I am currently enrolled in American Society and this is the corresponding textbook. After reading some is its chapters, Putnam seems to contradict himself at the end. How can you make sense of his work, interviews, experiments, and outlined research if is objective to his own views?

I admit I didn't finish the book. I was bored by much of it and read parts here and there. But what I looked for and didn't find was what seems to me to be obvious...We're less social because we're more mobile. Corporations shuttle families around the nation so rapidly that after a few generations of this nobody is really part of any community anymore, they're just living/working/earning there. Nobody you grew up with lives near you. You have no reputation to protect. We're a nation of strangers. I think it's less important that people join formal groups and more important that they actually know each other and relate in a way that indicates that the relationship is permanent. But in our mobile society it's not permanent.

I know from being displaced myself that when you move to a new area you don't expect to be in long, you simply do not care about it in the same way as "home". And related to that, the inhabitants there sure do not care for you!

I agree with another review that overcrowding and urbanization may be a part of the problem too. If you're constantly having to deal with crowding on roads and in shops and at events, you may just prefer a nice basement media room to sitting on the porch chatting up neighbors.

Also, if you know you're living with people for the next 40 years, your attitude toward them is quite different than if you're just a transient in their lives for the next year or so. Till you either change jobs, move to another suburb, or retire to where you really want to live. Corporations' needs for workers in different cities force us to either choose financial security or social stability. There is little effort given to ensuring workers can have a career in one city anymore. Even fractional advantages in costs/etc will cause companies to move hundreds of workers. I've been affected by it.

Overall, a very disappointing book that had a good premise but came to the wrong conclusions.

It's rather drier and more academic than I'd hoped for, though terrifically erudite. It's enormous too. A fascinating subject, and a very important book, but hard to sustain an interest in. Suited to the more academic reader.

Putnam accurately articulates that odd malaise many boomers deeply feel; loss of "community" (whatever one may take that to mean). He then tangentially reasons that the culprit is "diversity". The fact is that this particular boomer angst is far more the product of population density. In the '50s and '60s (his "Golden Age") solitude was far more easily acquired. Even in urbania, a short walk or a brief drive could deliver the needed dose of peace and quiet that reknits the "ravell'd sleeve of care". No more. Today, we can't get away from the crowd. It is overpopulation that drives us to seek relative social isolation. And whether the crowd looks like we do or not, it is still the crowd.

Putnam commits the endemic error of improperly linking cause and effect. Because the America he bemoans the loss of was whiter and far more insular, he attributes its unfortunate transformation to diversity. Anyone who has studied mammalian behavior will know that once a certain population density is reached, the behaviors that Putnam collectively refers to as "community" drastically decline.

Robert D. Putnam's BOWLING ALONE provides what is, arguably, the most robust scientific treatment in a single volume of the conversation about friendship and its benefits begun by Aristotle nearly twenty-four centuries ago, a conversation about what has now come to be called `social capital.':

"...how can prosperity be guarded and preserved without friends...And in poverty and in other misfortunes men think friends are the only refuge. It helps the young, too, to keep them from error; it aids older people by ministering to their needs and supplementing the activities that are failing from weakness; those in the prime of life it stimulates to noble action." [And,] "Friendship seems too to hold states together..." (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics).

No less importantly than this Aristotelian connection, Putnam joins earlier 20th Century writers to enlarge Adam Smith's emphasis on the productive effects of `capital.' Smith wrote:

...the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases...with the price of the produce of his own...A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work... (Introduction to Book II, Wealth of Nations)

BOWLING ALONE demonstrates how this "stock of goods" including the effects of friendship, reciprocity, sympathy, trust, and integrity, become the "materials and tools" fundamental to the health of the community. Thus, emphasizing the productive nature of affiliation, social capital - a smile, a kind word, a helping hand, group participation - gets "saved," in our rolodexes or their hippocampal versions, to be used advantageously another day. Here one notes that, though little emphasized by most contemporary cheerleaders for unfettered Capitalism, Adam Smith, too, emphasized sympathy, rather than petty selfishness, as one of Capitalism's essential ingredients.

Putnam provides a vast array of empirical data documenting the productive effects of friendship and communal action on politics (Chap. 2), community involvement (Chap. 3), religious participation (Chap. 4), workplace association (Chap. 5), informal social activity (Chap. 6) and altruistic activity (Chap. 7). In any of these venues, reciprocity, honesty, and trust compose the yeast for productive social activity (Chap. 8).

Putnam's interpretation of the data convincingly indicates that some generations are equaler than others. Over the half-century leading up to the publication of Putnam's book, the combination of television, suburbanization, the changing nature of work, have been factors in the dwindling of our social "goods." But most significantly, shifts in generational norms (Chaps. 10-15), have resulted in "anticivic contagion," the substantial decline in the activities that generate social capital (Chaps. 2-8), though there are exceptions (Chap. 9). In astonishing geographic detail, Putnam graphs (Figures 80-89) the correlations between social capital and its deficits in American community life, public affairs, volunteerism, sociability and trust (Chaps. 16). These are tied quite demonstrably to costs for education and children's welfare (Chap. 17), safe and productive neighborhoods (Chap. 18), economic prosperity (Chap. 19), health and happiness (Chap 20), and participatory democracy (Chap. 21). In the last two chapters (Chaps. 23, 24) he details what might be done to replenish social capital and "walking the walk" has introduced websites and seminars promoting social capital under the auspices of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Putnam recognizes other earlier uses of the phrase "social capital" with varying degrees of specificity, tracing its earliest use to L. J. Hanifan, a state superintendent of rural schools in 1916:

"good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse...[result in] an accumulation of social capital which may immediately satisfy [the individuals] needs and which may bear a social potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the whole community."

Others who have used the phrase include Jane Jacobs, who applied it to the health of neighborhoods (The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961), and Pierre Bourdieu who emphasized it in the contexts of social competition (The forms of capital. In: John G. Richardson (ed.): Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press 1986). But, Putnam goes further than any earlier writer, applying the concept to the communal health of a nation.

