This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent anyone else's view in any way, including those of my employer.
© Copyright 2008
In the year 2000, the literary rage was all about Robert Putnam’s book Bowling Alone. Today (2008), the “must read” book is Clay Shirky’s Here Comes Everybody. Shirky’s premise is that with the development of advanced networking technologies (Web 2.0?), group formation and collaborative action are happening rapidly and abundantly (i.e. everybody is coming…). This comes a mere eight years after Putnam’s book. I wrote about Putnam extensively in an article published in a peer-reviewed (not open access, UGH) journal so for the purposes of making my argument about community and social capital, I’m copying what I wrote below, with irrelevant parts deleted (I don’t have to cite myself, do I?):
Based on analyses of large datasets and evidence from nearly 500,000 interviews over the last quarter century, Putnam (2000) concludes that our stock of social capital – the very fabric of our connections with each other, has dropped dramatically, thus impoverishing our lives and communities. He documents that we sign fewer petitions, belong to fewer organizations that meet, know our neighbors less, meet with friends less frequently, and even socialize with our families less often. We are even bowling alone. More Americans are bowling than ever before, but they are not bowling in leagues. In other words, we are increasingly disconnected from family, friends, neighbors, and our democratic structures.
Putnam (2000) offers a number of reasons for this collapse of community in America. Among those reasons, time pressure, especially on two-career families, is considered one of the primary suspects., changes in family structures mean more and more of us are living alone and conventional means to civic engagement are not designed around single and/or childless people. Also, suburban sprawl is an important contributor to the loss of community as we live further away from one another and further away from cultural and civic centers…
The next paragraph that I wrote is the kicker here:
Putnam (2000), in his writing about the collapse of community, does address digital communications and argues that electronic entertainment, especially television, has severely privatized our leisure time and, therefore, has become a major contributor to the collapse of community. However, Putnam (2000) also admits that the verdict on the Internet is still out. That is, it may be that the primary effect of the Internet will be to reinforce existing social networks, as the telephone has done, or the Internet might become a virtual substitute for them.
So, has the Internet reinforced existing social networks or has it become a virtual substitute for them. Or, perhaps, Putnam’s binary choice was false. Maybe the Internet has had a different effect on social networks? Either way, I would argue that a LOT has happened in just 8 years. I don’t quite yet know what it is that we are doing with our social networking technology, but we are NOT bowling alone anymore.
Categories
Tag Cloud
Blog RSS
Comments RSS
Void « Default
Life 
Earth 
Wind 
Water 
Fire Light 
Previous 
Next 
Last 50 Posts
Back
I have only started reading Shirkey, so I don’t have the full effect of the book. I am probably behind the curve on that too, but I do think that I can see Putnam and Shirkey speaking of our different uses of vastly different venues. We don’t physically associate (bowling) as much as we did in the past (pre-2000), but our virtual society is exploding (Flicker) at a nearly unmeasurable rate. Agreed, a LOT has changed in 8 years.
Dr. Becker–As a new Facebooker (it’s summer, I’m a teacher) I have been thinking a lot about your question here and about social networking. At first, it was exciting. Gosh! All of these old high school frieds still want to be friends with ME! What an ego boost! Sadly, though, no one wrote on my wall that they wanted to get together at Starbucks, even though my favorite drink is listed on my profile. (I’m really not sad, but I know you can’t hear my sarcastic tone.)While I enjoy cruising through friends’ profiles, It begins to feel Shakespearean in that no matter in what year,on what platform, in what stage of humanity–people are all the same in the personal images they want to project on to others. For example, Facebookers can answer this question at any time: “What are you doing now?” How many people do you think say “I’m fighting with my husband” or “I’m mopping the floor.” No, people answer it: “I’m going out with my fabulous supper club” or “I’m loving on my sweet, sweet children.” They never admit that their kids are being smart-alecky or that they are hitting each other. For profile pictures, everyone looks blonde and fabulous. In picture albums, families are all smiles. All talk is about vacationing and going out–nothing about work stress and the doldrums everyday people have. So for me, facebook brought me together with a total of 56 friends (should I have more? Is this enough? How many does Jane have down the street? How can I get more?), all about whom I know nothing real. I would say we’re bowling with ourselves and our high school Homecoming Queen (what an honor!) but the game is exactly the same. Throw the ball, knock down the pins, always keep score.
On Facebook you can “send” friends drinks; I say, let’s go out, friend, get one in person. Let’s talk without an audience of people trying to get the scoop on your weaknesses. If you have the time.
@Betsy – love the wit. I’m a self-proclaimed over-socializer, and the digital social world just isn’t enough (as you note). I need the physical presence of others – I thrive on it. The digital social world, however, allows me to get to know (with whatever safety nets in place) people from Oregon and Virginia, for example, that I’d never meet in person. You want the reality – bald and overweight, kids don’t always bring me joy, work can be frustrating, and just finished cleaning up a huge tree branch that fell in my yard. Not quite the fantasy of life, but I do love the living part. So the “bowling” that is becoming more limited is my passion, but I can do the “virtual drink” option with a wider net. Really not a bad combination.
@Betsy – great stuff. It is interesting to think about how folks “project” themselves in online communities. I would also add that interpreting the written word is vastly different than interpreting the f-2-f spoken word. Think about how differently you approach your choice of words when you write as opposed to when you speak. So, yes, these communities are different.
The lingering question for me is not so much about social networking for social purposes, but social networking for professional purposes. Can we accomplish the same sorts of things via online networking tools we would otherwise do f-2-f? I think the Edubloggercon I attended yesterday gave me some good data towards a better understanding of that question.
Betsy: Yes I agree we are still bowling alone even with the development of advanced networking
technologies. You might even add that you are never quite sure that who you are communicating with is really who they say they are.
Maybe the Internet has had a different effect on social networks, not replacing them but metmorphisizing them into to an unknown thing. Like the catepillar we hope will become a beautiful butterfly, social networking on the internet could become anything, hopefully.
Marshall, again how do I really know what you wrote is actually true or just a story to illustrate a point. Through this virtual bowling league anything is possible.
[...] about the power of hybrid (virtual + face-to-face) communities in the education contexts (see e.g. this blog post). For my wife, this hybrid natural and attachment parenting (NAP) community has comforted her in [...]
Interesting blog. I love Bowling Alone. I find it fascinating. In fact, I wrote a blog entry comparing it to the Great Good Place by Ray Oldenberg, which deals with a similar topic. Have your read that?
With a few exceptions I think that technology takes away from community bonding. Look at the garage door opener as an example. Now people don’t even have to leave their cars when they get home from work. What room does that leave for neighborhood interaction.
Technology often gives us the illusion of social networking without the real physical and mental benefits. It’s like the difference between a Starbucks and a real community coffee house. On the surface they may look the same but the community spirit and uplifting interactions aren’t.
Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog.
Cheers! Sandra. R.