8 ms·

One thing to note is that Robert Putnam wrote the original Bowling Alone essay in 1995. Well before most people in America even had Internet access. The trend

One thing to note is that Robert Putnam wrote the original Bowling Alone essay in 1995. Well before most people in America even had Internet access. The trend of declining participation in religious organizations, civic organizations (like the League of Women Voters), fraternal societies (like the Elks or Masons), volunteer associations, labor unions, and sports leagues has been happening since at least the 1970s. Surveys of Americans have found a consistent decline in the number of self-reported close friends since as far back as the 1980s. Same for those who reported being friends with their neighbors. Indicators of social capital like the percent of people who donate blood have been falling since the 1970s. The point is increasing levels of isolation and misanthropy is a manifestation of a broader trend towards declining social capital. And that trend has been ongoing for probably 50 years. Social media may have accelerated it, but I don't think it would have anywhere near the same impact if Facebook was introduced to the American society of 1960.

claudeganon 7y ago
Marx wrote about it in 1844: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation
- qntty 7y ago
  Why the downvotes? Some of Marx's least "problematic" writings is his early stuff on alienation.
asdfman123 7y ago
I wonder if it's a side effect of prosperity. If you're poor, you depend on your broader family and community -- when you run out of money, when your car breaks down and your uncle can fix it, etc. etc. and if you have to sleep in the same room as your extended family, you're going to have "community." However, dealing with people is difficult and inconvenient, so when you have money you decide to leave your family and isolate yourself from other people's problems as much as possible. You perhaps gain more peace, privacy and free time, but it's harder to notice what you're losing. I'm not going to dredge up the numbers now, but in the 60s in America, I think it's probably safe to say a lot more siblings lived in the same room, a lot more people lived in small independent farms working alongside many family members, etc. etc. People were closer together because they had to be. People in cities didn't have to be quite so adjacent, but perhaps they were closer because it was normal in society to be closer. Speculation on my part, but it probably wouldn't be hard to find those numbers and back up the argument...
- adamsea 7y ago
  Close - it's gross inequality, not prosperity per se. And thus studies find societies with less inequality are generally happier : ).
- FernandoTN 7y ago
  From what I've seen living a privileged community in a not so privileged country, its that culture tends to impact in a much higher degree than money or privilege. Yes, money can buy you the privilege of skipping those awkward interactions that make us human, but it is up to the person to actually want to use money with that purpose. I know very wealthy people that keep very closed ties to their families and friends. It's true that finding real friends gets harder, but the isolation tends to be caused by a deeper cultural norm. E.g. in Latin America the family is given a much higher importance than in the States or Europe. It is not rare to see young adults living with their parents even if they can easily afford a place of their own. Even those that live on their own tend to meet their families in a regular basis. In the end it's all about prioritizing what is important in your life and in every society there seems to be a common list shared by it's inhabitants, if you end up in a place that values more independence than relations, maybe its time to start swimming against the current in that regard.
  - asdfman123 7y ago
    Well, that's true, but my argument is that cultural norms spring from necessity. In places where a lot of people must live adjacent, that kind of living becomes the cultural norm and even if you're in a position to do your own thing, you are still influenced by it. That is, cultural norms affect people, but basic necessity also affect cultural norms. Just like your values inform what you do, but what you do also changes your values. You're right in that we must make greater efforts to swim against the current, but so many of us must in adulthood develop tools to foster community and connection. That's hard to do, especially when you're vulnerable, there's trial-and-error involved and you don't really have a good model for what you "should" be doing.
    - FernandoTN 7y ago
Invictus0 7y ago
What was driving this decline in the 70s and 80s?
- chongli 7y ago
  To me, the most obvious cause is women’s increased participation in the workforce. With women no longer free to volunteer and socialize throughout the day, a lot of these community organizations would see a decline in membership. Even the simple decline in people who identify their neighbour as a friend can be explained by a lack of women living and socializing in the neighbourhood during the daytime. The increased use of paid childcare would similarly reduce the amount of children living and playing in the neighbourhood during the day. Overall, this would contribute to the feeling that the suburbs are ghost towns during the day, and families arriving home from school/work would rush inside to eat dinner before chauffeuring the kids to all of their extracurriculars.