The concept of social capital, and particularly Putnam's rendering of it, is not without its critics whose objections are on semantic, philosophical, empirical and policy terms. Andy Blunden objects to its quantification and to the causal ambiguity of correlations that Putnam uses to support his inferences, though I think Putnam does not dismiss the likelihood of hidden variables that might be influencing the more apparent ones. The eminent sociologist Alejandro Portes takes up similar issues (Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology, Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998. 24:1.24), though, in fairness, his critique was on Putnam's earlier work in this area and BOWLING ALONE effectively addresses some of them. Theda Skocpol tellingly argues that Putnam's approach essentially blames the victim (cf. Unraveling From Above, The American Prospect no. 25 (March-April 1996): 20-25.).

The critiques notwithstanding, Putnam's work has been enormously influential even beyond the halls of academe, insinuating itself into state of the union addresses (Clinton, 1995) and the current presidential campaign (bridging v. bonding capital). For more specifics about how social capital has interrelated effects up and down the conceptual ladder from the genome to community life see A. R. Cellura's The Genomic Environment and Niche-Experience (Cedar Springs Press, 2006).

Robert D. Putnam's BOWLING ALONE provides what is, arguably, the most robust scientific treatment in a single volume of the conversation about friendship and its benefits begun by Aristotle nearly twenty-four centuries ago, a conversation about what has now come to be called `social capital.':

"...how can prosperity be guarded and preserved without friends...And in poverty and in other misfortunes men think friends are the only refuge. It helps the young, too, to keep them from error; it aids older people by ministering to their needs and supplementing the activities that are failing from weakness; those in the prime of life it stimulates to noble action." [And,] "Friendship seems too to hold states together..." (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics).

No less importantly, Putnam joins earlier 20th Century writers to enlarge Adam Smith's emphasis on the productive effects of `capital.' Smith wrote:

...the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases...with the price of the produce of his own...A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work... (Introduction to Book II, Wealth of Nations)

BOWLING ALONE demonstrates how this "stock of goods" including the effects of friendship, reciprocity, sympathy, trust, and integrity, become the "materials and tools" fundamental to the health of the community. Thus, emphasizing the productive nature of affiliation, social capital - a smile, a kind word, a helping hand, group participation - gets "saved," in our rolodexes or their hippocampal versions, to be used advantageously another day. Here one notes that, though little emphasized by most contemporary cheerleaders for unfettered Capitalism, Adam Smith, too, emphasized sympathy, rather than petty selfishness, as one of Capitalism's essential ingredients.

Putnam provides a vast array of empirical data documenting the productive effects of friendship and communal action on politics (Chap. 2), community involvement (Chap. 3), religious participation (Chap. 4), workplace association (Chap. 5), informal social activity (Chap. 6) and altruistic activity (Chap. 7). In any of these venues, reciprocity, honesty, and trust compose the yeast for productive social activity (Chap. 8).

Putnam's interpretation of the data convincingly indicates that some generations are equaler than others. Over the half-century leading up to the publication of Putnam's book, the combination of television, suburbanization, the changing nature of work, have been factors in the dwindling of our social "goods." But most significantly, shifts in generational norms (Chaps. 10-15), have resulted in "anticivic contagion," the substantial decline in the activities that generate social capital (Chaps. 2-8), though there are exceptions (Chap. 9). In astonishing geographic detail, Putnam graphs (Figures 80-89) the correlations between social capital and its deficits in American community life, public affairs, volunteerism, sociability and trust (Chaps. 16). These are tied quite demonstrably to costs for education and children's welfare (Chap. 17), safe and productive neighborhoods (Chap. 18), economic prosperity (Chap. 19), health and happiness (Chap 20), and participatory democracy (Chap. 21). In the last two chapters (Chaps. 23, 24) he details what might be done to replenish social capital and "walking the walk" has introduced websites and seminars promoting social capital under the auspices of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Putnam recognizes other earlier uses of the phrase "social capital" with varying degrees of specificity, tracing its earliest use to L. J. Hanifan, a state superintendent of rural schools in 1916:

"good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse...[result in] an accumulation of social capital which may immediately satisfy [the individuals] needs and which may bear a social potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the whole community."

Others who have used the phrase include Jane Jacobs, who applied it to the health of neighborhoods (The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961), and Pierre Bourdieu who emphasized it in the contexts of social competition (The forms of capital. In: John G. Richardson (ed.): Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press 1986). But, Putnam goes further than any earlier writer, applying the concept to the communal health of a nation.

The concept of social capital, and particularly Putnam's rendering of it, is not without its critics whose objections are on semantic, philosophical, empirical and policy terms. Andy Blunden objects to its quantification and to the causal ambiguity of correlations that Putnam uses to support his inferences, though I think Putnam does not dismiss the likelihood of hidden variables that might be influencing the more apparent ones. The eminent sociologist Alejandro Portes takes up similar issues (Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology, Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998. 24:1.24), though, in fairness, his critique was on Putnam's earlier work in this area and BOWLING ALONE effectively addresses some of them. Theda Skocpol tellingly argues that Putnam's approach essentially blames the victim (cf. Unraveling From Above, The American Prospect no. 25 (March-April 1996): 20-25.).

The critiques notwithstanding, Putnam's work has been enormously influential even beyond the halls of academe, insinuating itself into state of the union addresses (Clinton, 1995) and the current presidential campaign (bridging v. bonding capital). For more specifics about how social capital has interrelated effects up and down the conceptual ladder from the genome to community life see A. R. Cellura's The Genomic Environment and Niche-Experience (Cedar Springs Press, 2006).

Robert D. Putnam's BOWLING ALONE provides what is, arguably, the most robust scientific treatment in a single volume of the conversation about friendship and its benefits begun by Aristotle nearly twenty-four centuries ago, a conversation about what has now come to be called `social capital.':

"...how can prosperity be guarded and preserved without friends...And in poverty and in other misfortunes men think friends are the only refuge. It helps the young, too, to keep them from error; it aids older people by ministering to their needs and supplementing the activities that are failing from weakness; those in the prime of life it stimulates to noble action." [And,] "Friendship seems too to hold states together..." (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics).

In BOWLING ALONE, Putnam joins earlier 20th Century writers to enlarge Adam Smith's emphasis on the productive effects of `capital.' Smith wrote:

...the produce of a man's own labour can supply but a very small part of his occasional wants. The far greater part of them are supplied by the produce of other men's labour, which he purchases with the produce, or, what is the same thing, with the price of the produce of his own....A stock of goods of different kinds, therefore, must be stored up somewhere sufficient to maintain him, and to supply him with the materials and tools of his work... (Introduction to Book II, Wealth of Nations)

BOWLING ALONE demonstrates how this "stock of goods" including acts of friendship, reciprocity, sympathy, trust, and integrity, become the "materials and tools" fundamental to the health of the community. Thus, emphasizing the productive nature of affiliation, social capital - a smile, a kind word, a helping hand, group participation - gets "saved," in our rolodexes or their hippocampal versions, to be used advantageously another day. Here one notes that, though little emphasized by most contemporary cheerleaders for unfettered Capitalism, Adam Smith, too, emphasized sympathy, rather than selfishness, as one of Capitalism's essential ingredients.

