By granting Robert Putnam intellectual hegemony on all things community in America, we limit our understanding of the past and constrain our visions of what’s possible for the future
This is excellent. By the way, I got "class eyes" in high school--perhaps my greatest life achievement, even if unearned. But really, you make some great points here. Thank you.
When Bowling Alone was published, Evertt Carl Ladd published a dissent of sorts titled The Silent Revolution. In short, his argument was that Putnam may be correct in his documentation of the demise of civic participation in many well-known/traditional institutions. But he was missing the rise of new types/forms of civic participation, which Ladd began to document. He called this the silent revolution. I thought Ladd was correct then and continue to think so, though I'm most knowledgable about this in the areas of education and training. Full disclosure: I was then working with Ladd and one of his former students on a project investigating philanthropy and civil society, so I was inclined to be receptive to the argument.
Thank you, Sam. Very interesting. I've been exploring paths "beyond Bob" for a few years now after encountering his 1970s research on democracy in Italy. In my view there seem to be two paths forward:
First, the path you've outlined—incorporating more voices, dissenting perspectives, and different interpretations of the underlying facts. This points to the essential expansion of our understanding of civic life through the prism of multiple perspectives. Social capital is too significant a concept to risk being flattened by a single viewpoint.
Second, there's another path "beyond Bob" that transcends the scientific paradigm that Bob and many other social scientists operate within. This traditional paradigm insists on separating the observed from the observer, or social phenomena from the consciousness experiencing it. Yet, when we acknowledge the relationship between perception and experience, we can begin seeing how this paradigm can exacerbate the very problems we seek to address through it.
For example, say I'm interested in studying why potholes aren't being addressed in my city. I might explore a bunch of data from different neighborhoods and discover that high communication levels between residents and city officials correlate with better road maintenance. I then conclude that the solution is to increase communication between residents and officials. So I help residents communicate more with city officials, and sure enough the potholes are filled. My analysis seemingly saved the day because it accurately predicted the outcome.
Inspired by this success, I might start viewing all world problems through this analytical lens. If we can just find the right data to illuminate the most critical relationship, we can tell its story, pull the right levers, and fix everything. The world transforms into a 'system' outside ourselves that we intervene in, like a surgeon operates on a patient.
This approach can be credited with remarkable success—as demonstrated by significant policy developments throughout modern history. But seeing the world exclusively this way has tremendous consequences. For instance, we can begin viewing systems and structures as primary, or seeing people as objects to be 'nudged,' or losing our sense of participation in understanding. We alienate ourselves from the qualities that make us distinctly human.
Returning to the pothole example: When I look at social phenomena exclusively through this analytical lens, I miss the possibility that both communication and road maintenance are expressions of the same underlying phenomena of consciousness. People communicate and fix roads because they share agreements or values that support these actions. These are ideas people live with and express in different ways across different facets of life. Consider children whose impulse for play moves them to engage in both 'dress up' and puzzles. It'd be silly to suggest that one form of play causes the other. Both are emanations of the children's desire to play. Yet that's what we often do with statistical modeling. Causality isn't always implicit in social phenomenon—it's one interpretation of many we can overlay onto its surface.
Seeing distinct social variables, whatever they might be, as expressions of the same idea living within a collective consciousness doesn't deny correlations between them or the measurable influence of systems upon people. It only properly contextualizes this type of analysis by acknowledging how it disregards the field of consciousness. Recognizing this limitation points us towards a path of understanding social life with and through consciousness, and the seemingly infinite potentials that can flow from this practice.
Maybe it is reductionism from focusing on the consumer (everyone is a consumer) towards divided interests gets you the transformation Theda Skocpol warns of?
Maybe the same reductionist approach results in failing to see "civic opportunity" in poorer communities? Poorer communities may not have spending power in their bank accounts, but they do control, very directly, a lot of spending.
Maybe it is also this reductionist thought that leads to failure to ignite a desire to participate?
Adolph Reed, Jr., et. al. have a valid point when they write "no politics but class politics" to criticize race politics and yet do they suffer from reductionism themselves?
Maybe the libertarians (Prof. Dr. Munger of Duke, for example) are stumbling across some answers when they point out that "every flaw in the consumer is worse in the voter" and yet, because of thinking reductively, focus on correcting voter flaws instead of improving the thinking of consumers that would indirectly get better voters by default? The resources to focus on better voters will have to be "new money."
Go back to the spending power imbedded in the poorer communities. That spending regularly pays a cost that is sufficient to amortize capital (pay dividends to shareholders) in consumer transactions where capital is at best incidental to the product/service being bought. Local equity is not extracted by the corporations. It is shoveled to the corporations by the disorganized consumers. The waste here (unnecessary transaction costs) can be directed towards coordination. It appears to be almost too easy. No "new money" required.
Costs to coordinate the actions of individuals can be substantial. But substantial resources to fund those costs already exist in the consumer transaction universe.
Transform the system "pay people" to join...so they don't die.
