The decline of an American institution
by C.C.
AMERICANS are still famously neighbourly (especially compared to Europeans) but they’re getting less so.
A new book released last week, "Social Trends in American Life", sees a group of prominent American social scientists presenting and explaining the results of the General Social Survey—an ongoingstudy
that has regularly recorded and tracked changes in social attitudes and
make-up since the early 1970s. Every other year, researchers collect
detailed information from a large random sample of American adults in
order to understand how American society is evolving.
For the most part, the results are unsurprising. Americans are now more tolerant towards minorities (immigrants, gays and blacks) than they were in the 1970s—an outcome that is probably a function of tolerant younger people replacing conservative elderly. Americans now express less confidence in public institutions (except for the military) than they once did. Happiness levels have stayed relatively constant, which many think might be a product of religious observance remaining relatively steady.
But one trend in the pattern of American social life is curious: Americans have never been less likely to be friends with their neighbours than before. In 1974, 44% of respondents said that they had spent a social evening with neighbours more than once a month. By 2008, that number had dropped to a tick over 30%. Over the course of the study’s existence, the number has been dropping consistently.
The effect is not quite uniform. The likelihood of socialising with neighbours more than once a month declines with age but levels off among the middle-aged before a brief fillip among the elderly. By way of contrast, there have been steady increases in the number of people who socialise with friends (43%) or relatives (60%) more than once a month. Moreover, it is highly dependent on location. People in rural areas are much more likely to spend time with their neighbours than those in urban areas. Residents of suburbs exhibit the lowest level of neighbourliness.
What should we make of this?
Most interestingly, it complicates life for the cottage industry of sociologists who have been arguing that Americans are increasingly choosing to live in more like-minded communities. It seems that even if people are attracted to living with similar types, that does not mean they want to spend much time with them. One popular theory, Bill Bishop’s "the Big Sort", argues that Americans are becoming both socially and politically polarised. Liberals are seeking to live in liberal areas every bit as much as conservatives seek the comfort of living with other conservatives. At a presidential level, there are now many more landslide counties than before as communities have become more decisively Democratic or Republican.
TheBig Sort
theory may be overstated. Voter registration figures demonstrate more
people are choosing to register as independent rather than Republican or
Democrat. And a lot of the decline in cross-over voting is simply just
the national parties becoming organised on a more ideological basis.
People who were once moderate Republicans are now Democrats and people
who were once conservative Democrats are now Republicans.
But there is still some reason to think that polarisation is becoming a little more hard-wired into the electoral landscape and that geography and community life probably plays a role. The 2008 election saw fewer closely decided states (where the margin of victory was less than 5%) than any other in recent memory. Comparable victories in the past have shown a more evenly distributed swing. At the same time as most states were swinging to the Democrats, other states were actually becoming more Republican. In 2012, if current polling trends hold, Barack Obama may be the first incumbent president since James Madison to fail to add a new state to his electoral coalition while still being re-elected. (Although even Madison added the then newly admitted state of Louisiana.)
An absence of neighbourliness might make this process more acute. Reduced interaction with fellow citizens probably only reinforces a person’s own beliefs. However like-minded a neighbourhood is the odds of friends and relatives sharing similar political views seems much higher. High levels of partisanship already seem to be translating into elevated cognitive dissonance. Republican voters, for example, have been all too willing to believe a range of strange fictions: that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, that Mitt Romney ordered the mission to kill Osama bin Laden or that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
How social interaction conditions political outcomes is not always clear. In 2000, Robert Putnam, a Harvard sociologist, made waves with his book, "Bowling Alone". His concern was that civic life in America was fast disappearing and that this would have dire political consequences. Fewer people were members of community or social associations, a trend made most visible by the prevalence of people bowling alone rather than in teams or leagues. Countries that lack a dense network of civic life are often undemocratic or poorly governed as citizens have less regard for each other.
The primary culprit here is suburbanisation. Suburban life for most Americans is far from the bed-hopping intrigues depicted in "Desperate Housewives". Instead, big houses, wide streets and lengthy commutes reduce the chance of running into neighbours, let alone becoming friends. Technology too has made staying in contact with friends and relatives easier than in the past, decreasing the need or time available to meet those over the fence. Just as voters can tailor their media diet to avoid unwanted opinions they can now calibrate their friendships to avoid those with the wrong opinions.