Putnam provides a vast array of empirical data documenting the productive effects of friendship and communal action on politics (Chap. 2), community involvement (Chap. 3), religious participation (Chap. 4), workplace association (Chap. 5), informal social activity (Chap. 6) and altruistic activity (Chap. 7). In any of these venues, reciprocity, honesty, and trust compose the yeast for productive social activity (Chap. 8).

Putnam's interpretation of the data convincingly indicates that some generations are equaler than others. Over the half-century leading up to the publication of Putnam's book, the combination of television, suburbanization, the changing nature of work, have been factors in the dwindling of our social "goods." But most significantly, shifts in generational norms (Chaps. 10-15), have resulted in "anticivic contagion," the substantial decline in the activities that generate social capital (Chaps. 2-8), though there are exceptions (Chap. 9). In astonishing geographic detail, Putnam graphs (Figures 80-89) the correlations between social capital and its deficits in American community life, public affairs, volunteerism, sociability and trust (Chaps. 16). These are tied quite demonstrably to costs for education and children's welfare (Chap. 17), safe and productive neighborhoods (Chap. 18), economic prosperity (Chap. 19), health and happiness (Chap 20), and participatory democracy (Chap. 21). In the last two chapters (Chaps. 23, 24) he details what might be done to replenish social capital and "walking the walk" has introduced websites and seminars promoting social capital under the auspices of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government.

Putnam recognizes other earlier uses of the phrase with varying degrees of specificity, tracing its earliest use to L. J. Hanifan, a state superintendent of rural schools in 1916:

"good will, fellowship, sympathy, and social intercourse...[result in] an accumulation of social capital which may immediately satisfy [the individuals] needs and which may bear a social potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the whole community."

Others who have used the phrase include Jane Jacobs who applied it to the health of neighborhoods (The Death and Life of Great American Cities, 1961), and Pierre Bourdieu who emphasized it in the contexts of social competition (The forms of capital. In: John G. Richardson (ed.): Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press 1986). But, Putnam goes further than any earlier writer, applying the concept to the communal health of our nation.

The concept of social capital, and particularly Putnam's rendering of it, is not without its critics whose objections are on semantic, philosophical, empirical and policy terms. Andy Blunden objects to its quantification and to the causal ambiguity of correlations that Putnam uses to support his inferences, though I think Putnam does not dismiss the likelihood of hidden variables that might be influencing the more apparent ones. The eminent sociologist Alejandro Portes takes up similar issues (Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology, Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1998. 24:1.24), though, in fairness, his critique was on Putnam's earlier work in this area and BOWLING ALONE effectively addresses some of them. Theda Skocpol tellingly argues that Putnam's approach essentially blames the victim (cf. Unraveling From Above, The American Prospect no. 25 (March-April 1996): 20-25.), A. R. Cellura's The Genomic Environment and Niche-Experience (Cedar Springs Press, 2006) demonstrates the interrelated effects of social capital up and down the conceptual ladder from the genome to community life.

In reviewing Putnam's work it is important to remember that the discourse about social capital not only educates as to the health of individuals and societies but also as to the health of political systems. De Tocqueville marveled at Americans' as joiners because he correctly theorized that intermediate organizations are crucial for the healthy working of modern democracies. Thus the evidence that Americans are joining fewer organizations should also cause us to question the health of American democracy.
The recent acceptance by large swaths of the American public that torture is an acceptable method in defending democracy shows a kind of extremism not far removed from that of Nazi Germany where again intermediate organizations are said to have been were few and opened the way for mass organizations and the state to isolate the individual and place him/her one on one with the demagogue and his mass party.
Differences with Germany's case are enormous of course yet evidence that democracy is not in a healthy state should make us ask questions. It is in this light that Putnam's work takes an even greater significance.

The American people are more socially isolated than ever due to the increasing amount of television watching, the way our cities are designed and the way that each generation is getting more and more disengaged in American public life. There are other factors that contribute but these are the main ones.

A properly socially cohesive society will do better in terms of crime, our government, the economy, education ect. He mentions that street gangs form from a lack of social capital in the neightbor hoods and that the gangs form as a way of making up for it.

The apathy leads not only to mental but physical illness. Putname takes you on a journey filled with many graphs that give substance and proof to what he is saying.

This work is both scholarly and yet accessible to the average citizen. Putman documents in considerable detail the cultural trend in the U.S. away from civic organizations both formal and informal. The collection of research over many decades is quite amazing. Yet this data is presented in an understandable way with graphs and summary descriptions. The conclusion is what anyone of a certain age already knows and that is people are less social today than decades ago. One illumination for me is how that social isolation results in negative effects in areas such as crime, prosperity, education, government and even health. This appears to be well documented and is not just "shooting from the hip".
There are a few deficiencies in this book however. First, the "cause" of this phenomena as "generational "succession" is a good observation but not a cause. Why is generational succession occurring? The arguments are incomplete. Secondly, the sub-title "...Revival of the American Community" is never really presented. The solutions to the problem (if it is indeed a problem) are the weak part of the book. Taking lessons from the "gilded age" and the turn of the 20th century don't seem to connect with me.
In summary, I think this is an important book but is only the beginning of the discussion. From an individual perspective, there are still plenty of social groups to become involved with and they are not that hard to find. Let this book turn the light inward upon ourselves. We are relational creatures. Let's take the initiative, turn the TV off and become involved. By the way, despite today's over-the-top rhetoric, the church is alive and is a welcoming place. Come and get connected.

I greatly respect what Dr. Putnam is trying to do with this book; so I want to be charitable in my review. I purchased this book because I have recently felt a bit `disconnected' from society personally. I wanted to do some evaluation of my own experience vs. his presentation of mass changes in social trends. To put it simply: Am I `bowling alone' because of ME or because of some greater social trends in America I happen to be living through?

