for them to identify with one another, to trust each other and to come together in civic groups. The more unequal the society, the more difficult it is for people to really identify with one another's daily lives, and the less likely they are to come together socially.
--F.Toro
(To reply, click
here.)
The author replies: Excellent question, Francisco! I discuss the links between social capital and income inequality at length in Bowling Alone. There is a strong positive correlation across American states, across countries in the world, and (as you point out) across time in the U.S. between equality and social capital. No one yet knows which way the causal arrow runs, but most researchers now think it runs both ways. It's easier to connect in a society with smaller cleavages, but better connections also encourage policies that narrow cleavages. Interestingly, Richard Wilkinson himself has written very nice things about my work, saying that social capital is a key part of the story about inequality. On the health effects, the best work so far (not including my own work) suggests that the correlation between health and inequality is, in fact, mostly explained by differences in social capital.
As a political matter, the social capital agenda and the social justice agenda are complementary, not competitive. Both injustice and disengagement badly need to be fixed, and fixing one will help fix the other.
--Bob Putnam
(To reply, click
here.)
Bob Putnam appears to believe that relationships premised upon proximity are stronger. This is only half-true and ignores that fact that many people in the past lived lives of quiet desperation. You were often stuck in destructive and eviscerating relationships because it was very difficult to travel regularly more than a few miles away from your front door. Modern communications and traveling dramatically increase the odds that we will find relationships more enriching and sustainable. It is not that Putnam's body of work is totally wrong, but I am convinced that the good far outweighs the bad if we barely say hi to our next-door neighbors. Our everyday relationships should be primarily premised upon having something in common with the other person. I will also reiterate what I have said previously: the clock will not be turned back! It would behoove us to instead focus upon enriching our standard relationships while reminding ourselves not to overlook those individuals within our immediate physical environment.
--David Thomson
(To reply, click
here.)
(6/20)
Mr Gillespie, after ranting about how much richer Americans are, criticizes Mr Putnam's book as follows:
Doesn't your social capital theory hold that the opposite should be happening--that as our communal ties fray, our economic conditions should too?
This is a classic example of burning a straw man. Gillespie attributes an argument to Putnam that Putnam did not make (otherwise Gillespie would have quoted it) and then rebuts the argument. Putnam's view is that Americans suffer from isolation and emotional poverty--not that they suffer from economic poverty. Thus, Gillespie's assertion that we are all materially better off is utterly beside the point. The Bible asks whether it matters if a man gains the whole world if he loses his soul (loosely paraphrased); even 2000 years ago, people were aware that one could be materially wealthy and spiritually poor. Why can't Gillespie see something so obvious?
--Michael Lewyn
(To reply, click
here.)
My mother has a card club of couples she's gathered to eat, drink and play with for about 20 years. They've been through two couples' divorces, one remarriage, kids w/drug problems, kids with chronic illnesses, people moving, etc. They are a tight community. I want to find that where I live, but nothing seems to be gelling. Maybe I have to wait until I have kids and then other parents will become our friends, but I don't think it will be easy to find a group like my mom has. Just some thoughts. I agree the informal and formal social networks are dissipating. People have too many cell phones, houses that don't face the street, no front porches and too many commitments.
--AM
(To reply, click
here.)
How about email, and this message board itself. People are forming communities and gathering socially in different ways than they did before. It is not necessary for people to meet face to face in order to share ideas, converse or be political. All these things are happening now in non-traditional ways. A study that purports to measure social capital must take into account the new ways in which people are communicating with each other and forming social bonds or its results cannot be considered valid.
--Trev
(To reply, click
here.)
To Trev: Thanks for your insights. I agree completely that it would be irresponsible in 2000 to write a book about social connections that ignored the Internet. I didn't. When you have a chance to check out Bowling Alone, you'll see that I devoted the better part of a chapter to reviewing dozens of studies on cmc ("computer-mediated communication"), on-line communities, and the like. Frankly, the empirical evidence is mixed, and I'm ambivalent, so you may not agree with what I write. But I certainly don't ignore the topic. Here in synthesis is my take on the issue:
(1)The Internet had nothing to do with the downturn in social involvement. The evidence clearly shows that the downturn was underway before Mark Andreessen was born.
(2) Some research shows Internet usage associated with more social interaction, some with less. It's much too soon in the process to be sure whether the Internet will turn out to be a nifty telephone (helpful to social connection) or a nifty TV (unhelpful). Predictions at a comparable stage of the evolution of the telephone turned out to be mostly off the mark, so we need to be modest about our own wisdom.
(3) Technology is not a force beyond our control. We have it in our power to develop and use the new tools of electronic communication to strengthen old bonds and make new ones. We need to be about that task with gusto.
--Bob Putnam
(To reply, click
here.)
The very freedom that the Internet provides to form communities based on interests, identities, and just about anything else we can dream up, is part of the problem when it comes to the death-of-local-community ties. I am certainly not going to argue that Internet communities are somehow lesser than other types because of the medium they use. I will point out though, that they don't foster involvement with local institutions, and their ability to support their members begins and ends with advice/encouragement. You can't really expect your friend from Yahoo clubs to travel halfway across the country to watch your kids when you are sick.
--Reality Check
(To reply, click
here.)
(6/15)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
SPONSORED CONTENT
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
What the Washington Post Gets Wrong About Kids and Heroin
Should You Give to International Charities or Local Ones?
The Catastrophes That Befall Troy Patterson as He Tries To Cook Along With Gordon Ramsay
Can Schools Punish Bullies for Making Mean YouTube Videos?
Can Video Games Make You Do Things You Don't Want To Do?
