An important criticism of Putnam it that his decline thesis is too pessimistic and that his argument about the benefits of social capital is too optimistic. Why is Putnam both too pessimistic and too optimistic?  In your judgment, how can Putnam respond, if at all, to either of these criticisms?

Please note

“Judgment” does NOT mean that you merely state or assert your opinion. It means that you must support your opinion by good reasons, using the required reading and video. Requirements(Be sure to read them carefully and follow them in full.)

Required Readings & Online Debate (Any other literature is prohibited)

Robert D. Putnam, “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” An Interview with Robert Putnam, Journal of Democracy, 6.1 (1995), pp. 65-78.   

Robert D. Putnam, “The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life,” American Prospect, 13 (1993), pp. 35-42.  

Russell J. Dalton, “Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation,” Political Studies, 56 (2008), pp. 76-94.

Watch the debate between Putnam and Dalton on the decline thesis, click on this link or read it into your browser:   http://vimeo.com/20033131 (Links to an external site.)   You need to watch to part from 00:20:09 to 00:32:43.

Dietlind Stolle & Marc Hooghe, “Review Article: Inaccurate, Exceptional, One-Sided or Irrelevant? The Debate about the Alleged Decline of Social Capital and Civic Engagement in Western Societies,” The British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 35 (2004), pp. 149-167.

Elizabeth Theiss-Morse and John R. Hibbing, “Citizenship and Civic Engagement,” Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 8 (2005), pp. 227-249.

Javier Sajuria et al., “Tweeting Alone? An Analysis of Bridging and Bonding Social Capital in Online Networks,” American Politics Research, 43/4 (2015), pp. 708-738.

Length

Answer: minimum of 500 words – maximum 550 words. Be sure to post word count on the top of your answer. Be Sure to divide your answer to distinct paragraphs.

Two (2) responses: minimum 200 words – maximum 250 words. Be sure to post word count on the top of your responses.

1. How to cite?

Immediately after quoting, do the following: (Putnam, page number or: Video, 00: minute: second).

1. At the end of your answer, provide the full details of the articles/video you used.

Quality
Answer

1. Get to the point straightaway: state your answer at the beginning.

Support your answer with reasons. That is, the statements that you make in answering the question — right at the beginning (the previous point) — should be followed by supporting reasons based on the primary sources. Without them, your statements are no more than mere assertions. 

1. Do not let quotations do the job for you. Explain the point of your quotes.

Your answer should be based on, and only on, the required reading. The use of any other literature and sources is prohibited.

The answer must present a clear, well-organized argument, supported explicitly with evidence based on the REQUIRED READINGS.  Do NOT rush into answering: Be sure to understand the question, read the primary source with the question at hand, and reflect before you write.

Be sure to divide your answer to distinctive paragraphs.

1. Two (2) responses

The two (2) responses to classmates should reflect a thoughtful reaction to their post with comments that further the discussion. It will not do to merely state how much you like and agree with the answer that you respond to. If you disagree, provides reasons. If you agree, provide your own support.

1. Be sure to post 2 different responses. Posting the same response twice, or repeating most of one response in the second one will count as one (1) response only.

Be sure to state the full name (first and last) of the student to whom you respond.

1. Be sure to respond only to an answer that has no response or one (1) response.

Academic dishonesty
If you quote, you must use quotation marks and cite the specific page of the quotation. Failure to do both or either will result in an automatic grade of ‘0’.

How shall I assess your Answer (& Responses)? I shall evaluate it according to

the quality of the content of your analysis;: the thoroughness, quality of support, and relevance of your treatment of the question;

REPLY TO 

Words: 544

Starting with Putnam’s decline thesis which argues that there is a decline in civic engagement. The argument goes that voluntary association teaches people through tolerance to “appreciate differences…and basic democratic values” by introducing them to those with differing view points (Hibbing 230). In turn, these connections push people to be active in civic society. Putman argues that these groups are disappearing and because of that social capital in the United States is decaying.

