It's been two months since I've posted anything about Bowling Alone, so let me point you to my previous posts which can all be found here. To get back into the groove, I want to reflect on an underlying dynamic that Putnam discusses at length - the distinction and relationship between bonding and bridging social capital:

Of all the dimensions along which forms of social capital vary, perhaps the most important is the distinction between bridging (or inclusive) and bonding (or exclusive). Some forms of social capital are, by choice or necessity, inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and homogeneous groups. Examples of bonding social capital include ethnic fraternal organizations, church-based women's reading groups, and fashionable country clubs. Other networks are outward looking and encompass people across divers social cleavages. Examples of bridging social capital include the civil rights movement, many youth service groups, and ecumenical religious organizations...Moreover, bridging social capital can generate broader identities and reciprocity, whereas bonding social capital bolsters our narrower selves...Bonding social capital provides a sort of sociological superglue, whereas bridging social capital provides a sociological WD-40. Bonding social capital, by creating strong in-group loyalty, may also create strong out-group antagonism, as Thomas Greene and his neighbors in New Bedford knew, and for that reason we might expect negative external effects to be more common with this form of social capital. Nevertheless, under many circumstances both bridging and bonding social capital can have powerfully positive social effects. (p. 22-23)

Putnam points out that it isn't necessarily easy to reconstruct data on these two types of social capital, that we can only really make inferences from the data that are available. Still, one is left with the impression that it is bridging capital that has suffered the most in recent years. And, in truth, that's intuitive - it makes a certain amount of sense that the social connections more easily lost are those that are more challenging to maintain. In addition, the venues for bridging connections in today's culture are most often those that are most transient - affiliation with a political party, for example.

I think that this loss of bridging connections is connected to the decline of geography as a defining characteristic of a community. Think about it this way - my neighbors are the people in my social sphere with whom I am least likely to have commonality - the only thing that connects us is geography, and to a certain extent socioeconomic status. In my neighborhood are people of varying ethnicities, political persuasions, religious beliefs, interests, and life history. What do we have in common? Primarily that we live in a particular community (and to some extent that we can afford to live in a certain community). And, out of all of those neighbors, I know maybe half a dozen, and of those we are really connected with only one family in any real sense.

Our relationships have shifted to become more of a social network connected by shared interests or identity. In other words, the connections that I think most of us in suburban contexts hold are primarily bonding relationships - connections that are a result of commonality. I know and interact with people with whom I have much in common. And I rarely encounter those with whom I don't in any meaningful way.

What does this mean for a missional faith in suburbia? It means, primarily, that the most radical of missional imperatives - things like loving the enemy, showing hospitality to the stranger, and demonstrating unity in the cruciform love of Christ - are precisely the imperatives that are most difficult to practice in a suburban context.

Technorati Tags: Bowling Alone, suburbs