  - Invictus0 7y ago
    Interesting thought. Wouldn't you think though that women would have gained social capital by being in a workplace with other people rather than being at home alone?
    - the-dude 7y ago
      My mother was active in my school, reading exercises, schooltrips and fairs and the like. A lot of the mothers were. Actually we only had 6 teachers, for 6 classes/grades. No other personel ( one of the teachers was the 'head' ).
    - war1025 7y ago
      One way to think of it is that the connections you make in the workplace run in one direction. The connections you make throughout the community run orthogonal to that. Combined, the two build up the social "fabric". However, when you shift the majority of connections to those made through the workplace, you end up with just a bunch of connections running roughly parallel to each other. Not so much a fabric as a pile of string. Probably many flaws to this analogy, but that is basically the idea of "third places". That you need somewhere where people interact based on something different from what they do for a living or who their direct family members are.
intrepidhero 7y ago
I would really like to read the research backing that decline. It certainly feels right but I'm naturally skeptical of anything that smacks of "the good 'ol days."
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
losteric 7y ago
That timeline interestingly lines up with the Cold War-era. Perhaps domestic propaganda and "cultural engineering" left some lasting damage...
- andrewflnr 7y ago
  Or just raw fear. That causes people to close up on its own.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    Yes the friendly neighbour idea was last seen in home improvement, the TV show. There is too much fear of placing a foot wrong and ghosting as the norm for mistakes.
    - scruple 7y ago
      Yeah? Home Improvement, lead into by the TV series Family Matters? I think it's a stretch...
seneca 7y ago
Putnam also did research on the causes of the breakdown of social trust. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and... > "... in the short term, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both among and within ethnic groups. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as "hunkering down", avoiding engagement with their local community as diversity increases. Although limited to American data, his findings run counter the contact hypothesis which proposes that distrust declines as members of different ethnic groups interact, and conflict theory which suggests that while distrust among ethnic groups rises with diversity, distrust within ethnic groups should decrease. Putnam found that even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust. Further, he found that low communal trust is associated with the same consequences as low social capital. Putnam says, however, that "in the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits." It's no secret that the racial demographics in the US have seen significant change over the last generation. According to his research, this transformative time will lead to exactly what you're describing, but he conjectures that it will be worth it in the long run. Not very appealing to the current zeitgeist, or to Putnam himself, but it's the continuation of the 'Bowling Alone' research you mentioned.
- jlokier 7y ago
  As a potential counterpoint to what someone might read from that quote: > "Putnam denied allegations he was arguing against diversity in society and contended that his paper had been "twisted" to make a case against race-conscious admissions to universities. He asserted that his "extensive research and experience confirm the substantial benefits of diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, to our society."
  - throwawayCF4E 7y ago
noobermin 7y ago
Going to shoehorn my ideology into this. One thing that became normalized since the 70's was sprawl.
- cagenut 7y ago
  It seems so obvious to me too. Plain and simple physical distance correlating to inter-personal distance.
- neaden 7y ago
  That's easy enough to check, compare rates in denser countries/states to more spread out ones or cities vs. suburbs. I have a hunch that the correlation won't be there but it should be interesting either way. Edit: doing a quick look around, this article using the American Time Use Survey shows a small increase in socialization for people who live in cities, but only a couple of minutes a day. https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/10/american-time-use-survey-happiness-urban-data-cities-suburbs/600997/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/10/american-time-use-surve...
- ImaCake 7y ago
  I am an Australian visiting Italy at the moment and I find the streets here are just... more vibrant and alive than the equivalent places at home. It is no data point, and shouldn't be seen as one. There are too many differences between Italian and Australian society to lay the blame anywhere in particular. But something is wrong in Australian culture that isn't as obvious in Italy.
  - kilroy123 7y ago
    Funny, I too am in Italy right now and I agree. I love that people walk so much here.
larnmar 7y ago
Do we have any research prior to the 1970s? Could there have been an upwards blip in civic participation caused by, say, the shared experience of WW2, with everything since then representing a reversion to ordinary behaviour?

