4.5/5 - Even 24 years later, Bowling Alone continues to be both relevant and important - maybe now more than other. It presents a compelling case for the importance of meeting regularly and in-person - irrespective of whether the meeting is religious, civic, professional, or purely social in nature.

Despite its useful elements, Bowling Alone reminds me why I spend very little time reading sociology. Putnam offers a clear and reasonably compelling argument that civic involvement (in numerous forms--political, religious, social in both formal and informal manifestations) has declined steadily since the middle 1960s. He advances a notion of "social capital"--a measurement of the resources available to individuals in communities distinct from financial capital and human capital.

He has some useful insights into some of the causes, the most important of which are: 1) the emergence of television, which draws people into individual circumstances, and reducing the number of situations in which there's critical mass for group activities; 2) the change from the generation formed by World War II, which emerged with a strong commitment to civic involvement. Putnam's reasonably careful to avoid lamentation as a rhetorical mode, and he provides copious evidence to support his assertions.

Having said that, I'm really really glad I'm done with the book and don't have to read anymore of it tomorrow. His method typifies academic sociology at its most mind-numbing. Lots and lots of graphs which say more or less the same thing. (Yes, I understand why we want real evidence). That's just dull. More problematic is the way that he parrots the sociological claim that it's possible to normalize the statistics--holding numerous variables equal in order to isolate a single variable. I'm more than slightly dubious that he's done anything of the kind. While I agree in my non (social) scientific way with his argument, I'm absolutely unconvinced that one can separate human, financial and social capital as cleanly as he claims to have done.

My final grousing is that the final segment of the book in which he looks back to the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era as analogs for the contemporary problems left me absolutely cold. I'd skip it.

A final observation--one he couldn't do anything about since the book was published in 2000--is that it would be interesting to see how the explosion of the internet and various other communications technologies has effected the patterns he identifies. Everyone reading this is probably aware that I'm a card-carrying technophobe (not quite a luddite or you wouldn't be reading this here), but I'm also aware that there are real possibilities for connecting via the net, etc. I'll check in on Putnam's website to see what he has to say about the view from 2012.

The above review is probably a bit harsh. I did learn from Bowling Alone and I'll be using bits of it in a class this semester. But, as stated previously, I'm glad that I've finished it.

Heads-up.... Know what you are getting into before starting this book.

Bowling Alone sat in my bathroom, with 20-30 pages read, for the better part of a year before I knuckled-down and forced myself to push through it. That said, this book contains a plethora of (occasionally dated) information condensed into what can best be described as a 414 page research article.

Robert Putnam does well in conveying his inferences about patterns of social decline and his beliefs on what can be done to enhance our social capital. Ironically, I decided to finish this book based on social connectedness during forced isolation resulting from COVID-19.

Critiques in style are that the author uses a "more is more is more" writing technique that makes the reader feel like they are reading the same information repeatedly. Similarly, after the first 20 tables or graphs the visual aids begin to blur. Like I said earlier though, beginning this book is on par with reading a 400+ page research article. Be prepared.

From this book I am setting a personal goal to become an "intentional television consumer," embracing my Swedish heritage, and looking at real estate in North Dakota. All suggested to improve my social capital and in turn my physical and mental health.

Not the most exciting read ever, but it got people thinking. (And citing. I can't think of a more oft-referenced book about American life in this early part of the 21st century, except, of course, Malcolm Gladwell's stuff.) Also? I'm pretty sure it didn't move a stone, in terms of social awakening. If we were "bowling alone" in 2000 before Facebook, well, how "alone" are we now?

This is the book that could have been an email.

Exhaustive is a generous term, and while of course social capitol has naturally declined with the rise of technology, I think the author should have left more to the imagination on how things don’t have to remain the same or “go back to how things were” for things to be better as the world inevitably turns.

it is slightly depressing to realize our lack of opportunities for natural discourse at times (I’m tempted to go sign up for a bowling league) but also many of the opportunities for social capital he leveraged were spaces only really meant for white, heterosexual middle-class folks.

This was a slog of a read and is a bit outdated at this point, but I appreciated it a lot. Basically it looks at tons of data to address the question of why everyone is so lonely these days. Sadly, I think we are straying ever further from the solutions posited in this book, and I fear for how society could fray as our generation gets older!

