Here is a complete list of Putnam’s explanations about social capital, voluntary associations, and civic skills in his two books, together with my comments. They mostly address the increase in 1890-1960 and the decline after 1960, rather than discussing 1760-1890.
Putnam uses the word social capital to refer to several things:
- Norms (social rules) that bind people together.
- Voluntary associations.
- Trust between unrelated members of society.
These three factors are assumed to be interrelated.
Bowling Alone (p. 283-284)
1. In the 1960s, television reduced people’s time for seeing each other.
This seems quite plausible, although people don’t have to let television subtract from their time with social groups – they could just not watch television. So it is still a matter of relative priorities.
2. The social capital in the 1950s came from the world wars, as soldiers learned to work together in battle. Future generations did not remember the world wars.
I would question the relevance of this explanation, as I believe social capital was increasing from 1760-1960 and this focuses only on the last decade.
3. Work pressures on people’s time.
This seems plausible, too, although Putnam does not think it is as large an effect as (1) and (2).
4. Suburbanization and sprawl. People have to travel farther to meet one another.
Yes, this makes sense, although again Putnam does not think it is as large an effect.
The Upswing (p. 290-314)
1. Big, centralized goverment
Perhaps government “crowded out” mutual aid societies. However, Putnam says, federal government size follows trends in social capital rather than preceding it. “The best evidence is that the size of government responded to changes in Americans’ sense that we are all in this together.” I would say that Putnam is making a big assumption here: that the government’s size can only follow or lag social capital. What if it does both? I.e as social capital increases, government grows at a slight lag due to activism. But this also leads to a delayed decline in social capital in response to government’s taking over the functions of voluntary associations. That is the explanation that would support my own hypothesis in the previous essay.
2. Economic inequality
Putnam says that economic equality or inequality lags behind social capital changes, rather than causing it. This is consistent with my story.
3. Material abundance or adversity
Perhaps the abundance of the 1950s led to high social capital. One contrary point is that “the economic insecurity of the Great Depression coincided with an upsurge of “we’re all in this together.” ” So Putnam is not convinced.
4. Backlash against gender and racial liberation
Putnam thinks this is likely. This is the one factor that Putnam entirely assents to. I suspect that this partly explained why the U.S. government didn’t support voluntary associations after the 1960s – that is, it would have led to charges of partiality to particular groups. However, I think that charges of partiality around religious groups is just as important, or more important here.
5. Globalization: trade and immigration
Perhaps immigration and trade subtract from social capital. Putnam gives evidence for and against this, and thinks it is not the primary cause.
6. The 1960s as a hinge point
Putnam thinks that the 1960s were a “hinge point” when many events led to the decrease in social capital.
Nexus State Theory 