Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Downloads

Content

On atomisation and association.

Robert Putnam's Bowling Alone came out 22 years ago and the structural changes he identified then – increasing atomisation – have only worsened. Everyone now blames the internet, and though it may have accelerated some aspects, the problem goes deeper. The social consequences – loneliness, mistrust, depression – are widely discussed, but the political ones less so. 

Does the decline of associationalism open the door to authoritarianism? Are 'right-wing' associations (say, churches or homeowner groups) just as threatened as left-wing ones (like unions or labour clubs)? What are the political valences of growing atomisation?

And are we now like the peasants that Marx described in his 18th Brumaire: just potatoes in a sack - and does this explain the crazy politics of our time?

Links: 

Fill out our 2022 Listener Survey: tinyurl.com/bunga2022survey

From Bowling Alone to Posting Alone, Anton Jäger, Jacobin

Bowling Alone (2020 revised edition), Robert Putnam

Files

Comments

Conor

Listener Survey logic is a bit screwy (I "No'd" the Reading Club subscription question and was prompted to complete the "Like most" and "Like least" multi-selections).

Davka Smolah Collective

Gonna tell you a bit about the Friday nights I've seen. By the time I was even in undergrad, you could not just go to the bar. It was overcrowded and you couldn't hear yourself think. The cool people went to invite-only house parties. In my adult life, whether you can just go to the bar depends on the city you live in. Some cities (where I live now) have effectively tried to ban fun and make an evening out as burdensome as possible. Others (where I and friends have lived) actually still make it fun and feasible. Dating app usage appears to covary with these issues. The single weirdest thing I've seen, which I don't quite get, is people coming to religious occasions to meet boys/girls. Shabbat dinner in an Orthodox environment, then go out to bars, clubs, or karaoke with your gang of gals and boys after. Very conservative-to-reactionary organizations acting as the social glue for a milieu of people who plainly don't care in the slightest about actually obeying religious commands -- but do care about the pseudo-formality of the hosts. The counterpart events on the more secular end always end up being sort of cringe and targeted at a PMC crowd who absolutely always go home after the formal event instead of moving to informal socializing. Very, very weird. No idea why this polarization has taken shape.

Michael

Do y’all non-Americans have hash browns? I think that’s the proletato we should aspire to.

jkjkjkj

You guys should do an episode on small pacific island states

NigelBOpinion

Did I hear Phil correctly? He didn't live in "the West" until his undergrad? Where did he live?

Andrea

What a cringe episode. At the umpteenth mention of "social science" I wanted to just give up. PolScis have very weird ways of misusing their brain when they deal with "cultural" or microsocial stuff. Just stop.