My review is long because this is a very `dense' work, as another review put it. The book is greatly bolstered with supporting statistics (ad infinitum, it seems). I realize that there is virtue in supporting your thesis with hard quantifiable numbers. I wish more would do that. The conflict or down side of that is - that statistical presentation is frankly... boring. So this is not an entertaining or fast read; it's not a page-turner. It certainly is not literary bubble-gum. This is a full academic social study presented to the general populace.

However, his efforts and objective is wonderful, and to be lauded. One has to respect that. There is some humor peppered here and there. It would be great if he could put his statistical data off in some kind of sidebar and separate it out from anecdote, examples and generalities - to make the reading a little smoother. I confess I found myself skipping over some statistics just to get his real point. The hard statistics and whatever examples he presents are all mashed together in the same paragraph.

He does a great job of staying quite neutral with respect to political, social or religious ideologies and groups. Thankfully, the writer is not an alarmist. Except for the thought that this trend is dangerous, he has largely left out his own feelings with some excellent academic objectivity. [I wish more academics would do THAT!] He avoids nostalgia and emotion, simply making a case for the decline and revival of American social connectedness (stated as `social capital'). It's just that he goes through a GREAT deal of statistics to do so. There's even a graphic chart depicting how often people observe stop signs vs. glide through the intersection - down through the decades! It's called, `The Changing Observance of Stop Signs' (page 143). At times he digresses into tangents that have minor bearing on social connectedness, in my opinion. This lengthens the book a bit, but that point is minor.

I definitely will take some good thoughts with me from this book. (It is this disconnectedness that has largely caused the current great rift between right and left, liberals and conservatives.) It's good to have some light on the phenomena we see in our civic and social circles.

This is a well written book about the decline of certain activities that have historically been central to the "social capital" of American society and the pervasive consequences on American lives. While I think much of Putnam's story is on the mark, I believe his diagnosis of the problem depends on several logical flaws and this could potentially imply that different conclusions should be reached. Let me explain:

The book basically says, "here's a laundry list of activities that Americans don't do as often as they used to including clubs, religious activities, unions, house parties, picnics, etc." The evidence is overwhelming that all of these activities have become less common as a share of American activities. They're all major components of what we typically consider social activities. Putnam therefore concludes that Americans are building less social capital. Does this evidence lead to this conclusion? Let's replace some of the words and concepts and perhaps we can illustrate why it may not.

Assume Americans are spending less money (or a smaller percentage of their income) on makeup, perfume, and hair salons (I don't necessarily believe this is true, but for the sake of the example). We consider all of these activities beautification. Now would a reduction in the share of household wealth spent on these activities necessarily imply that Americans care less about beauty or are less beautiful? What if we "forget" to mention (or simply miss) that people are now spending a huge share of wealth on plastic surgery and that this didn't even exist in our "reference period?" What if people are spending less on makeup because they get far more "beauty" for the same amount of money today?

To be truly conclusive, Putnam needs to not only prove that people are spending less total time on social activities but that these social activities are less rewarding on the whole (and what we've replaced them with are not more rewarding than our losses).

Critical to this point is the question, "what is it that social capital is supposed to deliver?" I took the time to write this review instead of socializing. I won't necessarily receive any direct compensation from a reader as I might have gotten from the friend (emotional support, contact to a job, introduction to a significant other, fun of company). It appears that I've lost social capital. BUT, how many of your friends would you have needed to ask before you got a review like this (or others submitted here). How many friendships would I have had to make to get the benefit of the other reviews that I've read on Amazon. Am I worse off or have I simply participated in a less personal exchange that is of much greater value to society (and in the long run to myself)?

In the same vein, I may not go hang out with my friends the way my parents did, but I can IM and TXT my friends no matter where they are in the country. I may not meet my neighbor but I can share interest in games or politics or economics with people around the country and I'd like to think I get a lot out of my participation in these kinds of communities. Is my life really worse if I can't invite all of these people to the bowling alley with me? Is my life or my participation in society really diminished if I don't attend a meeting in their physical presence?

If I had no friends in town, certainly the cost would be real. But I would never trade my deep personal relationships with friends in New York, Pittsburgh, and Chicago for a dozen bowling buddies here in Columbus.

Despite my concerns regarding the specific arguments and conclusions, I actually enjoyed the book and encourage people to read it. However, the book only receives 4 stars because the data may not necessarily justify the conclusions and readers are therefore cautioned about taking it all at face value.

Why does the idea of community seem to have vanished? Why are we not as close to our neighbors as our grandparents used to be? What are the changes that have accorded in these last few generations that have caused such isolation? Read Bowling Alone to find out what has killed the spirit of neighborliness and volunteerism.

Putnam has done a good job of marshalling an incredible amount of graphs, tables, charts, etc. while still keeping the reader's (my!) interest. He makes an impressive case on 2 fronts: one, that we're less socially connected today, and not as socially invested as we once were; and two, this state of affairs is not a good thing in many ways (personal and social health, etc.). The book is far less convincing when it appears to suggest that the great template for a generation that DID invest heavily in social capital was the generation that had its heyday in the post-war years. In other words, the "greatest generation." While I believe that they were heavily socially invested, and developed many and wide-ranging ways to increase that social capital, I do NOT believe that our (or future) generations can replicate that. We now celebrate tolerance and diversity today, in fact worship at their feet. Previous generations in this country did not, and that's the rub. You need a society that's pretty much agreed on what makes a good life or a good person before you can get large numbers of people to sign on to groups that nourish that idea. Today, we live in a circus atmosphere in which there is no right or wrong way to live, as long as you stay out of my hair. That might be well and good, but HARDLY a vision that will inspire any investature of social capital. I don't think Putnam sees this difficulty clearly enough (although he does mention it) because if this difficulty is insurmountable (as I think it is unless society undergoes a sea-change in belief) there is NO remedy for modern society's fragmentation. I guess what I'm saying is that you need a vision of community that the vast majority of movers, shakers, and regular folks have bought into, before you can talk about recapturing that sense of community. And today we don't have that, not even close. Tolerance and diversity both act to fragment community and that process is only accelerated when such attitudes are held by societal leaders. Putnam also needs to focus more on the decade of the 60s (say from 1963 - 1973) and fess up to the fact that people--whether they totally bought into the cult of the individual that sprang from that time or not--were ALL affected by that decade. Society simply looked at things differently (specifcally authority-mediated knowledge) when they came out this end of that decade. We can't go back, and Putnam ought to know that every time he sits in a faculty meeting at Harvard and looks at the non-conformist dress, jewelry and lifestyles that are exhibited there (imagine their wardrobe and attire on 1950s' Harvard faculty!). Each generation learns its knowledge base from authority-mediated knowledge transfer--either formally or informally, from sacred texts to how to use a crescent wrench. The post-60s generations simply do not and cannot look or accept authority like the generations that Putnam praises for their civic involvement. He castigates television for much of the problem but to me that's more symptom of this deeper cause (else why is the older generation somehow nearly immune to watching TV as much as the younger). I also wonder when Putnam tries to make a case for how social involvement can help the individual but using a quick vignette of an affluent couple who try and increase social involvement and capital by NOT taking their kid out of public school. This coming from a professor at the most well-known PRIVATE institution of higher learning in the country?? I wonder how many of his colleagues have their children in public schools, or would put them in some of the worse public schools, far from Cambridge, Mass? still, this is a thoughtful book and societal critique, whether you agree with his assessment or not. It will engage you.

