Loudermilk 1
Justin Loudermilk
PADP 7900
Dr. Brudney
April 12, 2004
Bowling Alone and Changes in the Voluntary Sector
In 1995, Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam
published an essay titled “Bowling Alone: Democracy in
America at the End of the Twentieth Century,” in which he
argues that civic culture has steadily disintegrated in the
United States since the mid-1960s.
He speculates that the
sharp decline in activities such as participation in
community-oriented voluntary associations will reduce the
formation of social capital, necessary for the maintenance
of a stable liberal democracy.
Putnam’s ideas spread
quickly, stimulating considerable discourse among
academics, politicians, and media sources.
Putnam became
such a sensation that he was featured in People Magazine,
and even summoned to Camp David by President Bill Clinton,
who echoed his themes in the State of the Union Address.
In 2000, Putnam fanned the flames by publishing the
national bestseller Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival
Loudermilk 2
of the American Community, a dense 500-page tome loaded
with meticulous empirical detail supporting his theory.
Despite widespread acclamation, however, or perhaps
because of it, Putnam’s thesis certainly has not been
exempt from challenges, and in some cases, harsh
criticisms.
Some critics have problems with Putnam’s use
of language, charging that his definition of social capital
is “circular” (Misztal 121) or that he uses the term too
casually (Smith and Kulynych 127).
Others claim that his
conception of Tocqueville and community are misguided
(Ehrenberg 71), while some find his historical accounts to
be shallow and selective (McLean et al 9).
One scholar
even suggested that Bowling Alone is so conceptually flawed
and misleading that it would take another large volume just
to provide adequate space to present a complete critique
(Boggs 282).
Indeed, it appears that almost every minute
detail in the book has been aggressively challenged.
Keeping in mind the complexity of Putnam’s thesis as well
as the intricacy of the debates it has inspired, this essay
will explore criticisms of Putnam’s ideas in relation to
voluntary association activity.
Before criticisms of Putnam are discussed, however, it
is necessary to put them into context by clarifying some of
his basic ideas.
In Bowling Alone he defines social
Loudermilk 3
capital as “connections among individuals-—social networks
and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise
from them” (19).
Putnam believes these connections have
been declining since the 1960s, and refers to detailed data
regarding political participation, religious participation,
work-based socializing, charity, volunteering, and
associational membership to support his claim.
Putnam
links this pattern of decline with data showing that
Americans’ perceptions of honesty and trustworthiness have
declined as well.
He concludes that these trends are a
manifestation of weakened social capital, and thereby a
danger to American safety, education, economic prosperity,
health, and democracy.
Putnam’s allegation that communities are declining in
social cohesion is not a new claim, and has in fact been
argued numerous times over the past century.
In each
period this claim has been made, however, other scholars
have retorted contrary or significantly altered
conclusions.
A major school of opposing thought has
traditionally argued that the community has not so much
declined as it has changed in character: the community has
experienced a gradual shift from community-based activity
in primary situations, such as families and neighborhoods,
to local secondary groups, including volunteer associations
Loudermilk 4
(Baer et al 250).
While much of Putnam’s discussion of
community decline is centered on the deterioration of
secondary groups, opposing views mirror the premise of
previous arguments, claiming that voluntary association
activity has changed rather than declined.
Putnam’s thesis is weak, according to some critics,
because he fails to adequately address these changes.
Cohen has described Putnam’s picture of decline in civic
engagement as resting on “waning and anachronistic models”
(212).
Boggs suggests that Putnam’s analysis ignores that
both the purposes and orientation of community groups is a
reflection of its culture, ideological environment, and the
predominant system of ideals and beliefs of which it is a
part.
According to Boggs, declining participation in
certain traditional civic activities is reflective of the
changing of society, but do not reveal a steep decline in
social capital.
Putnam’s choice of indicators – such as
the Elks and Rotary clubs - went into decline because their
goals became outdated (284).
Data Deficiencies
Many critics claim that Putnam’s argument is
problematic due to the limits of his data and the
Loudermilk 5
methodology he employs.
Skocpol points out that the
General Social Survey (GSS) on which Putnam heavily relies
for support asks respondents about “types” of organizations
to which they belong, rather than group memberships.
Therefore, as groups have proliferated within certain
categories, the extent of individuals’ activities may be
dramatically undercounted (29).
Subsequent research
suggests that this critique appears to have some merit.
Other scholars, such as Paxton and Rotolo, have attempted
to address social changes in their analyses of the same
data, and have drawn conclusions directly opposing that of
Putnam.
Paxton’s analysis takes into account additional
indicators of community involvement from the GSS data,
combining responses to questions on both primary and
secondary groups.
She draws on responses to questions
regarding the following: time spent with others in the
neighborhood; time spent with friends outside the
neighborhood; and the total number of voluntary association
memberships.
By analyzing data from more informal social
activity, she finds no decline over time for the general
measure of social involvement (114-116).
Rotolo’s research imposes detailed controls for age
and education levels, while checking for social bonds
Loudermilk 6
across time using a quadratic model.
Putnam, in contrast,
only applies controls for three broad categories of
education, and employs just a linear regression analysis to
determine social bonds across time.
