Civil Society and Putnam’s “Bowling Alone”

Civil Society and Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” Social Capital and Political Participation

What is “Civil Society”? • Civil society refers to the arena of un-coerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values. • In theory, its institutional forms are distinct from those of the state, family and market, though in practice, the boundaries between state, civil society, family and market are often complex, blurred and negotiated. • Civil society commonly embraces a diversity of spaces, actors and institutional forms, varying in their degree of formality, autonomy and power. • Civil societies are often populated by organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups.

A Brief History of the Concept • The concept of civil society in its pre-modern classical republican understanding is usually connected to the age of the “Enlightenment” in the 18th century. However, it has much older history in the realm of political thought. • In the classical period, the concept was used as a synonym for the good society, and seen as indistinguishable from the state. Generally, civil society has been referred to as a political association governing social conflict through the imposition of rules that restrain citizens from harming one another. • For instance, Socrates taught that conflicts within society should be resolved through public argument using ‘dialectic’, a form of rational dialogue to uncover truth. According to Socrates, public argument through ‘dialectic’ was imperative to ensure ‘civility’ in the polis and ‘good life’ of the people

For Plato, the ideal state was a just society in which people dedicate themselves to the common good, practice civic virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation and justice, and perform the occupational role to which they were best suited. It was the duty of the “Philosopher king” to look after people in civility. • As far as Aristotle was concerned, polis was an ‘association of associations’ that enables citizens to share in the virtuous task of ruling and being ruled. His koinonia politike as political community preceded societas civilis introduced later by Cicero. • Due to the unique political arrangements of medieval feudalism, the works of the classical thinkers were downgraded during this period. The domination of the church and feudalism was absolute. Nevertheless, the developments in some parts of Europe since the fourteenth century further stimulated the revival of the concept of ‘human rationalism.’ This influenced to a great extent the shaping of political relations until the end of the Renaissance.

A Brief History of the Concept • The Thirty Years' War and the subsequent Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 heralded the birth of the modern state system. The Treaty endorsed states as territorially-based political units having sovereignty. As a result, the monarchs were able to exert control domestically by emasculating the feudal lords and to stop relying on the latter for armed troops. Therefore, monarchs could form national armies and deploy a professional bureaucracy and fiscal departments. In this way, monarchs maintained direct control and supreme authority over their subjects. In order to meet the administrative expenditure, monarchs used to control the economy. This gave birth to absolutism.

A Brief History of the Concept • Influenced by the atrocities of Thirty Years' War, political philosophers held that social relations should be ordered in a different way than in natural law conditions. Some of their attempts led to the emergence of social contract theory that contested social relations existing in accordance with human nature. They held that human nature can be understood by analyzing objective realities and natural laws conditions. Thus, they endorsed that the nature of human beings should be encompassed by the contours of state and established positive laws. Alarmed by the devastating effects of Thirty Years' War and Wars of the Three Kingdoms, Thomas Hobbes underlined the need of a powerful state to maintain civility in society.

A Brief History of the Concept • The modern definition of civil society was first developed by political opposition in former Soviet block East European countries in 1980s. From that time stems a practice within political field of using the idea of civil society instead of political society. However, in 1990s with the emergence of the nongovernmental organizations and the New Social Movements (NSMs) on a global scale, civil society as a “third sector” became a key terrain of strategic action to construct ‘an alternative social and world order.’ Henceforth, postmodern usage of idea of civil society became divided into two main ways: as a political society and as the third sector - apart from plethora of definitions.

Putnam’s Contribution • Putnam attempts to show how Americans have become increasingly disconnected from the family, friends, and neighbors that make up this “third sector” and, therefore, disconnected to their democratic structures. • Putnam draws on evidence including nearly 500,000 interviews over the last quarter century to show that we sign fewer petitions, belong to fewer organizations that meet, know our neighbors less, meet with friends less frequently, and even socialize with our families less often. We're even bowling alone. More Americans are bowling than ever before, but they are not bowling in leagues. Putnam shows how changes in work, family structure, age, suburban life, television, computers, women's roles and other factors have contributed to this decline.