As I read through Putnam's book, I was repeatedly impressed by how thoroughly researched his points were. Bowling Alone has over 100 figures and tables dispersed throughout, and while that would be considered an "overly academic" death knell for most books, this book comes out as both interesting and highly readable. The points are backed up by hard facts and Putnam is very careful to state which opinions are his own as opposed to some other source's. His style of reasoning and argument always includes an examination of possible alternative explanations, which is something all non-fiction writing of this type should require.

In this book you will learn a good deal about the advantages and disadvantages of community groups and why America -- as a society -- has drifted away from the close-knit communities of the 1950s and early 60s. Bowling Alone is one of those rare books that has a little bit of everything: sociology, psychology, urban planning, political commentary, and good old-fashioned statistical analysis. And these topics are all covered in a way that bring the social phenomena to light without getting bogged down in the numbers. Putnam's book is truly an impressive piece of work.

This is a fairly academic description of the decline of civil society. It is well written and the information is clearly presented. The arguments are clear and easy to understand although not truly persuasive. This book spends an inordinate amount of time hammering a point that is obvious enough- Americans join and participate in fewer groups than they used to. I like most people already believed that when I read the book synopsis. Instead of detailed data about the mempership decline in churches and bridge clubs etc., more analysis about the causes and effects of this decline should have been included.

As for the argument of this book, did not convince me. The chapter on the dark side of social groups provided a superficial argument for why social groups promote equality and fraternity. I did not care for the reliance on constructs such as the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity (those are just part of french enlightenment ideals, they are not some kind of measurable benchmarks to make sweeping judgements about society with).

In the end, I am the generation x-y child of parents that were active in a number of social organizations, PTA, neighborhood get togethers etc. I belong to no groups and do not spend time with my neighbors. Like most people my age, I have observed my parents involvement in groups and do not wish to follow suit. The author did not seem to take any time to analyze why people would willingly abandon a civic life when they know exactly what they are missing. I do not see America degenerating because of people's desire to live highly independant existances.

Authentic, relevant community is something that is increasingly sought after by my generation (the 20-somethings, college and career group), but sometimes hard to find or even define. Bowling Alone is a fascinating commentary on community, relationships, social networking and the many ways that people connect with each other in America both past and present. It provides incredible arguments for the benefits of strong community to include trust, altruism, honesty, reciprocity, etc., but at the same time frames the discussion in such a way that you don't feel like you're listening to grandpa tell long tales of the "good ole' days." Putnam does a great job of providing motivation for generations to come on what is possible when effort and intentionality is given to forming strong social connections; a message severely needed in the age of isolation.

I first read this book years ago, while in graduate school. It is in many ways an interdisciplinary look at the decline of civil society in the United States since the 1960's.

This book, in some ways, changed my life. I had experienced the profound loneliness of modern life after I left college and got a job out in the real world. I was amazed at how "disconnected" everybody was.

I had returned to church, and was trying to get more involved with my community, but I was finding it rough going. Then, while writing my masters thesis, my advisor suggested reading "Bowling Alone" as a way to augment my research in the area of parental involvement in education.

This is an academic book, but I couldn't put it down. It felt like I was reading a thriller, only because it was so relevant to my life experience. I remember thinking "this guy gets it!" I was amazed.

After finishing my thesis, my whole life changed. I changed jobs to work in parochial education, I got much more deeply involved in my church, and I joined the Knights of Columbus.

What is amazing about this is the improvement in my life since. Of course, the new me gives all the credit to God. However, God can work through some pretty interesting sources. He used this book as one way to bring me back to the Truth. As for my level of happiness and life satisfaction, it is MUCH higher than it was when I was a typical post-modern college graduate. I have a place, connections, friends, and a relationship with God. My growing family has a feeling of security and permanence that never existed before.

The reasons for all this are academically, sometimes dryly, and occasionally mathematically, shared on this book's pages. It is a LONG read, but not especially difficult. The academic jargon is kept to a minimum and the writing style is accessible. However, the arguments are profound. Furthermore, Putnam anticipates counter-arguments and addresses them constantly. Putnam is obviously a serious scholar with lots of gravitas. He has done nothing short of putting his finger on the pulse of our times.

After reading this review one might conclude that this is a "conservative" book. I disagree. While I think most people deeply connected to church and community in the United States will end up being "conservative" in some respects, this is certainly not always the case. Ultimately, Putnam's argument is about how the loss of social capital negatively impacts society. Conservatives and liberals should find much to agree on in this book.

I could not recommend this book more highly.

Putnam's thesis sounds correct, and he goes far to prove it, even to those who say he's all wrong.

This book is simply a must-read for anyone who cares about the quality of our society and communal life. Putnam tackles an extremely difficult question, and he does so very well. Answering whether or not our society has become less communal in the last 50 years is not an easy task. What are the causes of this change? What are the effects? These are some of the broader questions Putnam answers in this book.

One thing that is immediately apparent is how much research went into this book. This book is loaded with statistics, yet the figures presented aren't boring. I felt that the consequences (both good and bad) of the statistics presented were readily evident in my own life. The two sections covering the causes of our social isolation and the effects are the strongest parts of the book.