Yet fortunately, these trends are all still embryonic. Election season always exaggerates and magnifies differences as candidates seek to build an electoral coalition. For all that America remains divided into blue states and red states, the dominant hue is really purple. Look no further than this week’s image of Scott Walker, the union-busting Republican governor of Wisconsin, chastising the National Football League for locking out its unionised referees to understand that even in America some issues are too important for political point scoring. If nothing else, the neighbours can agree that football is one of them.
A new book released last week, "Social Trends in American Life", sees a group of prominent American social scientists presenting and explaining the results of the General Social Survey—an ongoing
For the most part, the results are unsurprising. Americans are now more tolerant towards minorities (immigrants, gays and blacks) than they were in the 1970s—an outcome that is probably a function of tolerant younger people replacing conservative elderly. Americans now express less confidence in public institutions (except for the military) than they once did. Happiness levels have stayed relatively constant, which many think might be a product of religious observance remaining relatively steady.
But one trend in the pattern of American social life is curious: Americans have never been less likely to be friends with their neighbours than before. In 1974, 44% of respondents said that they had spent a social evening with neighbours more than once a month. By 2008, that number had dropped to a tick over 30%. Over the course of the study’s existence, the number has been dropping consistently.
The effect is not quite uniform. The likelihood of socialising with neighbours more than once a month declines with age but levels off among the middle-aged before a brief fillip among the elderly. By way of contrast, there have been steady increases in the number of people who socialise with friends (43%) or relatives (60%) more than once a month. Moreover, it is highly dependent on location. People in rural areas are much more likely to spend time with their neighbours than those in urban areas. Residents of suburbs exhibit the lowest level of neighbourliness.
What should we make of this?
Most interestingly, it complicates life for the cottage industry of sociologists who have been arguing that Americans are increasingly choosing to live in more like-minded communities. It seems that even if people are attracted to living with similar types, that does not mean they want to spend much time with them. One popular theory, Bill Bishop’s "the Big Sort", argues that Americans are becoming both socially and politically polarised. Liberals are seeking to live in liberal areas every bit as much as conservatives seek the comfort of living with other conservatives. At a presidential level, there are now many more landslide counties than before as communities have become more decisively Democratic or Republican.
The
But there is still some reason to think that polarisation is becoming a little more hard-wired into the electoral landscape and that geography and community life probably plays a role. The 2008 election saw fewer closely decided states (where the margin of victory was less than 5%) than any other in recent memory. Comparable victories in the past have shown a more evenly distributed swing. At the same time as most states were swinging to the Democrats, other states were actually becoming more Republican. In 2012, if current polling trends hold, Barack Obama may be the first incumbent president since James Madison to fail to add a new state to his electoral coalition while still being re-elected. (Although even Madison added the then newly admitted state of Louisiana.)
An absence of neighbourliness might make this process more acute. Reduced interaction with fellow citizens probably only reinforces a person’s own beliefs. However like-minded a neighbourhood is the odds of friends and relatives sharing similar political views seems much higher. High levels of partisanship already seem to be translating into elevated cognitive dissonance. Republican voters, for example, have been all too willing to believe a range of strange fictions: that weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, that Mitt Romney ordered the mission to kill Osama bin Laden or that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
How social interaction conditions political outcomes is not always clear. In 2000, Robert Putnam, a Harvard sociologist, made waves with his book, "Bowling Alone". His concern was that civic life in America was fast disappearing and that this would have dire political consequences. Fewer people were members of community or social associations, a trend made most visible by the prevalence of people bowling alone rather than in teams or leagues. Countries that lack a dense network of civic life are often undemocratic or poorly governed as citizens have less regard for each other.
The primary culprit here is suburbanisation. Suburban life for most Americans is far from the bed-hopping intrigues depicted in "Desperate Housewives". Instead, big houses, wide streets and lengthy commutes reduce the chance of running into neighbours, let alone becoming friends. Technology too has made staying in contact with friends and relatives easier than in the past, decreasing the need or time available to meet those over the fence. Just as voters can tailor their media diet to avoid unwanted opinions they can now calibrate their friendships to avoid those with the wrong opinions.
Yet fortunately, these trends are all still embryonic. Election season always exaggerates and magnifies differences as candidates seek to build an electoral coalition. For all that America remains divided into blue states and red states, the dominant hue is really purple. Look no further than this week’s image of Scott Walker, the union-busting Republican governor of Wisconsin, chastising the National Football League for locking out its unionised referees to understand that even in America some issues are too important for political point scoring. If nothing else, the neighbours can agree that football is one of them.
No comments:
Post a Comment