Freie Universität Berlin, JFK-Institut, HS Civil Society Debate and Democracy after September 11 th
Prof. Margit Mayer
Minutes for Civil Society Class on May 16th
Prepared by David Siems [tinguaros@aol.com] and Heidi Götzmann [hgoetzmann@hotmail.com]
Topic: Bowling Alone?
The Social Capital Argument and American Democracy:
Putnam‘s View of US Society and State
The discussion leaders Arne Hopf and Sandra Weinacht divided the session into five steps:
1. Introduction: Democracy and Civic Community
2. Introduction: What is Social Capital?
3. Group Work, Presentation of Group Work
4. Discussion
1. Civic Community is defined by:
- Civic Engagement (Engagement for local issues such as safety in schools, clubs, etc.)
- Political Equality (Tolerating the political views of each individual)
- Solidarity, Trust and Tolerance
- Associations – Social Structures of Cooperation (Associations such as PTA, AA but also groups like
quires, cards playing groups etc.)
2.) What is social capital?
- According to Robert D. Putnam social capital is a community bound together by horizontal relations
of reciprocity and cooperation, not by vertical relations of authority and dependency. Citizens interact
as equals, not as patrons and clients nor as governors and petitioners.
-“Horizontal interaction” must be understood as social networks of civic engagement based on the
principles of solidarity, trust and tolerance, such as neighborhood associations, cooperatives, sports
clubs or mass-based political parties
- Results achieved by class discussion: Civically engaged communities are more likely to provide
better education, to suffer e.g. less from urban poverty, unemployment, crime or drug abuse
- Social Capital refers to features of social organizations such as networks, norms and social trust that
facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.
- Norms and Networks of civic engagement contribute to economic prosperity and in turn are
reinforced by that prosperity.
- To put it in a nutshell: Social capital is a civic investment that one wants to benefit from. The more
the people invest in it, the more they get back
3.) Group Work/Presentation of Group Work
The class was divided into groups in order to discuss five questions.
Question 1: According to Putnam and your own knowledge, which aspects of social capital in U.S.
society declined pre-9/11?
- Less social activities & civic engagement (PTA, League Bowling, Boy Scouts, religious affiliation)
- Political participation (voter turnout)
1
- Psychological engagement (trust in government, in each other)
Question 2: What were the causes for this decline of social capital ?
- Changes in civil society such as:
- Movement of women into the labor force
- Mobility (”re-plotting”) and other demographic transformations
- Technological transformation of leisure (TV, computer, internet) as well as general privatization and
individualization
Question 3: Which countertrends occurred – in which areas did civil engagement increase?
- Feminism
- Environmental groups
- American Association of Retired Persons (AARP)
- Nonprofit service agencies/support groups, AA meetings, Oxfam, hobby clubs.
Question 4: Traditional versus new forms of social activity. Why should we distinguish between the
two?
- The new mass membership organizations are of great political importance. From the point of view of
social connectedness, however they are sufficiently different from classic associations. The theory of
social capital assumes that associational membership should increase social trust, but this prediction is
much less straightforward in regard to membership in the new types of associations.
- New forms can give impulse to traditional forms of social activity. The example was given of the
AIDS-movement that had strong influence on other disease-movements
Question 5: What are connections between democracy and social capital?
-There’s erosion in US society of both social capital and democracy
- There is a strong link between democracy and civil society.
- The quality of public life and the performance of social institutions are powerfully
influenced by the norms and networks of civic engagement
- Americans are fast becoming a loose aggregation of disengaged observers, rather than a community
of connected participants.
- If social capital and civic engagement erode, democracy does as well, because democracy always
contributes to social capital. As well no one will show political engagement if there is no trust in
political institutions
5: Discussion
- There was a lively discussion about the definition of social capital and civic engagement. The
questions were raised whether visiting Internet chat rooms, going regularly to a mall or a pub and
playing cards contribute to the formation of social capital and civic engagement.
- For Putnam, Internet chat rooms do represent a form of social capital [”Bowling Alone”, page 21].
He distinguishes between bridging (or inclusive) and bonding (or exclusive) social capital [p. 22].
”Many groups simultaneously bond along some social dimensions and bridge across other. [...]
Internet chat groups may bridge across geography, gender, age, and religion, while being
homogeneous in education and ideology” [p. 23]. See also pp. 170-172
- Conclusion: Although the class could not find a specific definition for social capital, the following
results must be stressed:
Social capital can be positive – mutual support, cooperation, trust, institutional effectiveness – or
negative – sectarianism, ethnocentrism, corruption [p. 22] (Examples of negative social capital would
be: KKK, Mafia).
2
But: Social capital always influences democracy and political institutions. Especially in the use of the
term “democracy” it is also important to keep in mind that Putnam’s theory is very empirical and
based on results. He is not interested in theories of democracy. Nevertheless the most common
question still was: Where does social interaction and civic engagement start? For Putnam social
interaction happens primarily in face-to-face conversations where bonds in a traditional way are made.
3