Putnam's response to the problem, on the other hand, is a little weak. I think Putnam is too willing to rely on government intervention to change people's attitudes and behavior (a proposition not likely to be successful, in my opinion). Furthermore, he his too willing to simply have faith that people will eventually make the right decisions once they understand the nature of this problem. Again, I don't think this is likely.

By extension, Putnam fails to examine the potential for the Church and family to aid in correcting this problem. This is not too surprising; after all, we do live in an age in which social connections outside of the family and Church are seen as more important to the development of the autonomous self than those within those institutions. Nevertheless, this is a serious error on Putnam's part, in my opinion.

Be that as it may, I think this book is hugely important. If the prescriptive section is a little weak that is more than made up for by the strength of the diagnosis and prognosis sections. Putnam's writing was very good; I don't think this book can fairly be characterized as being "dry". A page turner for those concerned about the quality of our social fabric.

This is a profound book. Required reading for existing in the digital age. It had a little more information than I could handle, but so has the rest of my education.

Professor Putnam has written a superb review of the decliine of community in the United States through the end of the 20th Century. He points to television, urban and suburban sprawl, generational change and changing work habits as being the major causes of the collapse of the American community.

He provides massive amounts of survey and study data to prove what most of already know: Americans don't get together with their friends, neighbors, fellow citizens or even their families as much as they used to.

The presentation of the data is the best part of the book. Putnam's explanations are often insightful and though he also frequently turns a blind eye to the causes of the destruction of the American community, namely several decades of relentless left-wing attacks on American society. The church as a staple of the community? Destroyed by left-wing secularism. The family as a core unit of community? Destroyed in some places by left-wing policies that made family formation not only impossible (i.e., the ban on female headed welfare households admiting to a male presence)and by left-wing agitation for "sexual freedom."

Interestingly, Putnam provides evidence of the proof of the foregoing and more in some of his own data. The places where "social capital" and community remain intact are the so-called Red States, the very communities Putnam's academic colleagues at Harvard deride day after day.

Putnam's cure for the decline of American community, not surprisingly, requires lots of government intervention.

Putnam's book is fascinating if you disagree with his reasoning. What would be more interesting is the same data reviewed by conservatives. There is no doubt that they would agree that the American community has declined, but the reasons given for it and the ways to its revival would be markedly different.

Jerry

I can't add anything that isn't already on the backcover. Putnam has detailed research showing the loss of social capital in the U.S. and insightful analysis of the implications as well as possible solutions. It's a highly readable book for academics and non-academics alike. A vital read that will be relevant for years to come.

This book definitely gets a little bogged down in statistics at points. A couple of the chapters could have been easily trimmed down by a couple paragraphs and tables (and boy are there a lot of tables). However, I still think this book is an important contribution to the discussion of american community versus radical individualism.
The other nice thing I would like to point out is the multiple positive reviews from across the political spectrum. It's not all the time that a book gets approval from the nation, the national review and the economist. It's as nonpolitical as it can get, despite the politically sensitive material.

Way too full of statistics and other sociological data for my tastes but when it points in the direction I agree with, like any old ideologue it's hard not to plug it.

The book is about how community activity and activism has fallen dramatically in the past fifty years, beginning with the baby boomers generation, and how my generation has only continued the slide. The title comes from the decline in bowling leagues to bowling merely when time allows.

A lot of what Putnam blames is TV (curse you infernal tube, err screen) in sucking up time with only passive reaction. How pretty much every other activity requires an active response and that this has caused people to stop caring.

He also discusses how sports have become far more spectator than participatory, allowing for more tv watching.

The difficulty he runs into is that, though published in 2000, the internet was not adequetely advanced and so is not adequetely covered. For it is a physically passive activity sans porn that can be menatally rigorous or passive due to the desires of the participent. But it also has engaged more people in a new pseudo conversation than ever existed before. A conversation without bounds of physical place or honest presence which allows for great deception but also great forthrightness.

It is absolutely packed with statistics so for those inclined to that method of persuation it could be quite successful, but merely on the sheer breadth of topics discussed it is worth the read.

Robert Putnam's book bemoans the declne in "civic participation" among Americans since its heyday in the 50's and 60's. Although few would argue that bridge clubs aren't what they used to be, who would have predicted the rise of 20,000 member mega-churches back in 1962? This underlines the basic problem with this book: it focuses too much on what constituted "communities" and "activities" in the past, without looking at how people form new and different kinds of communities today. While I agree that television has dramatically increased the couch potato index, and participation in traditional FORMAL organizations has declined, I would argue that membership and participation in new kinds of groups that are more relevant to people in the 21st century has risen. For example, while young people famously are less likely to vote in our dual-party system, college students today volunteer more that any generation before them. In addition, while participation in mainline Protestant churches has stedily declined, engagement in evangelical churches has risen dramatically. While I personally feel that the sterile suburban, drive-everywhere-in-my-SUV existance is soul crushing, and the popularity of reality TV may be a sign of the apocolypse, I also don't pine for the days where mom was expected to stay home with the kids and go to the bridge club once a week, while dad worked 9-5, returned home to supper, and went to the Men's Club on Tuesdays at 8. And while Putnam's basic premise may resonate with many, its fetishization of days past blunts the strength of his overall argument.

Putnam has hit the nail right on the head. Public policy makers world-wide have taken note. His constructs of 'bonding'and 'bridging' to the broader community through social networks to add value, or social capital, to society have gained wide currency. His research is exhaustive, more than necessary perhaps to make the case for disengagement of citizens. But, he has confirmed empirically what so many know intuitively to be true, hence the appeal of his findings. His recent work with John Helliwell published in the 2004 proceedings of the Royal Society on social capital and well-being, reported in the media as the science of happiness and the object in my own work on positive networking, advances the discipline even further. Positive networking works, it takes leadership and, when done right, adds social capital to the community. Putnam's work is compelling. His arguements are powerful...highly recommended.

Putnam's book presents a detailed look at the decline in overall social participation by Americans over the past half-century. From an analytical perspective, it is an impressive work, demonstrating clearly the general decrease in membership in social groups of both a formal and informal nature amongst Americans, then proposing and evaluating possible explanations. One thing I found strange was that, perhaps in an effort to avoid partisan issues and the like, the book doesn't look as much as it perhaps ought into the rather intense political changes over this period and consider how they may have altered prevailing attitudes.

The book is a bit too academic to make for a compelling read, though, and runs a bit dull in spots. I found myself wishing for some more pedestrian discussion; some of the brief anecdotes in the book, like the one about the man who found himself a kidney donor through a bowling league, are quite interesting, and leave you wishing there were more of them.

