Putnam has popularised the concept of ‘social capital’. Every society has a certain level of ‘social capital’, he suggests, that is, ‘networks of social organisation, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for the benefit of the society’.
He notes, however, that the levels of public involvement in community life in many areas has declined markedly since the 1960s. The turnout in national elections, for example, has decline from the early 1960s to 1990 by nearly a quarter. The number of Americans who reported that they had attended a public meeting on town or school affairs fell from 22% of Americans in 1973 to 13% in 1993. At the same time, the percentage of Americans who say they trust the government in Washington only some of the time or never, has risen from 30% in 1966 to 75% in 1992.
Other voluntary organisations have seen a very considerably decline in involvement. The most common membership of a voluntary organisation among Americans is of a church. There has been a steady decline of involvement in church related groups since the 1960s.
Labour union membership has fallen from about one-third of the workforce in 1953 to 15.8% of the workforce in 1992.
Involvement in parent-teacher associations declined considerably, before a small recovery in recent years. Civic and Fraternal organisations have decline in membership. The number of volunteers in Boy Scouts has dropped by 26% since 1970 and by 61% in the Red Cross. Fraternal organisations, such as the Jaycees and the Masons have also witnessed substantial drops in membership. More Americans are bowling at bowling alleys than ever before, but the numbers who are doing so in organised leagues has plummeted in the last decade. Americans now prefer to ‘bowl alone’.
Why have these declines occurred? Some suggest that people have just changed the organisations they are joining. Some voluntary organisations are booming, such as the American Association of Retired Persons, and national environmental organisations such as the Sierra Club. However, Putnam argues that these organisations do not involve social contact of a significant kind. Few attend meetings. Most pay subscriptions and perhaps read a newsletter. Members are unlikely ever (knowingly) to encounter another member.
Many people are involved in a small group or support group of one kind or another. Robert Wuthnow, an American sociologist, has reported that 40% of Americans are involved in a small group that meets regularly and provides support or care for those who participate. Most of these groups are connected with religious organisations or churches, but there are many other groups such as book discussion groups, hobby clubs, and self-help groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous.
However, Putnam argues that these small groups do not play the same civic role as traditional organisations. Quoting Wuthnow, he says,
Some small groups merely provide occasions for individuals to focus on themselves in the presence of others. The social contract binding members together asserts only the weakest of obligations. Come if you have time. Talk if you feel like it. Respect everyone’s opinion. Never criticize. Leave quietly if you become dissatisfied.
Putnam says that these groups do not produce community attachments and commitment.
At the same time, the extent that Americans socialise with their neighbours has declined. 72% said they spend a social evening with a neighbour more than once a year in 1974. In 1993, only 61% said they did. At the same time, people have become less trusting of others. In 1960, nearly two-thirds of the population felt that most people could be trusted. In 1993, little more than one third felt that way.
Putnam argues that trust and associational membership are closely linked. In other words, people who trust others are more likely to spend time with others, such as neighbours, or in associations of one kind or another. He says that this can be shown in cross-national comparisons. In countries where there is most trust, there is also most engagement with other people.
He suggests a few reasons why social engagement has declined. The movement of women into the workforce may have reduced the time and energy available for social engagement. However, the decline of engagement among men is similar to that among women.
Some people have suggested that increased mobility of people has reduced people’s ability to put down roots in a particular place. However, Putnam suggests that residential stability has, in fact, risen since 1965.
Putnam seems to think that explanations may be found more in the move from the corner grocery store to the supermarket, and from the replacement of community-based small business by large multinationals. He suggests that television and the VCR have privatised much of our leisure time. Connecting with each other through electronic networks may have a continued impact on social capital. The consolidation of country post offices and small school districts may also have a high cost in terms of its impact on social capital.
Putnam argues that much more work needs to be done, sorting out the dimensions of ‘social capital’ and looking at the consequences of its decline. However, he believes that the question of how to reverse these trends, restoring civic engagement and civic trust, should be high on the nation’s agenda.

Philip Hughes

Reference:

Robert D. Putnam, ‘Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital’ in Journal of Democracy, Vol.6, No.1, January 1995.