Putnam’s Theory • Putnam’s “dependent variable”: political participation • Putnam’s “independent variable”: low levels of civil societyand the “social capital” it dispenses • The central premise of social capital is that social networks have value. Social capital refers to the collective value of all "social networks" (who people know) and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other ("norms of reciprocity“). • The term social capital emphasizes not just warm and cuddly feelings, but a wide variety of quite specific benefits that flow from the trust, reciprocity, information, and cooperation associated with social networks. Social capital creates value for the people who are connected and - at least sometimes - for bystanders as well.

Social Capital • Information flows (e.g. learning about jobs, learning about candidates running for office, exchanging ideas at college, etc.) depend on social capital. • Norms of reciprocity (mutual aid) rely on social networks. Bonding networks that connect folks who are similar sustain particularized (in-group) reciprocity. Bridging networks that connect individuals who are diverse sustain generalized reciprocity. • Collective action depends upon social networks (like the role that the black church played in the Civil Rights movement) although collective action also can foster new networks. • Broader identities and solidarity are encouraged by social networks that help translate an "I" mentality into a "we" mentality.

Examples of Social Capital • When a group of neighbors informally keep an eye on one another's homes, that's social capital in action. • When a tightly knit community of Hassidic Jews trade diamonds without having to test each gem for purity, that's social capital in action. • Barn-raising on the frontier was social capital in action, and so too are e-mail exchanges among members of a cancer support group. Social capital can be found in friendship networks, neighborhoods, churches, schools, bridge clubs, civic associations, and even bars.

Putnam’s Theory • In “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital”, Putnam surveys: • the decline of "social capital" in the United States of America since 1950, which he feels undermines the active civil engagement a strong democracy required from its citizens. • the ways in which Americans have disengaged from political involvement including decreased voter turnout, public meeting attendance, serving on committees and working with political parties. • Americans' growing distrust in their government (Putnam accepts the possibility that this lack of trust could be attributed to "the long litany of political tragedies and scandals since the 1960s", but believes that this explanation is limited when viewing it alongside other "trends in civic engagement of a wider sort“).

Putnam’s Theory • Putnam notes the aggregate loss in membership of many civic organizations and points out that membership has not migrated to other organizations. • To illustrate why the decline in Americans' membership in social organizations is problematic to democracy, Putnam uses bowling as an example. Although the number of people who bowl has increased in the last 20 years, the number of people who bowl in leagues has decreased. If people bowl alone, they do not participate in social interaction and civic discussions that might occur in a league environment.

Putnam’s Theory • Putnam then asks the obvious question "Why is US social capital eroding?". He believes the movement of women into the workforce explains little. • Instead, he looks to the technological "individualizing" of our leisure time via television, Internet and eventually "virtual reality helmets".

Putnam’s Theory • Simplified: we don’t need each other any more. • This has profound effects on the society around us. Humans are both the victims of technology and the progenitors of negative political behavior, leading to a dearth of participation and a less tolerant society.

Criticism of Putnam • It has been claimed that Putnam completely ignored existing field studies, most notably the landmark sociological Middletown studies, which during the 1920s raised the same concerns he does today, except the technology being attacked as promoting isolation was radio, instead of television or video games. • Likewise, Putnam expresses worries that involvement with "community groups" is in decline. However, in the Middletown studies, researchers noted that traditional neighborly ties were in decline although membership in such community groups was rising, leading to the implication that new forms of social ties emerge which are not immediately visible to the observer.

Criticism of Putnam • There is also evidence that Putnam's results are specific to the US, despite that his claims are about Western societies as a whole. For example, research by Andersen, Curtis and Grabb, which explored time-use diaries over a 40-year period in the U.S., Canada, the Netherlands, and the UK, suggests that only in the U.S. has there been a decline in civic participation.

Criticism of Putnam • But perhaps more seriously: • Putnam overstates the reliability of his data by not taking population controls into his study. Are ALL citizens’ participation in civic organizations being measured? If not, why not? • What exactly has been the impact of interest groups and mass organizations as “replacements” for civic groups? • The election data, if utilized over the span of the last century, shows variable political participation from one presidential election to another, with lower participation rates even in the “golden age” of civil society.

Civil Society and Putnam’s “Bowling Alone”