Ed Weick makes some interesting comments in his discussion with Kieth and
Kelly regarding Putnam's book.
While correctly positing that people "have a very different set of social
relations" the question arises whether those different relations make for a
better civil commons.
I would suggest that, at the same time that religion is in decline, (that
which re-binds us together in our relationships) the use of money as the
glue that "re-binds us together" is on the increase. Money allows more
distant relationships at the expense of closer (also geographically)
relationships.
>From what we know about money, its value is totally dependant on trust.
Also from what we know about money is that it is used extensively for
purposes of social engineering.
Jaque Elluel said in his book "Propagandas" that the only thing that can
nullify the power of mass propaganda is people talking to people at a real,
not abstract level.
I would hope that Ed W. is not touting better shopping opportunities and
greater use of day care ads cultural values that enhance our lives, or our
society
In the matter of being "coerced or willing" we need ask the question, as
example, if a prostitute is being exploited or utilised, and aware of the
difference.
Regarding voter apathy, Bill Fox, in his book "spinwars" explaines that the
media message is carefully "framed" to preclude debate. It is done by
suggesting that "everything that can be done is being done", "There is no
alternative", "The matter is too complex for non politicians to grapple
with", "1000 people speaking in a poll for millions, is an accurate way to
set public policy" (true only if there is but one propaganda story). I
could go on but I think the point is made.
Regards
Ed G
=================
Ed W said:
Thank you Keith and Kelly Smith for posting summaries of Robert Putnam's
book and thus saving us the time needed to read it.
Neither summary seems to say much about the social impact of rising
education and income levels, and I wonder if Putnam said anything about
these things. Both have enabled people to transcend their neighborhoods and
have led to a very different set of social relations than those which
prevailed back in the forties, fifties and even the sixties. Rising
education levels have probably lessened the tendency to go down to the
neighborhood pub or store for a conversation. It's not because people are
snobs. It's that, beyond pleasantries about the weather, they may no longer
be interested in what the people at the pub have to say. They may want to
associate with people, wherever they may live, who share their interests,
whatever those are. Or they may just want to read a good book or watch an
informative program on TV (though not the Presidential debates!!). Rising
incomes may mean that they can transcend the shoddy little shops of their
neighborhoods and shop at classier stores in malls. It may mean that they
don't have to join the local bowling team but can afford to go skiing or
canoe tripping instead. It may mean that they don't have to spend a great
deal of time looking after their kids because they can afford good child
care. Because of this, whatever time they do spend with their kids might be
more special to both parent and child.
While it is true that many people lead miserable lives at work because all
the time possible is being squeezed out of them for peanuts, others find a
great deal of personal fulfillment in their work, so much so that they
willingly put in long hours. In other words, simply putting in long hours
does not mean people are unhappy. One would have to look at whether they
are being coerced or willing. In the course of my career, I've done work
that was so absorbing that I simply couldn't tear myself away from it. I've
also done work, including many extra hours, that was not worth doing and I
knew it. There's a difference.
It would also seem that Putnam does not say much about alienation. That a
lower proportion of Americans vote now than before suggests that they feel
that they have little stake in their society. It may not be apathy; it may
be alienation. The system is not about them, so why should they bother? If
they felt it was about them, they would participate. That they watch much
more TV than they once did also suggest alienation. There is nothing real
going on around them, so why not go with the tube?
Anyhow, just a few comments. And thank you again for the summaries. It
means that I don't have to read the book and cut into my TV time.
Ed Weick
(613) 728-4630
Visit my website: http://members.eisa.com/~ec086636