Rotolo finds that the
mean number of voluntary association memberships did
significantly decrease for the first ten years (1974-1984),
but then dramatically increased the next ten years (19841994).
Ultimately, Rotolo concludes that affiliations with
most association types either increase or remain stable
when the results of the first decade are compared to the
second (204-205).
Evaluation of other data sources also contradicts
Putnam’s theory.
Baer et al recently examined the World
Values Surveys (WVS) of 1981-1983 and 1991-1993 from 15
nations, including the U.S., Britain, Canada, France, and
Japan.
In each survey analyzed, a nationally
representative sample of adults aged 18 and older were
interviewed. They were asked questions regarding voluntary
association membership and association activity.
Analyses
show stable involvement in association participation over
time, with no significant or substantive declines or
increases.
In fact, both with and without controls, the
U.S. exhibits significant increases in working memberships
(257-272).
Loudermilk 7
Tertiary associations and passive membership
Other critiques are also rooted in the assertion that
the voluntary sector has changed, but not declined as
Putnam alleges.
One of the most important examples of how
it has changed over the past few decades has been the
increase in tertiary associations.
Tertiary associations
are characterized by “centralized, paid staff leadership”
and tend to be “non-democratically structured,” while the
support of the members is “channeled through money rather
than time” (Wollebaek and Selle 35).
Putnam dismisses the
growth of tertiary associations as a potential building
block for social capital, however, insisting that although
members may feel a common attachment to symbols and values,
they do not interact face-to-face, which plays an essential
role in social capital formation and transmission. He
argues that because tertiary groups consist of vertical
rather than horizontal networks and have low levels of
active participation, they do not contribute to either
horizontal networks or social trust.
Internal effects,
according to Putnam, are weak or absent (Putnam “America's
Declining Social Capital” 71).
Membership in tertiary
Loudermilk 8
organizations is “essentially an honorific device for
fundraising” (Putnam Bowling Alone 156).
Yet critics claim that Putnam is stronger on
assertions than evidence regarding whether tertiary
organizations contribute to social capital (Field 96).
Wollebaek and Selle’s systematic study on the issue
suggests that Putnam’s dismissal of passive support is
problematic on several counts. Their analyses of Norwegian
data from the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector
Project indicate that passive members feel neither
alienated nor disconnected from these social systems.
Moreover, the study indicated that passive membership does
indeed have positive internal effects on associations’
participants (35-37).
Additionally, results from Maloney’s
study on passive participation conveys that “checkbook
activists” develop a strong level of group identification,
and see themselves as very much belonging to a group of
people (113).
Role of Government
This paper’s discussion thus far has examined various
critiques of Putnam, most of which claim that his arguments
are flawed because he misinterprets change in the voluntary
Loudermilk 9
sector as decline in meaningful voluntary involvement.
The
most common criticism of Putnam, however, may be the
allegation that he does not give the role of government and
its effect on civic participation adequate attention.
Considering that Putnam’s academic roots lie in the
discipline of political science rather than sociology, it
is perhaps ironic that one of his cardinal weaknesses is
said to be an over-socialized view of behavior (Field 39).
According to Shultz, Putnam’s thesis “lacks a theory
of the state and the role it plays in fostering the
conditions that make it possible for voluntary associations
to form, exist, and interact” (76).
He claims that Putnam
seems to view voluntary associations as having an almost
“magical” ability to impart social capital, yet ignores the
issue of where the values and energy come from for
individuals to join groups (82).
While Putnam’s communitarian ideals have obviously
been influenced by Tocqueville’s Democracy in America,
Skocpol argues that his construction of the French writer
is misconstrued.
Putnam naively supposes voluntary groups
arose spontaneously outside of the political factors that
stimulated their growth (Skocpol 6).
His micro-level
focus, critics claim, causes him to have a structurally
challenged conception of social capital: he mistakenly
Loudermilk 10
believes the creation of democracy resides in the
cultivation of democratic attitudes and beliefs in people,
not in developing specific institutions and structures
(Schultz 75-82).
Therefore, Putnam’s “bottom-up” view
neglects a significant role played by political structures
in shaping the context of associational activity and hence
the creation of social capital (Tarrow 395).
The influence the American government has had on the
voluntary sector is immense, and many voluntary
organizations that Putnam reveres, such as the American
Legion and the PTA, were actually built from the top down
(Skocpol, 6).
The state’s role far exceeds mere legal
acknowledgment of an organization’s right to exist; the
U.S. government’s association-friendly elements such as
legal-protection of issue advocacy, tax exemption, and
government grant-making schemes have greatly impacted the
independent sector. Because institutional arrangements and
state policies sometimes hinder association participation
as well, it is essential to monitor and evaluate policy
formation and changes in terms of the consequences they
have on social capital (Hoover 59-78).
Loudermilk 11
Conclusion
Ten years after Putnam first introduced the phrase
“Bowling Alone,” his ideas continue to generate heated
debate and discussion in the media and academic world.
Putnam has obviously struck a chord with Americans, and it
is not difficult to understand why.
Both the quantity of
empirical support and the implications of his claims are
sobering and worthy of scrutiny.
