Robert Putnam’s 1995 essay “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital,” which he later expanded into the book _Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community_ (2000) surveys the decline of “social capital” in the United States since 1950. Putnam notes the aggregate loss in membership in civic organizations over the past half-century and points out that membership has not migrated to other organizations. He then argues that Americans’ disengagement from political involvement -including decreased voter turnout, less public meeting attendance, and less people serving on committees and working with political parties- has undermined the active civic engagement a participatory democracy requires from its citizens. To Putnam, the decline in Americans' membership in social organizations is problematic to democracy because people increasingly live life in isolation and do not participate in social interaction and political discussions. According to Putnam, the main culprit is the growth of television and the associated isolation and one-way communication involved with television spectatorship. In short, people are watching television by themselves instead of talking.
Since Putnam’s data was collected on the precipice of mass internet adoption, he could only speculate in 1995 about the impact of the internet, and insisted that it was too early to be definitive about its consequences for social capital. He predicted that, as with television, as people spend their time using the Internet, they would have less time to face-to-face socialize and share information, values, and outlooks that are crucial to a robust citizenry and thus social capital, and ultimately democracy would suffer (para. 39).
Some of the essays in _Society Online_, however, seem to suggest that one of the fast developing areas of social capital is on the internet. For example, Elena Larsen writes that “one in four adult internet users in the United States has sought religious material on the internet at one point or another” (p. 46). Though the value of such religious bonding is relative, it seems to build social capital among believers as they extend and strengthen online social networks when surfers give prayer or spiritual support online (p. 49). Larsen reports that “our findings show that people take to religious life on the internet to augment lives that are already devout,” as most religion surfers already belong to a congregation that meets in real life (p. 51). Those who use the Net for religious purposes then can self-select information via websites that confirm their pre-existing religious beliefs and nurture networks that make their beliefs seem normative. This in turn can naturalize and normativize their real time congregation and personal beliefs. This is one way in which the internet can expand individuals’ and congregations social capital.
Leslie Regan Shade’s article suggests that the Internet provides a bridge for individuals to reach a wider array of contacts and also deepens the bonds among existing family and friends. Shade asserts that the most popular use of the internet for women is e-mail, which is used to keep up with distant family and friends. She also mentions that women tend to surf the internet for health, employment, and religious information. It seems, then, at least in these studies, that the internet has the potential to allow individuals to escape the technology-imposed isolation that Putnam predicts. The more optimistic picture these researchers pose is one in which people use the internet to reconnect with members of their social networks when lack of time and distance are imposed. This strengthening of interpersonal ties through communication is the very substance Putnam might consider “social capital.” So is the interactive nature of the web, where surfers can post or dispute information in web forums where knowledge is made among an interpretive community. I see no reason why this should not count as social capital building among those whom participate in this virtual activity only because they are not sitting in the same room. Perhaps Putnam’s lack of foresight on the interactive nature of the web precluded him from distinguishing the web from other, one-way communication mediums, such as television. I think Putnam’s lack of foresight made him fear that the internet would be just another vehicle where a sea of uncontested information and entertainment would clog the information highway and overwhelm a passive user. Instead, it appears that users are active agents who bypass information and entertainment they deem irrelevant and seek out information and contacts that are meaningful to them.
2 comments:
Robert Putnam’s 1995 essay “Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital,” which he later expanded into the book _Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community_ (2000) surveys the decline of “social capital” in the United States since 1950. Putnam notes the aggregate loss in membership in civic organizations over the past half-century and points out that membership has not migrated to other organizations. He then argues that Americans’ disengagement from political involvement -including decreased voter turnout, less public meeting attendance, and less people serving on committees and working with political parties- has undermined the active civic engagement a participatory democracy requires from its citizens. To Putnam, the decline in Americans' membership in social organizations is problematic to democracy because people increasingly live life in isolation and do not participate in social interaction and political discussions. According to Putnam, the main culprit is the growth of television and the associated isolation and one-way communication involved with television spectatorship. In short, people are watching television by themselves instead of talking.
Since Putnam’s data was collected on the precipice of mass internet adoption, he could only speculate in 1995 about the impact of the internet, and insisted that it was too early to be definitive about its consequences for social capital. He predicted that, as with television, as people spend their time using the Internet, they would have less time to face-to-face socialize and share information, values, and outlooks that are crucial to a robust citizenry and thus social capital, and ultimately democracy would suffer (para. 39).
Some of the essays in _Society Online_, however, seem to suggest that one of the fast developing areas of social capital is on the internet. For example, Elena Larsen writes that “one in four adult internet users in the United States has sought religious material on the internet at one point or another” (p. 46). Though the value of such religious bonding is relative, it seems to build social capital among believers as they extend and strengthen online social networks when surfers give prayer or spiritual support online (p. 49). Larsen reports that “our findings show that people take to religious life on the internet to augment lives that are already devout,” as most religion surfers already belong to a congregation that meets in real life (p. 51). Those who use the Net for religious purposes then can self-select information via websites that confirm their pre-existing religious beliefs and nurture networks that make their beliefs seem normative. This in turn can naturalize and normativize their real time congregation and personal beliefs. This is one way in which the internet can expand individuals’ and congregations social capital.
Leslie Regan Shade’s article suggests that the Internet provides a bridge for individuals to reach a wider array of contacts and also deepens the bonds among existing family and friends. Shade asserts that the most popular use of the internet for women is e-mail, which is used to keep up with distant family and friends. She also mentions that women tend to surf the internet for health, employment, and religious information. It seems, then, at least in these studies, that the internet has the potential to allow individuals to escape the technology-imposed isolation that Putnam predicts. The more optimistic picture these researchers pose is one in which people use the internet to reconnect with members of their social networks when lack of time and distance are imposed. This strengthening of interpersonal ties through communication is the very substance Putnam might consider “social capital.” So is the interactive nature of the web, where surfers can post or dispute information in web forums where knowledge is made among an interpretive community. I see no reason why this should not count as social capital building among those whom participate in this virtual activity only because they are not sitting in the same room. Perhaps Putnam’s lack of foresight on the interactive nature of the web precluded him from distinguishing the web from other, one-way communication mediums, such as television. I think Putnam’s lack of foresight made him fear that the internet would be just another vehicle where a sea of uncontested information and entertainment would clog the information highway and overwhelm a passive user. Instead, it appears that users are active agents who bypass information and entertainment they deem irrelevant and seek out information and contacts that are meaningful to them.
Sorry, couldn't get away from the Putnam again.
Post a Comment