Bowling (Almost) Alone

     For today, I found my response to Putnam's, "Bowling Alone."  While I was unable to find a review which addressed solely his article, I chose a review which addressed his book by the same title.  The review is by Carol Armstrong, a doctoral student at the University of Southern California, and I chose her response because she concisesly addressed both the insights and flaws of Putnam's arguement about social capital. 
     She begins by addressing Putnam's thesis, saying, "Putnam decried the decline of civic engagement in teh US., claiming that a large majority of American no longer participate in fae-to-face, small-scale social networking"(Armstrong, 1).    Her direct address of his thesis allows her to examine how  successful he is in its defense.
     Armstrong feels that Putnam succeeds in demonstrating the "importance of social capital as a necessary priority for future community reform efforts"(1).  She makes the point that Putnam's greatest achievement in writing the book is to address that there is a problem, opening the eyes and striking a "resonant chord"(1) with readers.   Armstrong praises his exposure of issues emerging in younger generations, as well as his research methods, saying, "Putnam's method of analysis sets an important precedent- we should track and assess diverse aspects of social behavior and compare them across a variety of regions over time"(5).  However, this is where she claims that Putnam's argument deteriorates.
     The first major problem she notes in Putnam's argument is a weak analysis of why social capital is deterioration in the United States.  He places emphasis upon television, the internet, urban sprawl and generational differences as main factors contributing to social capital's decline.  Armstrong, however, suggests that his generalizations are too broad, ignoring many nuances which could also be playing significant roles in the decline.  She suggests several possibilities Putnam does not, including the fact that many younger citizens are pursuing higher education while working, and the number of Americans today employed in "irregular jobs" is higher than ever.  Others go on many business trips, and while they have a stable home, are not often present.  These three conditions provide a high level of stress which does not foster social capital.  She connects these factors to the issue of technology, suggesting that Americans in stressful work and study environments may wish to spend their leisure time "escaping" stress with technology, not interacting people.  She indicates that instead of blaming television for societal problems, it could be used more wisely and productively by funding better programming.
Armstrong, unlike Putnam, whom she deems a "doomsayer" (2), stresses that there is hope for American society in the realm of social capital if changes are made.  She agrees wholeheartedly that increasing social capital is beneficial to society, and, if citizens supported and funded civic engagement, improvements could start to be made.