The concept of social capital can be very complex.
Varying theories concerning the meaning of social capital
and why it matters have been debated over the last several
decades among academics.
Some critics, in fact, believe
that discourse on social capital, like a large percentage
of scholarly thinking, makes little impact in the wider
world.
Portes writes:
There is little reason to believe that social
capital will be a remedy for major social
problems, as promised by its bolder proponents.
Recent proclamations to that effect merely
restate the original problems and have not been
accompanied so far by any persuasive account of
how to bring about the desired stocks of public
civicness.” (21)
Loudermilk 12
Portes’ observation, written two years before Putnam’s
book was published, seems to have been prophetic.
Questions regarding the validity of the claims in Bowling
Alone are certainly being asked, as this paper has
demonstrated.
But even if Putnam’s claims are accurate, he
is nevertheless restating the problem and offering little
resolution.
Out of the book’s twenty-four chapters, only
the last two hint at offering any solutions.
Of course, in
Putnam’s defense, it is true that the problem of declining
social capital (if there indeed is a decline) must be
clearly understood before it can be resolved.
And at the
very least, his writings have generated widespread
discussion of social capital, advancing the idea from an
academic concept to a pragmatic policy objective.
Despite its difficulty, however, the central thesis of
social capital can be summed up in two words: relationships
matter (Field 1).
It is from this perspective that I view
the relevance of Bowling Alone.
Whether discussed in
abstract terms or reduced to a more tangible micro level,
the rapidly changing world impacts our relationships and
how we interact with one another.
In regards to the
voluntary sector, it is necessary to recognize these
changes and adapt when necessary.
Loudermilk 13
Works Cited
Baer, Douglas et al.
Declined?
“Has Voluntary Association Activity
Cross-national Analysis for Fifteen
Countries.”
The Canadian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology, 38, (2001), 249-274.
Boggs, Carl.
“Social Capital and Political Fantasy: Robert
Putnam’s Bowling Alone.”
Theory and Society, 30,
(2001) 281-297.
Cohen, Jean.
“Trust, Voluntary Association and Workable
Democracy: The Contemporary Discourse of Civil
Society,” Democracy and Trust.
Ed. M.E. Warren
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999.
208-248.
Ehrenberg, John.
“Equality, Democracy, and Community from
Tocqueville to Putnam.”
Social Capital: Critical
Perspectives on Community and “Bowling Alone.”
McLean, Scott L. et al.
Eds.
New York: New York UP, 2002.
50-73.
Field, John.
Social Capital.
Hoover, Dennis.
New York: Routledge, 2003.
“The Sources of Social Capital
Reconsidered: Voluntary Associations, Advocacy, and
the State.” Social Structures, Social Capital, and
Personal Freedom.
Lawler.
Eds. McConkey, Dale and Peter A.
London: Praeger, 2000.
59-81.
Loudermilk 14
Maloney, William.
“Contracting out the Participation
Function: Social Capital and Checkbook Participation,”
Social Capital and European Democracy.
et al.
London: Routledge, 1999.
McLean, Scott L. et al, eds.
Eds. Van Deth
108-119
Social Capital: Critical
Perspectives on Community and “Bowling Alone.”
New
York: New York UP, 2002.
Misztal, B.A. (2000) Informality: Social Theory and
Contemporary Practice. Routledge, London.
Paxton, Pamela.
“Is Social Capital Declining in the
United States?
A Multiple Indicator Assessment.”
American Journal of Sociology, 105 (1999): 88-127.
Portes, Alejandro.
“Social Capital: Its Origins and
Applications in Modern Sociology.”
Annual Review of
Sociology, 24 (1998): 1-24.
Putnam, Robert D. "Bowling Alone: America's Declining
Social Capital," Journal of Democracy, 6. (1995) 65 78.
---.
Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American
Community.
---.
New York: Touchstone, 2000.
"Bowling Alone:
Democracy in America at the End of
the Twentieth Century," ed.
Making Democracy Work:
Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Princeton UP, 1993.
Princeton:
Loudermilk 15
Rotolo, Thomas.
“Trends in Voluntary Association
Participation.”
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 28. (1999) 199-212.
Schultz, David.
“The Phenomenology of Democracy: Putnam,
Pluralism, and Voluntary Associations,”
Social
Capital: Critical Perspectives on Community and
“Bowling Alone.”
Eds. McLean, Scott L. et al.
York: New York UP, 2002.
New
74-98.
Skocpol, Theda. “Unsolved Mysteries: The Tocqueville
Files.” The American Prospect 7.25
Smith, Stephen S. and Jessica Kulynch
but Why is it Capital?
(1996): 27-80.
“It May be Social,
The social construction and
the politics of language.” Politics & Society, 30,
(2002) 149-186.
Tarrow, Sidney.
“Making Social Science Work Across Space
and Time: A Critical Reflection on Robert Putnam’s
Making Democracy Work.”
American Political Science
Review, 90, (1996) 389-97.
Wollebaek, Dag, and Per Selle.
“Does Participation in
Voluntary Associations Contribute to Social Capital?
The Impact of Intensity, Scope, and Type.”
Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31. (2002) 32-61.