Bowling Alone

Robert D. Putnam

出版时间

2001-08-07

ISBN

9780743203043

评分

★★★★★
书籍介绍

Amazon.com Review

Few people outside certain scholarly circles had heard the name Robert D. Putnam before 1995. But then this self-described "obscure academic" hit a nerve with a journal article called "Bowling Alone." Suddenly he found himself invited to Camp David, his picture in People magazine, and his thesis at the center of a raging debate. In a nutshell, he argued that civil society was breaking down as Americans became more disconnected from their families, neighbors, communities, and the republic itself. The organizations that gave life to democracy were fraying. Bowling became his driving metaphor. Years ago, he wrote, thousands of people belonged to bowling leagues. Today, however, they're more likely to bowl alone:

Television, two-career families, suburban sprawl, generational changes in values--these and other changes in American society have meant that fewer and fewer of us find that the League of Women Voters, or the United Way, or the Shriners, or the monthly bridge club, or even a Sunday picnic with friends fits the way we have come to live. Our growing social-capital deficit threatens educational performance, safe neighborhoods, equitable tax collection, democratic responsiveness, everyday honesty, and even our health and happiness.

The conclusions reached in the book Bowling Alone rest on a mountain of data gathered by Putnam and a team of researchers since his original essay appeared. Its breadth of information is astounding--yes, he really has statistics showing people are less likely to take Sunday picnics nowadays. Dozens of charts and graphs track everything from trends in PTA participation to the number of times Americans say they give "the finger" to other drivers each year. If nothing else, Bowling Alone is a fascinating collection of factoids. Yet it does seem to provide an explanation for why "we tell pollsters that we wish we lived in a more civil, more trustworthy, more collectively caring community." What's more, writes Putnam, "Americans are right that the bonds of our communities have withered, and we are right to fear that this transformation has very real costs." Putnam takes a stab at suggesting how things might change, but the book's real strength is in its diagnosis rather than its proposed solutions. Bowling Alone won't make Putnam any less controversial, but it may come to be known as a path-breaking work of scholarship, one whose influence has a long reach into the 21st century. --John J. Miller --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Publishers Weekly

"If you don't go to somebody's funeral, they won't come to yours," Yogi Berra once said, neatly articulating the value of social networks. In this alarming and important study, Putnam, a professor of sociology at Harvard, charts the grievous deterioration over the past two generations of the organized ways in which people relate to one another and partake in civil life in the U.S. For example, in 1960, 62.8% of Americans of voting age participated in the presidential election, whereas by 1996, the percentage had slipped to 48.9%. While most Americans still claim a serious "religious commitment," church attendance is down roughly 25%-50% from the 1950s, and the number of Americans who attended public meetings of any kind dropped 40% between 1973 and 1994. Even the once stable norm of community life has shifted: one in five Americans moves once a year, while two in five expect to move in five years. Putnam claims that this has created a U.S. population that is increasingly isolated and less empathetic toward its fellow citizens, that is often angrier and less willing to unite in communities or as a nation. Marshaling a plentiful array of facts, figures, charts and survey results, Putnam delivers his message with verve and clarity. He concludes his analysis with a concise set of potential solutions, such as educational programs, work-based initiatives and funded community-service programs, offering a ray of hope in what he perceives to be a dire situation. Agent, Rafe Sagalyn. 3-city tour; 20-city radio satellite tour. (June)

Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Robert D. Putnam is the Malkin Research Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University and a former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Nationally honored as a leading humanist and a renowned scientist, he has written fourteen books, including the bestselling Our Kids and Bowling Alone, and has consulted for the last four US Presidents. In 2012, President Obama ...