The Scottish Masturbation Club You'll Wish You Never Heard Of
Reader Response from The Fray--to be read after the final entry:
It seems to me that income inequality is the elephant in the middle of the room that nobody's talking about here. Mr Putnam's findings that social capital multiplied until about 1970 and has dwindled since at least coincides in time with the pattern of income inequality, which dropped steadily until the 1973 oil-crisis and has risen every year since then. Dr Richard Wilkinson, an English epidemiologist, has written a very provocative book called Unhealthy Societies which suggests that the reason public health suffers as income inequality increases is that more unequal societies are less socially cohesive than more equal ones. The fine points of his argument are too involved to go into here, but Dr Wilkinson's basic reasoning is definitely intuitively plausible: He figures that in relatively unequal societies where people live at similar standards of living, it's far easier for them to identify with one another, to trust each other and to come together in civic groups. The more unequal the society, the more difficult it is for people to really identify with one another's daily lives, and the less likely they are to come together socially.
--F.Toro
(To reply, click here.)
The author replies: Excellent question, Francisco! I discuss the links between social capital and income inequality at length in Bowling Alone. There is a strong positive correlation across American states, across countries in the world, and (as you point out) across time in the U.S. between equality and social capital. No one yet knows which way the causal arrow runs, but most researchers now think it runs both ways. It's easier to connect in a society with smaller cleavages, but better connections also encourage policies that narrow cleavages. Interestingly, Richard Wilkinson himself has written very nice things about my work, saying that social capital is a key part of the story about inequality. On the health effects, the best work so far (not including my own work) suggests that the correlation between health and inequality is, in fact, mostly explained by differences in social capital.
As a political matter, the social capital agenda and the social justice agenda are complementary, not competitive. Both injustice and disengagement badly need to be fixed, and fixing one will help fix the other.
--Bob Putnam
(To reply, click here.)
Bob Putnam appears to believe that relationships premised upon proximity are stronger. This is only half-true and ignores that fact that many people in the past lived lives of quiet desperation. You were often stuck in destructive and eviscerating relationships because it was very difficult to travel regularly more than a few miles away from your front door. Modern communications and traveling dramatically increase the odds that we will find relationships more enriching and sustainable. It is not that Putnam's body of work is totally wrong, but I am convinced that the good far outweighs the bad if we barely say hi to our next-door neighbors. Our everyday relationships should be primarily premised upon having something in common with the other person. I will also reiterate what I have said previously: the clock will not be turned back! It would behoove us to instead focus upon enriching our standard relationships while reminding ourselves not to overlook those individuals within our immediate physical environment.
--David Thomson
(To reply, click here.)
(6/20)
Mr Gillespie, after ranting about how much richer Americans are, criticizes Mr Putnam's book as follows:
This is a classic example of burning a straw man. Gillespie attributes an argument to Putnam that Putnam did not make (otherwise Gillespie would have quoted it) and then rebuts the argument. Putnam's view is that Americans suffer from isolation and emotional poverty--not that they suffer from economic poverty. Thus, Gillespie's assertion that we are all materially better off is utterly beside the point. The Bible asks whether it matters if a man gains the whole world if he loses his soul (loosely paraphrased); even 2000 years ago, people were aware that one could be materially wealthy and spiritually poor. Why can't Gillespie see something so obvious?
--Michael Lewyn
(To reply, click here.)
My mother has a card club of couples she's gathered to eat, drink and play with for about 20 years. They've been through two couples' divorces, one remarriage, kids w/drug problems, kids with chronic illnesses, people moving, etc. They are a tight community. I want to find that where I live, but nothing seems to be gelling. Maybe I have to wait until I have kids and then other parents will become our friends, but I don't think it will be easy to find a group like my mom has. Just some thoughts. I agree the informal and formal social networks are dissipating. People have too many cell phones, houses that don't face the street, no front porches and too many commitments.
--AM
(To reply, click here.)
How about email, and this message board itself. People are forming communities and gathering socially in different ways than they did before. It is not necessary for people to meet face to face in order to share ideas, converse or be political. All these things are happening now in non-traditional ways. A study that purports to measure social capital must take into account the new ways in which people are communicating with each other and forming social bonds or its results cannot be considered valid.
--Trev
(To reply, click here.)
To Trev: Thanks for your insights. I agree completely that it would be irresponsible in 2000 to write a book about social connections that ignored the Internet. I didn't. When you have a chance to check out Bowling Alone, you'll see that I devoted the better part of a chapter to reviewing dozens of studies on cmc ("computer-mediated communication"), on-line communities, and the like. Frankly, the empirical evidence is mixed, and I'm ambivalent, so you may not agree with what I write. But I certainly don't ignore the topic. Here in synthesis is my take on the issue:
(1)The Internet had nothing to do with the downturn in social involvement. The evidence clearly shows that the downturn was underway before Mark Andreessen was born.
(2) Some research shows Internet usage associated with more social interaction, some with less. It's much too soon in the process to be sure whether the Internet will turn out to be a nifty telephone (helpful to social connection) or a nifty TV (unhelpful). Predictions at a comparable stage of the evolution of the telephone turned out to be mostly off the mark, so we need to be modest about our own wisdom.
(3) Technology is not a force beyond our control. We have it in our power to develop and use the new tools of electronic communication to strengthen old bonds and make new ones. We need to be about that task with gusto.
--Bob Putnam
(To reply, click here.)
The very freedom that the Internet provides to form communities based on interests, identities, and just about anything else we can dream up, is part of the problem when it comes to the death-of-local-community ties. I am certainly not going to argue that Internet communities are somehow lesser than other types because of the medium they use. I will point out though, that they don't foster involvement with local institutions, and their ability to support their members begins and ends with advice/encouragement. You can't really expect your friend from Yahoo clubs to travel halfway across the country to watch your kids when you are sick.
--Reality Check
(To reply, click here.)
(6/15)