Social Capital Then And Now
[Update: A slew of fascinating comments have been posted on Glenn’s post, discussing different kinds and qualities of social capital, exploring why the South is said to have less social capital, and more. Check it out!]
Glenn’s been reading Bowling Alone by Robert D. Putnam and shares his thoughts. It’s an interesting topic, and as I’ve been thinking of my own lack of social activity in connection with my occasional bouts of depression, and how widespread depression has become in America, it makes sense to think of a nationwide decline in social capital as somehow related. Even ignoring depression, the decline in social capital seems an urgently important issue.
On the other hand, something was nagging at me as I look at the charts peppering Glenn’s post, and I found it given voice in this Amazon review by southsiderosie:
Robert Putnam’s book bemoans the decline in “civic participation” among Americans since its heyday in the 50’s and 60’s. Although few would argue that bridge clubs aren’t what they used to be, who would have predicted the rise of 20,000 member mega-churches back in 1962? This underlines the basic problem with this book: it focuses too much on what constituted “communities” and “activities” in the past, without looking at how people form new and different kinds of communities today. While I agree that television has dramatically increased the couch potato index, and participation in traditional FORMAL organizations has declined, I would argue that membership and participation in new kinds of groups that are more relevant to people in the 21st century has risen. For example, while young people famously are less likely to vote in our dual-party system, college students today volunteer more that any generation before them. In addition, while participation in mainline Protestant churches has steadily declined, engagement in evangelical churches has risen dramatically. While I personally feel that the sterile suburban, drive-everywhere-in-my-SUV existance is soul crushing, and the popularity of reality TV may be a sign of the apocalypse, I also don’t pine for the days where mom was expected to stay home with the kids and go to the bridge club once a week, while dad worked 9-5, returned home to supper, and went to the Men’s Club on Tuesdays at 8. And while Putnam’s basic premise may resonate with many, its fetishization of days past blunts the strength of his overall argument.
Not having read the book, I can’t verify how much it may or may not “fetishize days past” — but I think the critique is worth noting, especially in light of this reviewer of Putnam’s next book, Better Together, who insists “The answer is simple, women have left the home and family and gone to work!” Therein lies the danger of focusing on the morays of the 1950s as the answer to modern social problems.
At the same time, there is something to be said for “old-fashioned” types of social activity, and just because one looks back to the 1950s (or any historical period) for guidance doesn’t mean one must keep every aspect of the period. As much as there was to disdain about pre-1960s America (the Cold War and McCarthyism, civil rights outrages, misguided suburban fetishism), there was much to love, too. I know many people love the movies of the period, the culture, and ache for the good that was lost. In the 1990s television series Mystery Science Theater 3000, as much as they derided the social morays of the 40s and 50s films they featured, there was an apparent good-naturedness about it, a subtle (and sometimes overt) fondness for the era.
The 1950s may be over, but that doesn’t mean we have nothing to learn from them. While much may seem simplistic and even painfully naive to cynical, modern eyes — eyes that are open to the sexism, racism or just plain social conformity underlying the clubs and activities — that same cynical view is simplistic and naive as throws out the baby with the bath water. Can we not have sewing clubs and bowling teams and be aware of the evil underbelly of human tribal nature? It’s not the activities that were bad, but the exclusivity, etc.
As for the reviewer’s other complaint, that social activity hasn’t gone away but merely shifted to new kinds of “21st century groups,” Putnam’s other book Better Together does, in fact, take the positive, opposite view, examining different cases where communities have come together and built social capital. In fact, apropos of “21st century groups,” one phenomenon Better Together looks at is Craig’s List. I wonder if an updated version might not more appropriately look at, say, Daily Kos. And when it comes to “mega-churches”
In fact, as the premise of declining social capital resonates with me, I wonder how much of it just reflects my own anti-social nature and sheltered upbringing. I see so much social activity around me sometimes that I just don’t get — even online communities like Craig’s List mystify and elude me most of the time. Still, much of it seems so much idle chatter and superficial. The point is not mere activity, but building social capital, networks of reciprocity and meaningful social ties. Sports bars and blog comments are weak substitutes for true community. And when the reviewer speaks of a shift from “mainline Protestant churches” to evangelical “mega-churches,” I think one could argue convincingly that the latter are much more shallow.
So the premise of the book still intrigues me and I intend to grab it from the library this summer. I think I’ll also read that other one, Better Together, and more importantly, try to find ways to build social capital in my own life. Glenn’s personal list is a good starting point, especially the first item: “Try to watch less TV by going out in the evening more with friends, to civic meetings, and may join a sport that I can commit to regular participation.” I’ve been meaning to learn to climb for years.
Too bad going out with friends and joining sports usually drains the wallet… Hey, now, where did I put that cable TV bill?