(展开全部)

AI导读
核心看点
  • 揭示美国社会资本衰退现象
  • 分析电视与郊区化对社区影响
  • 探讨连接性与黏合性社会资本
适合谁读
  • 社会学与政治学研究者
  • 关注公共事务的公民
  • 社区建设与治理从业者
读前提醒
  • 注意区分相关性与因果关系
  • 批判性看待数据与结论
  • 结合当代社会背景思考
读者共识
  • 数据详实但论证受争议
  • 引发对社会疏离的反思
  • 部分结论被认为过于悲观

本导读基于书籍简介、目录、原文摘录、短评和书评生成,不等同于全文精读。

精彩摘录
  • "在所有这些不同形式的社会资本里,可能最重要的区别便是连接性社会资本(bridging social capital)与黏合性社会资本(bonding social capital),也可称为兼容性(inclusive)社会资本和排他性(exclusive)社会资本。有些社会资本的形式是以关注自身为重点,倾向于强调小团体的地位。这类社会资本包括按种族区分的兄弟会,以教会为基础的妇女读书会,和时髦的乡村俱乐部。另外一些社会资本,其眼光向外看,包容各个社会阶层的成员,民权运动、青年服务组织等等. 黏合性社会资本有助于加强特定的互惠原则和成员间的团结。例如,以种族为特征区分的社会网络可以为成员提供社会"
  • "家长和社区参与是目前提升学校教育质量而进行的主要探索。事实上,两种存在较多争议的改革办法——创办特许学校和为孩子们上私立学校提供由公共财政指出的教券(voucher)——可以被看作是家长们试图让孩子们获得“社区导向”的益处所做的努力。该项目的批评者们担心,它们只会增强业已存在的教育不公。支持者们坚持认为,将教育置于自由市场的无形之手将会为每个人改善质量,因为学校会为了产出而被迫竞争。尽管要区分哪一方正确还为时过早,但我们确有如下证据:如果“自由选择”项目有效,这些项目的成功可能较少地证明市场魔力,而较多地证明社会资本的魔力。教育改革运动鼓励孩子到规模较小、更加社区化的学校去上学,可能会有一些未"
  • "大量受过良好教育的中产阶级年轻人···在60年代末和79年代退出教会···一些人加入新的宗教运动,一些人通过各种通灵疗法和修行来寻求个人智慧的启迪,不论是以什么方式,大多数人都完全”脱离“了有组织的宗教。···[这造成了]宗教心理趋向高度个人化,而不是通过信仰群体来获得强有力的支持。在20世纪60年代之后,人们追寻更好实现个人价值以及理想的自我,这成为上述趋势的主要推力····在这种表现型个人主义(expressive individualism)的氛围之下,宗教变得”私人化“了,或者说,更加扎根于私人领域之内。"
  • "任何社会变化——从说唱音乐的兴起到新闻报纸的衰落——都是两个不同过程结合的产物。第一个过程是因为许多个体同时朝一个方向改变品味与习惯。这种社会变化能够很快发生,却也可以很快被颠覆。如果大量美国人,不论老幼,如同90年代时那样,喜欢上了运动型汽车,那么,汽车市场就会很快转型,能够同样快地转向另一方向。 社会学家称这种类型为“intracohort”,因为这种变化在每一年龄群中都可以被观察到。"
  • "第二个过程更为缓慢、更为微妙,并且更难被颠覆。如果不同年龄的人有不同的品味或喜好,社会生理上的出生和死亡最终会改变这个社会,即使没有个体作过任何改变。例如美国人的性观念变化。 社会学家称这种变化为“intercohort”,因为这种变化只有在跨年龄群体间才可以被观察到。正因为代际变化的节奏较为缓慢,所以,它几乎更加不可阻挡。"
  • "心理学家马丁·塞利格曼(Martin Seligman)认为,越来越多的人感觉不满意,是因为现代社会对于个人支配和自由的崇尚远甚于投身于社会责任和公共事业。这种转变促使我们在已有的基础上产生了更高的期望,那就是我们能通过选择和奋斗取得成功,并且使我们在毫无准备的情况下去面对人生不可避免的失败。一旦我们处于回头求助于社会资本—家庭、教会、朋友—的境地,这些社会资本却并没有强大到足以缓冲我们的衰落。"
  • "增长的新社团是拥有专业雇员的倡议型组织,而非以会员为中心,立足地方的组织。新出现的组织将精力主要集中放在在全国性政治辩论中表达自己的政策观点,而不是为其在基层的个体会员之间提供联系。"
  • "绿色和平通过非常积极的直邮计划(向非会员提供一份免费礼物后请求捐赠)变成了美国最大的环保组织,在1990年它的顶峰时期,其会员占了全国性环保组织的三分之一还要多。当时,绿和的领导人由于关注环保组织制造了大量垃圾邮件的壮观局面,决定暂时削减直邮请求。于是,汤淼的会员人数几乎马上就开始骤减,到1998年,绿色和平的会员直线下降85%。"
作者简介