Robert Putnam has written one of the most important books I have read in a long, long time. When was the last time you called a friend or associate and proposed going out to a ballgame or a show only to be rebuffed because there was a game on TV that night? And how many times has that sort of thing happened to you? "Bowling Alone" discusses the reasons why so many people have become isolated and out of touch with family and friends. The reasons are myriad. Obviously, the aforementioned "boob tube" is a major contributing factor. But as Putnam discusses there are so many more reasons. The go-go 24 hour a day economy has robbed us all of much of our leisure time. And even when we do manage to get some time off everyone else we know is probably working. In addition, our society's seemingly endless quest for "personal fulfillment" has made people withdraw into themselves. Given all of the choices we are now presented with in media and other activities, there are fewer and fewer common experiences we can share at the watercooler.
Putnam also laments the decline of the various fraternal organizations that sprang up in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Groups like the Elks, the Knights of Columbus and the VFW are all struggling to survive. No one joins groups like these anymore and that is really a shame. Our communities are the big losers because the services provided by these organizations have either disappeared or have had to be assumed by the government.
This is an extremely thought provoking book. Putnam certainly diagnoses the problems and offers up some solutions. But these problems are not easily solved. If the events of 9/11 did not wake us all up, then one has to wonder if anything will.

This is a powerhouse study on a subject that would hardly seem worthy of such attention to many Americans. However, most people, other than extremists and misanthropes, probably have nagging worries about America's plummeting levels of public participation, volunteerism, and civic engagement. This concept of "social capital" is Putnam's specialty. The reasons for America's collapsing social capital are many and varied, and Putnam takes us on an intricately considered and very heavily researched study into the causes and effects of this phenomenon. You are unlikely to see a more intensively documented and supported study than this. Like a true scientist Putnam knows that there are no easy answers, and that there are highly varied causes and effects. Also in a manner quite refreshing for social observation treatises of this type, Putnam freely admits that he doesn't have all the answers, that the data is sometimes missing or contradictory, and consistently invites readers to form their own conclusions.

Critics of this book often fail to see the big picture and tend to dwell on doubtful statistics in that old can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees fashion. There are many examples of questionable stats in the book. One that I noticed was the contention in Chapter 6 that sit-down restaurants are decreasing in number. Putnam backs up the claim with data published by the National Restaurant Association, but that organization may be interested in downplaying their numbers in return for business opportunities. There are many doubtful examples like this, but in the long run Putnam's argument is an incredibly persuasive one. He convincingly demonstrates that time and financial pressures, suburban sprawl, mass communications, political ideology, and especially TV are all culprits in the problem; with appreciable effects on crime, education, voting, public health, and even neighborly politeness.

Putnam's data-intensive writing style and huge mountains of documentation and evidence lead to some readability issues, especially repetitive information overload. But in the end, it is very hard to escape his conclusions about the worrisome decline of American social capital, and he wraps up the book with great examples of why we should care. When you're done with this illuminating book, don't vegetate in front of the TV, but go out and do something for your community. [~doomsdayer520~]

The concept of "Social Capital," as it is discussed in Bowling Alone (Putnam 2001) is an attempt to quantify the loss of community connectedness that has been happening over the years. Putnam draws his title from the fact that in recent years people have become more likely to bowl alone than in more social leagues.
What is striking about the idea of Social Capital is its relevance. Public managers, especially those trying to garner public participation, will run headfirst into the phenomenon discussed in the book. According to Putnam's work on Social Capital, in the future, the Executive Director of a non-profit will have increasing difficulty soliciting volunteers to become involved in the non-profit's mission ((Putnam 1995). This is alarming because volunteers are a common resource such agencies turn to out of limited resources.
More than just being a warning of things to come, Social Capital gives public managers a framework from which to define the problem and seek strategies to deal with it. Knowing why people are less inclined to volunteer their time to a non-profit lets the Executive Director see the problem for what it is and start to think of creative, targeted strategies that account for social capital and help recruit new volunteers.
Furthermore, by taking into account Social Capital and seeking new ways to encourage civic participation, we do exactly what needs to be done in order to reinforce the very community we are trying to serve.

I read this book about 2 years ago for a class. It was just horrible, and I am shocked that smart people can read this and not see it for what it is. Nothing he said was realy a new idea unless it was one of the areas where he was wrong. He will bury you in 20 pages of Evidence in numbers to support his idea, but fail to notice a huge glaring fault with his logic. He basicly hopes you get so into what evidence he puts out you will not think, wait he did not even factor in X, and that destorys anything he said. My class had to ask why we even read this, as it was so bad, and evry day was basicly a hour of talking about how wrong he is. This book should only be used to show how lots of numbers can make people fail to think logicly about anything. I know people will say this is a great book, but is worthless. Even the Title seems wrong, we have a very hard time find a lane that does not have Leagues going.

I found Bowling Alone to be the most important book I've read in a long time. It gives us an honest but sympathetic portraitof the increasing lonely and unconnected American people and the world we've created for ourselves. Putnam manages to display the many faces of community, or lack thereof, in a careful, balanced, and frigetning way. My only regret is that Putnam's "solutions" for our current atomization are less developed than the rest of the book.

A must-read for anyone who cares about American society.

Putnam's research on the decline of social interaction is extensive, and the book is interesting to read. In Bowling Alone's first nine chapters are graphs showing the chrononical trends for every activity from card-playing to church-going. Putnam shows that Baby Boomers and Generation Xers are significantly less involved in civic activities than their parents and grandparents.

However, while Bowling Alone does a good job illustrating the loss of community involvement, the last fifteen chapters of the book, which discuss the causes of civic disengagement, and how it can be reversed, are seriously wrong. Just to start, Putnam overlooks many of the events of the last forty years. He pejoratively notes that Americans have become more individualist and distrustful of institutions, but he gives little notice to the Vietnam War, Watergate, the failed War on Poverty, and the inummerable political, corporate, and institutional scandals, which have led to this culture of skepticism.

Furthermore, the book ignores the role of centralized government and litigiousness in weakening communities. People are less likely to vote or get involved in political affairs because top-down bureaucratic mandates and endless lawsuits have undermined local democracy. Putnam laments the drop in the number of Americans who vote, attend town meetings, or write to their Congressman, but does not realize that much of this apathy is comes from the fact that many Americans perhaps rightly believe that these activities are a waste of time. Why should a person give up several hours of their time to go to a town meeting when any decision of significance made at the meeting may be overturned by a federal judge or blocked by a Washington bureaucrat?