claudeganon 7y ago

Marx wrote about it in 1844: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation

qntty 7y ago
Why the downvotes? Some of Marx's least "problematic" writings is his early stuff on alienation.

asdfman123 7y ago

I wonder if it's a side effect of prosperity. If you're poor, you depend on your broader family and community -- when you run out of money, when your car breaks down and your uncle can fix it, etc. etc. and if you have to sleep in the same room as your extended family, you're going to have "community." However, dealing with people is difficult and inconvenient, so when you have money you decide to leave your family and isolate yourself from other people's problems as much as possible. You perhaps gain more peace, privacy and free time, but it's harder to notice what you're losing. I'm not going to dredge up the numbers now, but in the 60s in America, I think it's probably safe to say a lot more siblings lived in the same room, a lot more people lived in small independent farms working alongside many family members, etc. etc. People were closer together because they had to be. People in cities didn't have to be quite so adjacent, but perhaps they were closer because it was normal in society to be closer. Speculation on my part, but it probably wouldn't be hard to find those numbers and back up the argument...

adamsea 7y ago
Close - it's gross inequality, not prosperity per se. And thus studies find societies with less inequality are generally happier : ).
FernandoTN 7y ago
From what I've seen living a privileged community in a not so privileged country, its that culture tends to impact in a much higher degree than money or privilege. Yes, money can buy you the privilege of skipping those awkward interactions that make us human, but it is up to the person to actually want to use money with that purpose. I know very wealthy people that keep very closed ties to their families and friends. It's true that finding real friends gets harder, but the isolation tends to be caused by a deeper cultural norm. E.g. in Latin America the family is given a much higher importance than in the States or Europe. It is not rare to see young adults living with their parents even if they can easily afford a place of their own. Even those that live on their own tend to meet their families in a regular basis. In the end it's all about prioritizing what is important in your life and in every society there seems to be a common list shared by it's inhabitants, if you end up in a place that values more independence than relations, maybe its time to start swimming against the current in that regard.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  Well, that's true, but my argument is that cultural norms spring from necessity. In places where a lot of people must live adjacent, that kind of living becomes the cultural norm and even if you're in a position to do your own thing, you are still influenced by it. That is, cultural norms affect people, but basic necessity also affect cultural norms. Just like your values inform what you do, but what you do also changes your values. You're right in that we must make greater efforts to swim against the current, but so many of us must in adulthood develop tools to foster community and connection. That's hard to do, especially when you're vulnerable, there's trial-and-error involved and you don't really have a good model for what you "should" be doing.
  - FernandoTN 7y ago

Invictus0 7y ago

What was driving this decline in the 70s and 80s?

chongli 7y ago
To me, the most obvious cause is women’s increased participation in the workforce. With women no longer free to volunteer and socialize throughout the day, a lot of these community organizations would see a decline in membership. Even the simple decline in people who identify their neighbour as a friend can be explained by a lack of women living and socializing in the neighbourhood during the daytime. The increased use of paid childcare would similarly reduce the amount of children living and playing in the neighbourhood during the day. Overall, this would contribute to the feeling that the suburbs are ghost towns during the day, and families arriving home from school/work would rush inside to eat dinner before chauffeuring the kids to all of their extracurriculars.
- Invictus0 7y ago
  Interesting thought. Wouldn't you think though that women would have gained social capital by being in a workplace with other people rather than being at home alone?
  - the-dude 7y ago
    My mother was active in my school, reading exercises, schooltrips and fairs and the like. A lot of the mothers were. Actually we only had 6 teachers, for 6 classes/grades. No other personel ( one of the teachers was the 'head' ).
  - war1025 7y ago
    One way to think of it is that the connections you make in the workplace run in one direction. The connections you make throughout the community run orthogonal to that. Combined, the two build up the social "fabric". However, when you shift the majority of connections to those made through the workplace, you end up with just a bunch of connections running roughly parallel to each other. Not so much a fabric as a pile of string. Probably many flaws to this analogy, but that is basically the idea of "third places". That you need somewhere where people interact based on something different from what they do for a living or who their direct family members are.