First, the assumption on which Putman decline thesis is based is that social capital is made by people participating in convention civic organizations. He argues that as people move away from formal groups and turn inward that social capital will decline. As people are less civically minded the “social stock of American communities slowly diminishes” (Stolle, Hooghe 149). This is optimistic for two reasons. Putnam would argue that any formal, hierarchical group produces social capital and that any social capital from these groups is positive. There are some groups like the KKK, that are innately anti-democratic and worsen bridging social capital. The effect these groups have can be described as ““unsocial” capital” or in other words that instead of teaching tolerance like civic groups should they teach the exact opposite (Hibbing 239). These groups existed in Putman’s golden age of civic engagement and were the source of divisions. If these groups do not promote tolerance than how can they create social capital? These groups exist to “protect[ion]…status” and this is a “core purpose of associations” (Theiss-Morse 240). These groups exist to separate themselves to defend the ideological and cultural image of a certain group. The second reason this is optimistic is that there is no real link between voluntary associations and civic values, or in other words that joining a group, homogenous or heterogenous, has at best a weak affect on increasing civic values (Theiss-Morse 235).

There are several reasons why Putnam’s thesis can be accused of being too pessimistic. Putnam has a heavy focus on traditional forms of civic engagement as his metric for measuring the decline in civic participation. This focus allows for a pessimistic outlook on American social capital because these levels are declining. Putnam is pessimistic because he fails to address emerging alternatives to traditional organizing. The younger generation generally “prefer participating in non-hierarchical and informal networks” that maintain loose connections amongst its members (Stolle and Hoogie 159).

Putnam can respond to these three criticisms effectively. In response that certain traditional voluntary associations teach unsocial values, Putnam could respond that these groups promote a form of social capital by teaching trust, democratic practices, and accountability (Theiss-Morse 239). Putnam could argue that these groups produce bonding social capital which according to him still carries benefits. In response to the argument that there is no link between voluntary associations and increased civic values, he could argue at least a correlation between declining traditional civic participation and a decline social participation. As participation dropped, the general trust in the government dropped (Putnam 11). Lastly, Putnam acknowledges that there are emerging forms of organizations that vary from traditional organizations. These organizations according to him “are plainly of great political importance” but simply do not fill the void left by traditional groups because of the organizational model they use (Putnam 12).

REPLY TO 

The argument that Putnam is too optimistic in his purported benefits of social capital are shown most clearly in “Citizenship and Civic Engagement”. The authors of the article state that “civic participation does not lead to, and may turn people away from, political participation” (p. 76). They support this by arguing that civic participation is often homogeneous, which presents an issue of further entrenched divisiveness, but by also arguing that heterogeneity in civil participation rarely breeds the “trust” factor that Putnam asserts is a tenet of social capital.

It can be argued that Putnam is too pessimistic in his decline thesis, when he speaks about “The technological transformation of leisure” (Putnam, 73) as a deficit to American civil participation. The article “Tweeting Alone?” presents its research findings that technology, or social media, does actually create bonding social capital.

It can also be argued that he is too pessimistic as Russell J. Dalton does in his 2008 article, “Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation”. As suggested in the title, the article counters much of what Putnam argues in his decline thesis. Dalton instead argues that the United States’ manner of citizenship and political participation have shifted and changed, rather than declined. Dalton says, “this study argues that prior research has mis-diagnosed the process by focusing on only a portion of the political activity, and by mistaking the sources of these changes.” (Dalton, p. 77). Dalton’s research was supported by data collected from a survey done by the Center for Democracy and Civil Society, which categorized citizenship norms and divided those categories into either “citizen duty” or “engaged citizen”. The survey showed that the participation in duty-based citizenship norms had declined, but the participation in engaged-based norms had increased, and so Putnam’s claims are seen as doomsday beckoning.

Putnam can respond to the claims that he is overly pessimistic in his evaluation with the dating of his interview. “Bowling Alone” was posted in January 1995. While the “Tweeting Alone?” (Sarjuria) article goes against Putnam’s theory of social decline and establishes that bonding social capital is possible over social media, Twitter was not even an inkling in the world’s mind when the interview was released. Putnam can defend himself by asserting that his article was released before the dawn of social media, so when Putnam cites “The technological transformation of leisure” as a possible explanation for the eroding of U.S. social capital, saying, “electronic technology enables individual tastes to be satisfied more fully, but at the cost of the positive social externalities associated with more primitive forms of entertainment” (Putnam, p. 73), he could not have known the extent to which social media would transform entertainment and media in the future. His words are shielded by the “ignorance” of knowing the future. The second way Putnam can respond to those claims is by countering the argument of Russell J. Dalton, about how only duty-based citizenship is the major decline of social capital seen, by raising the question of how a society can function without duty-based citizenship and participation. He does so in the debate between himself and Dalton saying, “it is not sufficient, because it does not address our collective problems” (Video, 29:53). He counters with the simple fact that it is not enough.