This is excellent. By the way, I got "class eyes" in high school--perhaps my greatest life achievement, even if unearned. But really, you make some great points here. Thank you.
👑👑👑
Great as usual. Thank you!
Re-member; re-villagize; re-enchant. Create space. Imagine.
When Bowling Alone was published, Evertt Carl Ladd published a dissent of sorts titled The Silent Revolution. In short, his argument was that Putnam may be correct in his documentation of the demise of civic participation in many well-known/traditional institutions. But he was missing the rise of new types/forms of civic participation, which Ladd began to document. He called this the silent revolution. I thought Ladd was correct then and continue to think so, though I'm most knowledgable about this in the areas of education and training. Full disclosure: I was then working with Ladd and one of his former students on a project investigating philanthropy and civil society, so I was inclined to be receptive to the argument.
Thank you, Sam. Very interesting. I've been exploring paths "beyond Bob" for a few years now after encountering his 1970s research on democracy in Italy. In my view there seem to be two paths forward:
First, the path you've outlined—incorporating more voices, dissenting perspectives, and different interpretations of the underlying facts. This points to the essential expansion of our understanding of civic life through the prism of multiple perspectives. Social capital is too significant a concept to risk being flattened by a single viewpoint.
Second, there's another path "beyond Bob" that transcends the scientific paradigm that Bob and many other social scientists operate within. This traditional paradigm insists on separating the observed from the observer, or social phenomena from the consciousness experiencing it. Yet, when we acknowledge the relationship between perception and experience, we can begin seeing how this paradigm can exacerbate the very problems we seek to address through it.
For example, say I'm interested in studying why potholes aren't being addressed in my city. I might explore a bunch of data from different neighborhoods and discover that high communication levels between residents and city officials correlate with better road maintenance. I then conclude that the solution is to increase communication between residents and officials. So I help residents communicate more with city officials, and sure enough the potholes are filled. My analysis seemingly saved the day because it accurately predicted the outcome.
Inspired by this success, I might start viewing all world problems through this analytical lens. If we can just find the right data to illuminate the most critical relationship, we can tell its story, pull the right levers, and fix everything. The world transforms into a 'system' outside ourselves that we intervene in, like a surgeon operates on a patient.
This approach can be credited with remarkable success—as demonstrated by significant policy developments throughout modern history. But seeing the world exclusively this way has tremendous consequences. For instance, we can begin viewing systems and structures as primary, or seeing people as objects to be 'nudged,' or losing our sense of participation in understanding. We alienate ourselves from the qualities that make us distinctly human.
Returning to the pothole example: When I look at social phenomena exclusively through this analytical lens, I miss the possibility that both communication and road maintenance are expressions of the same underlying phenomena of consciousness. People communicate and fix roads because they share agreements or values that support these actions. These are ideas people live with and express in different ways across different facets of life. Consider children whose impulse for play moves them to engage in both 'dress up' and puzzles. It'd be silly to suggest that one form of play causes the other. Both are emanations of the children's desire to play. Yet that's what we often do with statistical modeling. Causality isn't always implicit in social phenomenon—it's one interpretation of many we can overlay onto its surface.
Seeing distinct social variables, whatever they might be, as expressions of the same idea living within a collective consciousness doesn't deny correlations between them or the measurable influence of systems upon people. It only properly contextualizes this type of analysis by acknowledging how it disregards the field of consciousness. Recognizing this limitation points us towards a path of understanding social life with and through consciousness, and the seemingly infinite potentials that can flow from this practice.
Excellent survey!
Maybe it is reductionism from focusing on the consumer (everyone is a consumer) towards divided interests gets you the transformation Theda Skocpol warns of?
Maybe the same reductionist approach results in failing to see "civic opportunity" in poorer communities? Poorer communities may not have spending power in their bank accounts, but they do control, very directly, a lot of spending.
Maybe it is also this reductionist thought that leads to failure to ignite a desire to participate?
Adolph Reed, Jr., et. al. have a valid point when they write "no politics but class politics" to criticize race politics and yet do they suffer from reductionism themselves?
Maybe the libertarians (Prof. Dr. Munger of Duke, for example) are stumbling across some answers when they point out that "every flaw in the consumer is worse in the voter" and yet, because of thinking reductively, focus on correcting voter flaws instead of improving the thinking of consumers that would indirectly get better voters by default? The resources to focus on better voters will have to be "new money."
Go back to the spending power imbedded in the poorer communities. That spending regularly pays a cost that is sufficient to amortize capital (pay dividends to shareholders) in consumer transactions where capital is at best incidental to the product/service being bought. Local equity is not extracted by the corporations. It is shoveled to the corporations by the disorganized consumers. The waste here (unnecessary transaction costs) can be directed towards coordination. It appears to be almost too easy. No "new money" required.
Costs to coordinate the actions of individuals can be substantial. But substantial resources to fund those costs already exist in the consumer transaction universe.
Transform the system "pay people" to join...so they don't die.