intrepidhero 7y ago

I would really like to read the research backing that decline. It certainly feels right but I'm naturally skeptical of anything that smacks of "the good 'ol days."

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

losteric 7y ago

That timeline interestingly lines up with the Cold War-era. Perhaps domestic propaganda and "cultural engineering" left some lasting damage...

andrewflnr 7y ago
Or just raw fear. That causes people to close up on its own.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  Yes the friendly neighbour idea was last seen in home improvement, the TV show. There is too much fear of placing a foot wrong and ghosting as the norm for mistakes.
  - scruple 7y ago
    Yeah? Home Improvement, lead into by the TV series Family Matters? I think it's a stretch...

seneca 7y ago

Putnam also did research on the causes of the breakdown of social trust. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and... > "... in the short term, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both among and within ethnic groups. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as "hunkering down", avoiding engagement with their local community as diversity increases. Although limited to American data, his findings run counter the contact hypothesis which proposes that distrust declines as members of different ethnic groups interact, and conflict theory which suggests that while distrust among ethnic groups rises with diversity, distrust within ethnic groups should decrease. Putnam found that even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust. Further, he found that low communal trust is associated with the same consequences as low social capital. Putnam says, however, that "in the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits." It's no secret that the racial demographics in the US have seen significant change over the last generation. According to his research, this transformative time will lead to exactly what you're describing, but he conjectures that it will be worth it in the long run. Not very appealing to the current zeitgeist, or to Putnam himself, but it's the continuation of the 'Bowling Alone' research you mentioned.

jlokier 7y ago
As a potential counterpoint to what someone might read from that quote: > "Putnam denied allegations he was arguing against diversity in society and contended that his paper had been "twisted" to make a case against race-conscious admissions to universities. He asserted that his "extensive research and experience confirm the substantial benefits of diversity, including racial and ethnic diversity, to our society."
- throwawayCF4E 7y ago

noobermin 7y ago

Going to shoehorn my ideology into this. One thing that became normalized since the 70's was sprawl.

cagenut 7y ago
It seems so obvious to me too. Plain and simple physical distance correlating to inter-personal distance.
neaden 7y ago
That's easy enough to check, compare rates in denser countries/states to more spread out ones or cities vs. suburbs. I have a hunch that the correlation won't be there but it should be interesting either way. Edit: doing a quick look around, this article using the American Time Use Survey shows a small increase in socialization for people who live in cities, but only a couple of minutes a day. https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/10/american-time-use-survey-happiness-urban-data-cities-suburbs/600997/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2019/10/american-time-use-surve...
ImaCake 7y ago
I am an Australian visiting Italy at the moment and I find the streets here are just... more vibrant and alive than the equivalent places at home. It is no data point, and shouldn't be seen as one. There are too many differences between Italian and Australian society to lay the blame anywhere in particular. But something is wrong in Australian culture that isn't as obvious in Italy.
- kilroy123 7y ago
  Funny, I too am in Italy right now and I agree. I love that people walk so much here.

larnmar 7y ago

Do we have any research prior to the 1970s? Could there have been an upwards blip in civic participation caused by, say, the shared experience of WW2, with everything since then representing a reversion to ordinary behaviour?