I feel like some books become permanently wedged in the cultural imagination just because they have a catchy tittle and a provocative, single-cause theory of some social problem people widely believe to exist. I feel that’s like 90% of Bowling Alone’s appeal. Few people have read it, but everyone basically agrees with the premise that Americans are too sad these days and should be more social, so you don’t even need to read it to consider Putnam brilliant.
I will say one thing, however, the NYT did an interview with Putnam a year or so ago, and he seemed to have mellowed out a bit. He was less scolding than I expected. One thing he emphasized was that “joining” things should never be a chore. It should reflect your sincere interests, not be something you do because you’re “supposed to.” So it strikes me as very possible that a declining in “joining” is really just a cultural change in tastes and HOW we socialize, rather than a drift away from socializing altogether.
I think you're conflating Putnam's descriptive and prescriptive themes in your judgment. Of course he was in error when he prescribed increased political engagement as a path forward that could remedy the ills of relative isolation. But this is in part (and an important part) because political engagement is now pursued through parasocial media that reduce the type of multifaceted human content that Putnam described.
This seems to me the weakest Argument post I've encountered (I am generally a big fan), and I wonder whether the reasons why is that Putnam was writing from the background of his own generation's understanding of what associational membership entailed and that background is now only a formal representation to younger generations -- imagined but not "lost," in the sense of a loss we feel.
I read "Bowling Alone" many years ago, and Putnam's sequel "Our Kids," which is in a certain way a sociological finding that "it takes a village" is on track. I was and remain impressed with the relevance of his insights. The richness of associational groups (bowling leagues are mostly a representational metaphor) concerns the long-term whole-person relationships they build. Studies like "Deaths of Despair" and the long-ago "Wisconsin Death Trap" examine the social consequences of their absence.
I want to add a note to underscore my unhappiness with this post; looking at the initial example you choose to challenge Putnam: a 66% rise in live donor kidney donation. The most obvious problem with this figure is that since the period of Putnam's research (which could not have included data past 1995) the US population has grown 33%, so the actual rise is only about 13% beyond what we'd expect. The more serious problem is that five minutes of online research, spot-reading literature as guided by AI, indicates that the main reason for the increase was the introduction of laparoscopic surgery (in 1995), which made the physical cost of donation far easier, as well as more a more active medical-community recruitment effort on the basis of that change. Donations peaked over the following decade, 2004 having the highest rate, adjusted for population, about 50% higher than 1995. Donation rates then fell 20% over the next decade, recovering about 15% since, all due to complex mixes of factors identified in the literature. It would require a lot of much deeper research to assess the degree to which these figures either contradict or, in fact, reinforce the salience of Putnam's example. I think you should have realized the superficiality of your quick finding and reflected more on the dismissive way you've treated Putnam's book. Drops in crime, teen pregnancies, etc., all require similar nuance -- I doubt the actual factors involved in each have anything to do with the issues Putnam raises, one way or another. Your sources for some of these only document the figures, not the causes, and in other cases the causes (such as improved birth control methods) are irrelevant to Putnam's issues.
As a former churchgoer, I can tell you that I have been very put off by the turn from religion to politics in many churches. Either they are pro-Trump booster rallies, with an extra touch of heretical idolatry just for fun, or they are so woke/anti-settler-colonial/privilege-checking that you wonder where the Gospels might fit in.
I don't want either of those! I want adult Bible study where we read the Book of James and think hard about what the balance of faith and good works should be. I want to work through what the Parables tell us that might be applicable to our current, 21st century lives. I want to sing actual hymns and not the contemporary schlock that both the liberal and conservative churches now default to.
Recently, I needed a lawyer to sue a man who committed multiple kinds of fraud that caused me many tens of thousands in damages. It is a very clear case, though ongoing. I asked around my network, which includes several lawyers at the very least _adjacent_ to this kind of thing. I could not find anyone.
I have also recently begun sailing lessons. It is $500 for 6 weeks. It was recommended to me by my hair dresser, a woman, who I go to because she is a former co-worker (I worked as a SWE at Amazon, and she worked as a hair dresser at Amazon studios). My second sailing lesson, and one of the persons I go out sailing with is a lawyer with experience in exactly the area I need.
The guy I am suing is a slumlord who illegally rents environmentally contaminated units to tenants with young children, and then sells the buildings without disclosing any documentation of the contamination, concealing even active poisoning cases that we have proof he was aware of. We are hoping to recover damages for myself and the tenants.
Yes, bowling alone is bad. Try bowling with some people and you will immediately see why.
Most of the time when people cite Putnam's Bowling Alone, I think to myself that the book they really ought to be citing is Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death.
I recommend Ryan Avent's In Good Faith for a book that provides a theoretical casual mechanism between decline in association and the legitimation crisis across wealth democracies.
His core points is that a core enabler of society is faith, that is beliefs about the world and other humans are critical for enabling more complex forms of social organization and that the mix of beliefs in western Europe were a key enabler for the industrial revolution. Putnam comes in as our wealth as a society undermines reliance on a range of institutions that propagate and shore up those beliefs.
