I attended a panel at the Brown University/Providence Journal Public
Affairs Conference the other night (Feb. 28). Mara Liasson (NPR) was the
moderator and Ben Barber, Alexander Astin, and Curtis Gans were the
panelists. The topic was social disengagement and so, naturally, Putnam's
ideas about "bowling alone" came up. Barber criticized Putnam's analysis
because Putnam is measuring a particular type of association that is from
an era gone by (bowling leagues, etc.) and that, in the 1990's, new types
of associations have become more popular. Barber says we need to measure
these new associations to see what the true level of participation is,
rather than measuring the 1990's by types of association more typical to
the 1950's. Whether Barber is right or not, I think the point is that we
need to look at these "trends" and numbers carefully, not just to lament a
decline in community or feel good about increases in civic participation
but to understand _what kinds_ of participation have declined or increased
and to start to understand _why_. Only then can we begin to plan strategic
interventions.
The front page article in Sunday's _New York Times_ (Feb. 25) suggests that
neighborhood associations and other similar groups have increased their
activities in the last few years. More evidence to counter Putnam?
Marie Troppe