The whole book is permeated with an irritating longing for Babbitt-like organizationalism. Many American do informally interact with their families, friends, and coworkers, but have absolutely no interest joining a fraternal organization, with its secret handshakes and exclusive membership. Likewise, many Americans do give their time time and money to causes (e.g. environmentalism) that they support, but are unwilling to make donations to large, poorly-run charities who have nebullous goals (e.g., United Way, Red Cross). Unfortunately, Putnam seems to overlook the decentralizing social trends of the last several decades.

The last two chapters of the book are the absolute worst. He expresses some concern that communitarians need to avoid the 'big-brotherism' of the early twentieth century Progressive movement, but then offers some of his own proposals (e.g., more urban planning, campaign finance reform) which themselves seem heavy-handed.

In spite of these criticism, I do recommend the book. Public apathy is a serious problem, and though I disagree with some of Putnam's conclusions, the book is informative and well-written.

Mr. Putnam did a terrific job defining and researching each aspect of why people have become disconnected form their neighborhoods. Everyone wants the front porch nostalgia and socialization without actually having to be involved or connect with anyone. This book shows the whys and whens and the how to get it back. Fabulous reading, though there are many graphs and charts in the beginning it is well worth the time. If you have an interest in history or community this book will appeal to you. Each cause of disengagment is thoroughly cover and weighed as to its guilt. The "verdict" is then explained, and a new suspect is brought up. This would be a great book for a serious book club or community board to read.

I was fascinated by the depth of the statistics and the breadth of the analyses in this book. Although statistics can be dry, and it took me a while to plow through the entire book, it was terribly interesting none the less.

It's worth reading, although, in a nutshell, the premise is that Americans used to be joiners and much more social animals. Now, they are either not joiners, or joining means something different, like paying dues to a national organization with no meetings, instead of paying dues to a local organization and meeting new friends and neighbors. Many national organizations that meet on local levels have suffered to the point of extinction. Even bridge clubs and bowling leagues (hence the title) have fallen out of favor.

Regardless of whether you accept Putnam's rather inclusive defintion of social capital, I believe you cannot quarrel with his empirical results concerning the decline in civic engagement. Using an amazing array of sources, he shows that many different forms of civic participation, as well as just plain sociable interaction, have declined drastically over the past 4 decades.

I am impressed by his determination to leave no stone unturned in looking for data. He uses Roper polls, Gallup polls, the General Social Survey, trade association data, Census Bureau information, and a myriad of other sources. He entertains alternative interpretations of patterns and then shows how his is, usually, at least as plausible and often better. In his thoroughness, he presents a model for other social scientists to follow when they are trying to convince skeptics about the existence of previously unnoticed events.

Most impressive, he clearly explains what a "cohort effect" is, and shows that almost all of the decline in civic engagement is due to younger, less-engaged generations replacing older, more-engaged ones. That is, it is NOT a matter of people changing as they aged through the turbulent 60s and 70s, but rather a matter of our children and grandchildren failing to adopt our -- the older generation -- civic habits.

I wasn't particuarly happy with his decision to use state-level measures of social capital in the last third of his book, but by then I had already become convinced of Putnam's major point: times have changed, and the 1940s and 50s were special decades. We won't see their level of civic engagement again, unless something changes radically in our society.

I highly recommend this book to those of you who love Malcolm Gladwell's work. This is what Gladwell would do, if he had Putnam's training in data analysis!

Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone is not an extended essay on how the author feels that people in America are not engaging socially with one another as much as they used to. Its emphasis is on looking at a myriad of statistics that prove that we are not as socially engaged as we used to be. He looks at the declining memberships in all the clubs and organizations and he examines the decline in informal socializing such as playing card games and having friends over for dinner.

He then examines why we are less socially engaged. He thinks that it is mainly because the civic generation that was coming of age or in adulthood during the WWII and the civil rights era is dying off. It seems that a crisis like a war increases peoples' civic consciousness as they pull together to solve the crisis. He also blames TV watching since it is an increasingly private entertainment that discourages people from seeking out more social entertainments. Two career families and commuting also have a smaller adverse effect on "social capital", that term he uses to identify the social engagement of a nation. Putnam again analyzes statistics for this section to prove what is deciminating social capital.

In the 3rd section, Putnam explains why it is important for a democratic society to have social capital. He looks at stats of states that have high social capital such as the upper midwest and upper northeast and compares them to the low capital states of the south and NV. He comes to the conclusion that people are happier, healthier, wealthier, more productive, more tolerant, and safer in states where there is high social capital. Surprisingly, he proves that communities are not repressive when they nurture, which runs contrary to my experience.

The fourth section talks about how we can increase social capital by looking at what people did at the turn of the century to increase it when the capital was running low. A lot of our present organizations were organized then. He also says that we should increase our bonding social capital among homogeneous groups and our bridging capital among diverse groups.

Putnam says it is unclear whether diversity destroys community. He says that homogeneous communities do not interact as much as diverse ones, and people should engage with others that they are different from or even hostile to. Putnam explains that the northern midwestern and the most northeastern states have a traditional communitarian culture of high social capital because they are more egalitarian than other states that are more libertarian or elitist.

Bowling Alone makes a nice companion piece to The Fourth Turning for those who like to study the discimination and rebuilding of societies in different eras of history. --Oh and I guess we could be more socialable.

... Reading this book was like walking through a mud bog, but it's a good summary of lots of data that put together is very interesting. My favorite correlation drawn: People who's primary form of entertainment is watching TV are three times more likely to give a fellow driver the finger.

The author has accumulated an astounding range of statistics supporting his discovery that people in America are not as connected to each other as they used to be. (Example: people still bowl but now are less willing to join organized bowling leagues). And he uses those statistics, which makes this book slogging through repeated evidence for the same thing.

The finding, based on this exhaustive statistical evidence, appears significant. But whether recognizing the problem can lead to an improvement is another question.

"Bowling Alone" is an impressive book that examines why American's participation in social activities has been declining since the 1960s. It addresses all the reasons you might anticipate, effectively disproving some and reinforcing others with good evidence. Putnam's methods are s