In 2000, Robert Putnam wrote Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community in which he argued that there had been a significant decline of social capital in America.
Social capital is defined as a kind of glue that keeps communities together. The idea is that when we work together in associations and clubs and, yes, even bowling leagues, we share norms and values and behave in ways that are expected of us.
I think the best way to explain this is by a using an example. Imagine a small community where people generally know one another. Some members of the community belong to a club and they meet each week.
Let's say that the club members include: the local bank manager; some workers from the local factory; two or three administrative assistants from a local attorney's office; the custodian at the local school plus two or three school teachers and a principal; a hairdresser; and a podiatrist etc. My point is that you have a group of people who work in a range of areas and they come to know each other in this different setting.
The relationships that they create are important but so are the expectations for behaviour. For example, if the hairdresser thought that one day he might need a loan from the bank manager, he would be careful to demonstrate reliability and professional conduct at meetings of the club; the hairdresser would be careful to use appropriate language and even appropriate sobriety.
The point is in this setting a level of trust is developed. Obviously everyone does not need to know every person in the community but with enough similar clubs and organizations and sporting teams "social capital" develops. Putnam raised concerns about the way that social capital had been lost due to a decline in membership.
His study has shaped much scholarship and debate since its publication.
But some have also looked at the work critically and have offered a different perspective on how to read data on the "decline in organizations." Barbara Arniel wrote a paper in 2010 entitled, Social Decline and Diversity: The Us versus the Us's in which she argues that: "participation has not so much declined over the last 40 years... as it has changed because of what [she] call[s] the politics of the us's - groups historically oppressed (including women, ethnic and racialized minorities and gay, lesbian and disabled citizens) who have created new kinds of advocacy organizations in order to change the norms of civil society itself."
Arneil compares organizations that have resisted change with those that have embraced diversity.
She shows that membership in organizations that have accepted the shift in social norms has not declined.
Now I raise this topic this week because the head of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has just said that "the long-standing ban on participation by openly gay adults is unsustainable." While the BSA did not actually make any policy changes, this statement presents a potential shift to a rule that has caused tension between, what Arneil calls, the Us and the Us's - in other words, between those who have tried to maintain "traditional" social norms and those who have tried to create new ones.
The BSA head said: "We must deal with the world as it is, not as we might wish it to be" and he argued that recent legal challenges have demonstrated that it is possible that "the courts [will] simply... order us at some point to change our membership policy."
Arneil actually used the BSA as an example of an association in decline but what she had discovered was that the Girl Scouts of America (GSUSA) had increased their membership when they changed their policies. She writes: "The Girl Scouts bucked the trend because they adapted to the demands of a changing society, most particularly the politics of diversity. From recognizing sexual diversity and equality to supporting local democracy to engaging in affirmative action for ethnic minorities... the GSUSA altered virtually every aspect of its organization... in order to facilitate a generation of Americans whose values and demography had changed so rapidly."
Last Wednesday morning the GSUSA confirmed that transgendered youth are welcome too.
These two associations have taken very different positions on membership criteria.
Clearly there can be different strategies for growing social capital.
