Bowling Alone - Will You Bowl Alone?

Lucille B. Isnani                                                        Reaction Paper #3

Master in Management                                                Prof. Adela Ellson

Student No. 2016-60028                                                1 October,  2016

PAPER:         BOWLING ALONE

AUTHOR:        ROBERT PUTNAM

BACKGROUND

Robert Putnam, a renowned political scientist and was famous in developing the influential two-level game theory that assumes international agreements will only be successfully brockered if they also result in domestic benefits. Putnam’s most famous and controversial work, “Bowling Alone, argues that the United States has undergone an unprecedented collapse in civic, social, associational and political life since the 1960s, with serious negative consequences. In 2010, he co-publishes an article in which he noted that the trend had moved the other way; he continued to advocate a push towards more social capital but he felt his famous thesis (“American are now bowling alone”) was no longer true.

Putnam is among the scholar cited as the principal theorists of social capital

In the article, Bowling Alone, Putnam discusses the decline of social engagement during the twentieth century. Putnam presented various era where engagement has declined over the year and how interactions has changed in different organizations. Putnam also examines what the deficit in social capital is doing to individuals, communities and America. Finally, he discusses how America could change the norm and restore how people socialize and bond within any organization.

Putnam makes a distinction between two kinds of social capital: bonding capital and bridging capital. According to Putnam, bonding occurs when you are socializing with people who are like you: same age, same race, same religion and so on. But in order to create peaceful societies in a diverse multi-ethnic country, one needs to have a second kind of social capital: bridging. Bridging is what you do when you make friends with people who are not like you, like supporters of another team. Putnam argues that those kinds of social capital, bonding and bridging, do strengthen each other. Consequently, with the decline of the bonding capital mentioned inevitably comes the decline of the bridging capital leading to greater ethnic tensions.

AUTHOR’S VIEW AND MY REVIEW

According to Putnam, the decline in social capital has a number of consequences for society. When social capital is high, children do better in school, neighborhoods are safe, people prosper, the government is better, and people are happier and healthier. A deficit in social capital leads to more suicide, depression, crime and other social problems.

In this millennial age and the current interactions of varying generations, I would like to contest the statement of Putnam above that in different context. First, “when social capital is high, children do better in school”.  What makes children better in school? It’s the teacher and the system have grave impact into what a child becomes when he is nurtured with the right education and both his home and school invested in this basic human right. But what those children who do not get proper education or does home schooling? Couldn’t they contribute to society as well? What I am pointing out is that it is not merely the elements of social capital that makes children better in school. Even access to education, the right people and even genetics (are you smart enough) all have effects on what one may become.