Modern Community in Putnam’s Bowling Alone

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

The State of Community Described by Robert Putnam
Political Institutions
Economic Institutions
Cultural Institutions
Conclusion
References
Footnotes

The concerns regarding the state of community in modern society are well-studied by present-day scholars. One of the authors contributing to the expansion of knowledge on this subject is Robert Putnam, and he advances the idea of the significance of this aspect’s neglect resulting in the gradual decline in prosperity.¹ His book comprehensively reflects on the causes and effects of this process, thereby encouraging the population to engage in the essential organizations and promote welfare through greater participation in principal activities. Hence, the representation of his views confirmed by the statistical data reiterates the interrelation between Americans’ conduct and the healthy state of society.

The State of Community Described by Robert Putnam

The principal factor underlying Putnam’s works is a drastic change in the degree of people’s participation in public life. According to him, their passive involvement in establishing prosperous relationships between its major institutions is conditional upon the trend for citizens to socialize less within membership organizations and various associations.² This situation seems to undermine the founding concepts of the American government, which are community and collective action significant for everyone’s well-being.³ In this way, the concerns of the scholar are connected to the shifts in the world, resulting in the mentioned negative outcomes. He claims that there are various reasons for the emergence of this problem, including technological progress with social media development and the change in the mentality of new generations.⁴ Thus, the state of community in modern society, as per Robert Putnam, is alarming in all aspects, whether it is politics, economy, or culture.

Political Institutions

The first type of institutions directly affected by the mentioned change is political entities, and the influence of a common mindset can be revealed through the consideration of people’s decisions in this respect. As follows from Putnam’s book, this field’s negative transformation over the past three decades was triggered by the lowest turnout during the twentieth-century elections.⁵ It was complemented by the government’s efforts to ensure the young black population’s access to exercising this right while ignoring their inactivity.⁶ These results are confirmed by two other studies, which provide evidence of these critical issues in the country.

Their researchers examined the problems specified above with regard to their presence in society. The former discussed the apathy of voters, which cannot be changed through populism.⁷ In turn, the latter underpinned the consideration of essential challenges in this respect by the findings asserting that the younger generation is less likely to be efficiently targeted by policy-makers.⁸ This situation contradicts the Biblical wisdom from Matthew 28:18, stating that “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,” which means that the granted political rights should be implemented.⁹ Therefore, the picture painted by Putnam alongside other authors reflects on the inability of modern political institutions to bring prosperity.

Economic Institutions

The second aspect, which can be used to trace the strong tendencies of communities of the time, is the economy, and its status also seems critical from the point of view of welfare. According to Putnam, the main changes in this field are the prevalence of weak ties in contrast to strong connections of the past and increased partnerships.¹⁰ These factors related to people’s perceptions of business operations are accompanied by the rising tolerance towards inequality at both the individual and societal level.¹¹ Moreover, the societal dimensions of respective ecosystems reveal the connection between the field as a whole with the shifts specified above.¹² Meanwhile, as it is written in Ecclesiastes 5:10, “Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless.”¹³ Hence, the sole orientation on profits while neglecting others is the wrong path for the global economy.

Cultural Institutions

The third category of entities is cultural institutions, and they also have been affected by the overall indifference of the population. From this perspective, the decline in participation in political organizations and the neglect of the societal aspect of economic progress are added by the refusal from the involvement in memberships’. For example, Putnam emphasizes the worsening church attendance among the citizens, which continues gradually decreasing.¹⁴ This phenomenon accelerated the advancement of improper values, and it is confirmed by the fact that digital means enlarge the gaps between the active and inactive members of society.¹⁵ Nevertheless, the significance of cooperation is highlighted by Psalm 106:35: “But they mingled with the nations and adopted their customs.”¹⁶ Consequently, the current status of cultural entities does not promote prosperity in communities.

Conclusion

To conclude, Robert Putnam criticized the ability of modern political, economic, and cultural institutions to create a flourishing society by describing the unfavorable environment in these areas. It was explained by the passivity of citizens and their acceptance of inequality in essential fields. His thoughts are complemented by the works of other scholars who received similar results in examining the present-day organizations. Thus, the identified problems lead to the emergence of a wider gap between people following the principles of cooperation and mutual understanding and their indifferent counterparts, which should not be tolerated in a healthy community.

References

Ardag, Murat M., Bruno Castanho Silva, Philipp J. Thomeczek, Steffen F. Bandlow-Raffalski, and Levente Littvay. “Populist Attitudes and Political Engagement: Ugly, Bad, and Sometimes Good?.” Representation 56, no. 3 (2020): 307-330. Web.

Audretsch, David B., James A. Cunningham, Donald F. Kuratko, Erik E. Lehmann, and Matthias Menter. “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Economic, Technological, and Societal Impacts.”The Journal of Technology Transfer 44, no. 2 (2019): 313-325. Web.

Bettache, Karim, Chi-yue Chiu, and Peter Beattie. “The Merciless Mind in a Dog-Eat-Dog Society: Neoliberalism and the Indifference to Social Inequality.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 34 (2020): 217-222. Web.

Bible Study Tools. “Ecclesiastes 5:10.” n.d. Web.

Bible Study Tools. “Matthew 28:18.” n.d. Web.

Bible Study Tools. “Psalm 106:35.” n.d. Web.

Endres, Kyle, and Kristin J. Kelly. “Does Microtargeting Matter? Campaign Contact Strategies and Young Voters.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 28, no. 1 (2018): 1-18. Web.

Mihelj, Sabina, Adrian Leguina, and John Downey. “Culture is Digital: Cultural Participation, Diversity and the Digital Divide.” New Media & Society 21, no. 7 (2019): 1465-1485. Web.

Putnam, Robert. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2020.

Footnotes

Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2020), 37.
Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, 11.
Putnam, 10.
Putnam, 352.
Putnam, 53.
Putnam, 56.
Murat M. Ardag, Bruno Castanho Silva, Philipp J. Thomeczek, Steffen F. Bandlow-Raffalski, and Levente Littvay, “Populist Attitudes and Political Engagement: Ugly, Bad, and Sometimes Good?,” Representation 56, no. 3 (2020): 325. Web.
Kyle Endres, and Kristin J. Kelly, “Does Microtargeting Matter? Campaign Contact Strategies and Young Voters,” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 28, no. 1 (2018): 15. Web.
“Matthew 28:18,” Bible Study Tools. n.d. Web.
Putnam, 514.
Karim Bettache, Chi-yue Chiu, and Peter Beattie, “The Merciless Mind in a Dog-Eat-Dog Society: Neoliberalism and the Indifference to Social Inequality,” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 34 (2020): 220. Web.
David B. Audretsch, James A. Cunningham, Donald F. Kuratko, Erik E. Lehmann, and Matthias Menter, “Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Economic, Technological, and Societal Impacts,” The Journal of Technology Transfer 44, no. 2 (2019): 318. Web.
“Ecclesiastes 5:10,” Bible Study Tools. n.d. Web.
Putnam, 11.
Sabina Mihelj, Adrian Leguina, and John Downey, “Culture is Digital: Cultural Participation, Diversity and the Digital Divide,” New Media & Society 21, no. 7 (2019): 1480. Web.
“Psalm 106:35,” Bible Study Tools. n.d. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!