How about a future episode on The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker? (Kobe Yank-Jacobs had my copy for years.) Could tie into a discussion about Democratic factionalism. Or Jon Haidt’s Righteous Mind?
Two things struck me about this conversation. First, maybe it's because she's younger than me and Matt, or because she's from an immigrant family, or something else, but Jerusalem seemed like she wasn't really able to believe in what life was like in the period Putnam was describing. Second, neither of them were really willing to argue for what I think is the most important point: being in community with other people is good in and of itself, beyond impacts on health or education or politics of whatever else.
Putnam's book was based on an essay in THE JOURNAL OF DEMOCRACY in 1995 (the book, with the title revised, was published in 2000), and the thesis was that the decline in civic engagement and social activity in America was contributing to a decline in social capital. Social capital is critical to a healthy democratic polity. Yes--social capital can develop in many ways--and times have changed. Surely the 21st century is complicated in new ways (consider the social network and the change in television viewing habits) unknown in 1995. But--the real concern is the way that we work together in community, building up the social capital necessary for healthy democratic institutions. A belief that democracy fails us and that government is "a bad actor" comes from inexperience with social interaction and joining groups and clubs--autonomously. According to a study by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein (with E.J Dionne) the rise of Trumpism was encouraged by the social context and declining social capital. The book, ONE NATION AFTER TRUMP, (2017), underscored how America's diminished social capital made it vulnerable to strong man politics, fascism, and political ennui that triggers polarization. It is not the only thing--and Putnam does not explain everything. But--social isolation will have political consequences. Democracy requires healthy social capital--it is like the bone marrow of free communities. It does matter that we no longer are "bowling alone."
It was overdetermined that JD (hyper social (I presume), optimist) was skeptical of society being more isolated w/o any negative effects downstream while MY (hx of obesity, smoking, depression, introvert) was more sensitive to them. As is pointed out below, it is the less social who are most affected by these trends.
I was glad Matt got to the main point at the end, which is that meetings for stuff like PTA are pretty boring and it's very hard to block 2 hours especially in a family with young kids for something that's neither mandatory nor fun.
I feel like some books become permanently wedged in the cultural imagination just because they have a catchy tittle and a provocative, single-cause theory of some social problem people widely believe to exist. I feel that’s like 90% of Bowling Alone’s appeal. Few people have read it, but everyone basically agrees with the premise that Americans are too sad these days and should be more social, so you don’t even need to read it to consider Putnam brilliant.
I will say one thing, however, the NYT did an interview with Putnam a year or so ago, and he seemed to have mellowed out a bit. He was less scolding than I expected. One thing he emphasized was that “joining” things should never be a chore. It should reflect your sincere interests, not be something you do because you’re “supposed to.” So it strikes me as very possible that a declining in “joining” is really just a cultural change in tastes and HOW we socialize, rather than a drift away from socializing altogether.
Yes--Putnam has a broader view and better understanding of civic engagement. But--healthy social interaction make democracies thrive.
There is no human purpose other than to be with other humans
Jerusalem: Your neighbors names are likely written on their packages! Next time you help bring their package in, take a look!
Incredible life hack thank you
I think you're conflating Putnam's descriptive and prescriptive themes in your judgment. Of course he was in error when he prescribed increased political engagement as a path forward that could remedy the ills of relative isolation. But this is in part (and an important part) because political engagement is now pursued through parasocial media that reduce the type of multifaceted human content that Putnam described.
This seems to me the weakest Argument post I've encountered (I am generally a big fan), and I wonder whether the reasons why is that Putnam was writing from the background of his own generation's understanding of what associational membership entailed and that background is now only a formal representation to younger generations -- imagined but not "lost," in the sense of a loss we feel.
I read "Bowling Alone" many years ago, and Putnam's sequel "Our Kids," which is in a certain way a sociological finding that "it takes a village" is on track. I was and remain impressed with the relevance of his insights. The richness of associational groups (bowling leagues are mostly a representational metaphor) concerns the long-term whole-person relationships they build. Studies like "Deaths of Despair" and the long-ago "Wisconsin Death Trap" examine the social consequences of their absence.
I want to add a note to underscore my unhappiness with this post; looking at the initial example you choose to challenge Putnam: a 66% rise in live donor kidney donation. The most obvious problem with this figure is that since the period of Putnam's research (which could not have included data past 1995) the US population has grown 33%, so the actual rise is only about 13% beyond what we'd expect. The more serious problem is that five minutes of online research, spot-reading literature as guided by AI, indicates that the main reason for the increase was the introduction of laparoscopic surgery (in 1995), which made the physical cost of donation far easier, as well as more a more active medical-community recruitment effort on the basis of that change. Donations peaked over the following decade, 2004 having the highest rate, adjusted for population, about 50% higher than 1995. Donation rates then fell 20% over the next decade, recovering about 15% since, all due to complex mixes of factors identified in the literature. It would require a lot of much deeper research to assess the degree to which these figures either contradict or, in fact, reinforce the salience of Putnam's example. I think you should have realized the superficiality of your quick finding and reflected more on the dismissive way you've treated Putnam's book. Drops in crime, teen pregnancies, etc., all require similar nuance -- I doubt the actual factors involved in each have anything to do with the issues Putnam raises, one way or another. Your sources for some of these only document the figures, not the causes, and in other cases the causes (such as improved birth control methods) are irrelevant to Putnam's issues.