Book was interesting in the beginning and then dragged for the last third. Basically, he says “we are the way we are because of TV.”

A relatively academic read, but the author's findings are stunning, thought provoking, and conversation starting. I didn't finish it, but I read enough to feel like it enlightened my view on the social structure of the United States during the 20th century.

Glad to have finally read this book, which I still occasionally hear cited in conversation even though it's twenty years old. In this book, Robert Putnam manages to transform a massive amount of empirical sociological data into a compelling story about the decline of social connections in America. I was also impressed with his ability to help the reader understand the academic process synthesizing research data to avoid false conclusions of causation, unearth meaningful statistical trends, etc. Even though the data is two decades old, the findings and observations of this book seem as relevant today as ever. Unfortunately, most of the factors that Putnam identifies as likely causes of declining social capital (the ways we consume TV and mass media, the cultures of our workplaces, sprawl and car-centric community design, etc.) appear to be worse now than they were when the book was published. Thankfully, Putnam offers good reason for optimism, and some suggestions as to how Americans can begin to rebuild social capital in the 21st century.

This was a countywide book of the year that was shared with the public library system and the university system throughout the central coast of California at the time. Which meant that we were all reading and discussing this book at the same time. Several programs were also taking place for several months with themes relevant to the book’s points, prior to the author coming to speak about his book.

Because it was part of the public library system, our Library Book Discussion group discussed the book.

I am now bringing my review to Goodreads.

At the time this was published it was 1995. We discussed the book in the early 2000’s. It is now 2023. I wanted to say these years out-loud because I think it is important to put what was shared in the book, and where we are now, in perspective. We can all draw our own conclusions as to how we are feeling about how well we have progressed about these ideas since publication of Putnam’s book.

Putnam is a political scientist and professor of public policy at Harvard University.

In this book, one of those controversial issues he brought up was a simple but compelling explanation for low voter turnout in American elections.

He felt that too many Americans are keeping to themselves. He believed that social bonds and community ties were breaking down.

He believed that people had stopped participating in local civic group activities like bowling leagues, and that had huge implications on voter turnout.

He felt that by choosing to engage in activities individually rather than communally, we were putting at risk America’s capacity to build social capital and thus, we were contributing to the undermining of our national character.

Phew. That is a lot to consider. Right?

Why would voter participation be important?

Think about what is happening today. How many rights have been taken away. Think of how the courts have been changed.

This is what happens when people do not vote.

Putnam believed that voter participation demonstrated political interest and knowledge that served as a necessary precondition for other forms of civic involvement.

Other areas of concern that he discussed covered church participation, volunteering and socializing within the community.

And then there is this…

How will the internet enhance social presence – or detract from it?

Certainly, Putnam’s original concerns of civic atrophy deserves some credit for subsequent bursts of civic renewal.

I’d like to believe that we have figured out ways since this book was published to connect with one another – despite the pandemic or polarizing politics.

But I do believe he opened up a wonderful set of questions and concerns at the time, that deserved attention. Still deserves our attention. 4.5 stars

I was once so excited to read this classic tome! I am interested in theories of social capital and other vital yet tough-to-measure (and therefore, perpetually undervalued) things in our stats-centered world. I am squarely in this book's target audience. I should have been an easy fan.

Instead, this ended up being a total slog through thick, poorly organized prose. Worse yet, I found myself frustrated and actively disagreeing with many of Putnam's takeaways. I know this piece is nearly 20 now, but how can you use "declining PTA membership" as a key/frequent example and not even touch on women's changing labor force participation until hundreds of pages in? YIKES. Overall, the book fails to pay enough attention to the way the nature of work has contributed to these changes. Is all this disintegration truly revealed preferences, or just evidence of a life logically lived under Late Capitalism™?

I know it's a seminal text, but I honestly recommend reading the intro and then grabbing one of the many more recent (and more readable) books on the topic. I do *not* recommend force-feeding yourself all 500 pages just so you can be a member of the textual Clean Plate Club -- there is no prize.

Read this whole book just to find out it’s the boomers’ fault America sucks… coulda told you that my own self

No but it was a tough read but overall told a lot of the root of the issue in terms of the need for community and regular social interaction as a solution to most of the mental, physical, political, and spiritual issues that seem more prevalent today than any other time in history. A lot of it goes to the Industrial Revolution and inventions like cars, phones, and internet.