Does social cohesion really lead to closed-minded groups that exclude outsiders? Can strong community bonds actually foster greater tolerance rather than less?
In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam challenges common assumptions about community connections. He distinguishes between bonding and bridging social capital, showing how these different types of connections shape our society.
Read on to discover how our connections with both similar and different people influence so much.
Bonding and Bridging Social Capital
Not everyone agrees that social capital is an unquestionable good. Putnam acknowledges the most common criticism that deep social ties can homogenize groups so that they define society in terms of who’s “in” and “outside” their bubble. However, Putnam points out that social capital takes different forms—bonding and bridging social capital—that simply bring people together in different ways. Also, he uses data to show that having more social capital actually increases tolerance and acceptance of others.
(Shortform note: Though a group may look homogenous from the outside, people on the inside are often still aware of their individual differences. In The Status Game, Will Storr explains that people within tightly knit circles might see everyone on the outside as being in a homogenous group, one that threatens their values and beliefs just by existing. This mindset can provoke a shared sense of “outgroup hostility” that further strengthens the in-group’s social bonds. As we’ll see, Putnam acknowledges this effect, but he doesn’t present it as the norm.)
Putnam identifies two types of social capital—bonding and bridging social capital:
- Bonding social capital unites us, bringing people together around a common interest, belief, or cultural background. For example, your local chamber of commerce bonds business owners in a particular region.
- Bridging social capital brings people with different backgrounds together. For example, a public school is open to students from every part of the community.
Many organizations combine both bonding and bridging social capital, such as a science fiction convention that bonds people around their enjoyment of the genre while bridging them across lines of ethnicity and income.
(Shortform note: Some experts identify more types of social capital than Putnam does—in addition to “bonding” and “bridging,” they refer to “linking” and “identifying” social capital. Linking social capital expands the concept of “bridging” to include connections between people and organizations across hierarchical power boundaries, such as the relationship between a manager in one company and a board member of a different organization. Likewise, identifying social capital expands “bonding” to include the connections between people who may be no more than acquaintances, if that, but can bond over a common trait or experience, such as strangers who meet at a Taylor Swift concert and bond over their shared identity as “Swifties.”)
Us Against Them
It’s a common stereotype that strong social cohesion leads to bland conformity, such as in the clichéd “white picket fence America” portrayed in many classic sitcoms. Putnam admits the underlying problem—social connections can feel strongest when defined in opposition to an “outsider” group, as when supporters of one football team unite against the fans of their biggest rival. While this particular example is usually benign, the social cohesion of a dominant class has been used to ill effect against marginalized groups throughout recorded history. As if to confirm this, social acceptance of minority groups grew in the US during the very same period that our close social connections began to fall apart.
Nevertheless, Putnam strongly refutes the idea that social cohesion and social tolerance are mutually exclusive. In his research, he discovered that people who are more involved in their communities are also more accepting of interpersonal differences. Likewise, because of the link between social capital and economic growth (which we’re about to cover), increased social connections in communities often runs in parallel with greater economic equality. According to Putnam, the negative perception that social cohesion leads to “us versus them” thinking arises when the two types of capital—bonding and bridging—come in opposition with each other, such as when a group bases its whole identity on hatred of another group of people.
| Us Versus Them in Politics The conflict between bonding and bridging social capital can be seen in the way the US’s major political parties changed in the 20th and 21st centuries. In Why We’re Polarized, Ezra Klein explains that in the mid-20th century, the coalitions underlying both parties were far more heterogeneous than they are today. For example, there were many liberal Republicans in New England and conservative white Southerners in the Democratic Party. In Putnam’s terms, their bridging social capital was high, despite the parties’ ideological differences. Klein contends that the shift to the US’s current, highly polarized political model began when the liberal wing of the Democratic Party began aggressively supporting civil rights legislation, using its bridging social capital to promote social tolerance throughout American life. While successful in passing legislation, this ideological push caused a breach within the party as Southern conservatives moved over to the more anti-regulation Republican side. One could argue that during this time, each party’s bonding social capital dipped while their bridging social capital was in play—until their members resolidified along strict ideological lines. As of 2020, Klein writes that nearly all American voters are now neatly sorted into one party or the other. He states that identities, not issues, drive political behavior—voters hate and fear the other party more than they admire their own. It would appear that bonding social capital has overbalanced bridging capital, at least until the next major political shift. |