As a former churchgoer, I can tell you that I have been very put off by the turn from religion to politics in many churches. Either they are pro-Trump booster rallies, with an extra touch of heretical idolatry just for fun, or they are so woke/anti-settler-colonial/privilege-checking that you wonder where the Gospels might fit in.
I don't want either of those! I want adult Bible study where we read the Book of James and think hard about what the balance of faith and good works should be. I want to work through what the Parables tell us that might be applicable to our current, 21st century lives. I want to sing actual hymns and not the contemporary schlock that both the liberal and conservative churches now default to.
Harrumph.
Recently, I needed a lawyer to sue a man who committed multiple kinds of fraud that caused me many tens of thousands in damages. It is a very clear case, though ongoing. I asked around my network, which includes several lawyers at the very least _adjacent_ to this kind of thing. I could not find anyone.
I have also recently begun sailing lessons. It is $500 for 6 weeks. It was recommended to me by my hair dresser, a woman, who I go to because she is a former co-worker (I worked as a SWE at Amazon, and she worked as a hair dresser at Amazon studios). My second sailing lesson, and one of the persons I go out sailing with is a lawyer with experience in exactly the area I need.
The guy I am suing is a slumlord who illegally rents environmentally contaminated units to tenants with young children, and then sells the buildings without disclosing any documentation of the contamination, concealing even active poisoning cases that we have proof he was aware of. We are hoping to recover damages for myself and the tenants.
Yes, bowling alone is bad. Try bowling with some people and you will immediately see why.
“Kids aren’t partying enough or drinking enough or having enough premarital sex.”
When you put it that way those almost sound like bad things.
Most of the time when people cite Putnam's Bowling Alone, I think to myself that the book they really ought to be citing is Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death.
I recommend Ryan Avent's In Good Faith for a book that provides a theoretical casual mechanism between decline in association and the legitimation crisis across wealth democracies.
https://www.niskanencenter.org/modern-faith-with-ryan-avent/
His core points is that a core enabler of society is faith, that is beliefs about the world and other humans are critical for enabling more complex forms of social organization and that the mix of beliefs in western Europe were a key enabler for the industrial revolution. Putnam comes in as our wealth as a society undermines reliance on a range of institutions that propagate and shore up those beliefs.
How about a future episode on The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker? (Kobe Yank-Jacobs had my copy for years.) Could tie into a discussion about Democratic factionalism. Or Jon Haidt’s Righteous Mind?
The Big Sort by Bill Bishop
Two things struck me about this conversation. First, maybe it's because she's younger than me and Matt, or because she's from an immigrant family, or something else, but Jerusalem seemed like she wasn't really able to believe in what life was like in the period Putnam was describing. Second, neither of them were really willing to argue for what I think is the most important point: being in community with other people is good in and of itself, beyond impacts on health or education or politics of whatever else.
Putnam's book was based on an essay in THE JOURNAL OF DEMOCRACY in 1995 (the book, with the title revised, was published in 2000), and the thesis was that the decline in civic engagement and social activity in America was contributing to a decline in social capital. Social capital is critical to a healthy democratic polity. Yes--social capital can develop in many ways--and times have changed. Surely the 21st century is complicated in new ways (consider the social network and the change in television viewing habits) unknown in 1995. But--the real concern is the way that we work together in community, building up the social capital necessary for healthy democratic institutions. A belief that democracy fails us and that government is "a bad actor" comes from inexperience with social interaction and joining groups and clubs--autonomously. According to a study by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein (with E.J Dionne) the rise of Trumpism was encouraged by the social context and declining social capital. The book, ONE NATION AFTER TRUMP, (2017), underscored how America's diminished social capital made it vulnerable to strong man politics, fascism, and political ennui that triggers polarization. It is not the only thing--and Putnam does not explain everything. But--social isolation will have political consequences. Democracy requires healthy social capital--it is like the bone marrow of free communities. It does matter that we no longer are "bowling alone."
It was overdetermined that JD (hyper social (I presume), optimist) was skeptical of society being more isolated w/o any negative effects downstream while MY (hx of obesity, smoking, depression, introvert) was more sensitive to them. As is pointed out below, it is the less social who are most affected by these trends.
https://www.ft.com/content/e1eb3638-cd1a-4a1a-857d-133fe4be468c?syn-25a6b1a6=1
I was glad Matt got to the main point at the end, which is that meetings for stuff like PTA are pretty boring and it's very hard to block 2 hours especially in a family with young kids for something that's neither mandatory nor fun.
I never really fit well into any of my social groups and now I get to vibe code 14 hours a day with no one missing me 🥲