Robert D. Putnam is the Malkin Research Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University and a former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government. Nationally honored as a leading humanist and a renowned scientist, he has written fourteen books, including the bestselling Our Kids and Bowling Alone, and has consulted for the last four US Presidents. In 2012, President Obama awarded him the National Humanities Medal, the nation’s highest honor for contributions to the humanities. His research program, the Saguaro Seminar, is dedicated to fostering civic engagement in America. Visit RobertDPutnam.com.
用户评论
终于读完了,太不容易了。看到评价认为缺乏定性研究,但我觉得这本书从分析现象和推测成因是借鉴流行病学的研究方法,所以不是很大问题。但确实成因部分的说服力更弱,特别是关于女性paid labor的增加和社会资本削弱的关系,不考虑女性结婚后的SES移动而单就横截面进行比较,对于我来说很难相信这个结论。但是我觉得关于代理性政治参与、中间派的消融等都很有借鉴意义,我不认为这在我们这个环境下完全没有generalization的可能性,恰恰是这种时候,对话比冲突更重要。
was expecting a more rigorous analysis, but only found it disappointing and disturbing. The analysis is very crude and some conclusions Putnam drew are even wrong by simply looking into the figures. Moreover, many indicators that should have been separated are put together, which lead to somewhat superficial argument...
Social Capital的奠基之作。嘲讽的是,今年已是2010年。Putnam打算什么时候写新论文?
画大饼画的又圆又漂亮(所有曲线都能精确下滑),颇有一种看图说话、指点江山的豪迈气概。这本书让我理解到一本糟糕的社会学著作能多么以偏概全、排列简单数据进行贸然因果推断来糊弄人。真不知普特曼和TV是有多大仇,坚持认为经济压力、城乡流动、交通距离(住宅区隔)、大众传媒(电视)、和年代差异才是抹杀了社会参与的缘由,逻辑论证那么简单真的不会出错吗?未来发展趋势如何从纯跑数据得出?社群研究那么大的话题,没有定性基础怎么观察?社会资本那么重要的话题,被你在第四部分简化成它有多么多么好,太不厚道(倒是虚拟社会资本很有意思)。第五部分历史水平不敢恭维,终章时甚至开始了“Let us..by 2010..”的呼吁,简直把我吓坏了。只画一块大饼自圆其说,根本无法让人满意。数据很惊人,Appendix值得围观 M
也许没有那么lonely
大约2023/6读完 美国1940-2000半个世纪过程中社会资本(人与人之间的合作链接)逐渐下降。不论是在政治参与、公民参与、宗教参与、工作场合的联结、日常生活、公益活动等各个方面,有各种来源的数据。 社会上人与人联结变少带来一系列后果,包括犯罪率增加、心理健康水平差孤独问题、给教育、经济繁荣、民主政治等带来的危害。 并分析了原因:时间和金钱的压力,流动性和郊区化扩散,技术和大众媒体如电视网络的流行代替了真实社交互动,代际的更替(战后一代是更有公民意识、更加团结的一代,而这代人逐渐老去)。 最后一部分是介绍了进步时代(1990左右)时期,美国开始进入城市化、工业化,也带来了很多问题,社会资本下降,但是当时的人们也组织了很多活动去改善这些问题。提倡现在也应该采取新的措施改变局面。
开头的故事很吸引人,数据处理比较一般,到后面就挺没劲了,可能我没有实证的taste,要是以后写这种书介绍一堆工具变量,那估计是一场灾难吧
主要探讨social capital的流失。陈述的都是事实,也确实让人对社会走向迷茫,毕竟这么多年过去了情况只是越发糟糕并没有丝毫改善(年轻一代与其说是对社会政治参与度变高不如说是日渐极端二极管了)但是讲真的内向铁宅其实很难从个人层面共情......
在学校另外一个图书馆,因为懒得去市中心(步行十分钟😑),选取了 request服务。在study center拿到书后,发现沉甸甸的一本。粗略扫过,梳理了重要的几个概念,social trust, reciprocity, honesty等
收藏