Civil Society, Social Trust and Democratic Involvement

P. Dekker, P. Ester, H. Vinken
{"title":"Civil Society, Social Trust and Democratic Involvement","authors":"P. Dekker, P. Ester, H. Vinken","doi":"10.1163/9789047400035_016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The analysis of the rise and decline of civil society has become a booming academic enterprise among social scientists. Reflecting upon the social, cultural, historical, economic, and political dynamics affecting the erosion of community in Western societies has turned into a major topic of (post)modern accounts of the Res Publica. It even seems that in an era of widespread disillusion with the highly fragmented disciplinary status of the social sciences, particularly of sociology, the preoccupation with the collapse of community develops into what appears to be a growing unifying theme (Misztal, 1996). The number of publications by social scientists on the loss of community, often phrased as the decline of social capital, is augmenting (e.g., Norris, 1999; Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999; Van Deth et al., 1999; Putnam, 2000, 2002; Dekker & Uslaner, 2001; Edwards et al., 2001). The debate on the waxing and waning of community, the decline of civic life, the weakening of social bonds, the inflation of social capital, on what makes a good citizen, on what the good society stands for, is—once again—a core theme within the social sciences. Contributions vary from highly normative approaches, embodied in the morally pronounced writings by (new) communitarians (e.g., Etzioni, 1993, 1996, 2001), to more matter-of-fact quantitative approaches that study empirical trends in citizen involvement (e.g., Norris, 1999a; Putnam, 2002). We witness a significant growth of studies on trends in citizens’ civic virtues, political participation, volunteering, and involvement in informal social networks, which recently accumulated in Robert Putnam’s both much applauded and criticized book Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community (2000). Putnam’s main message is that in the last quarter-century Americans have become increasingly disconnected from their families, friends, neighbors, communities, social institutions, and public life; in short: American communities are ______________","PeriodicalId":105296,"journal":{"name":"The Cultural Diversity of European Unity","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"17","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cultural Diversity of European Unity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047400035_016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 17

Abstract

The analysis of the rise and decline of civil society has become a booming academic enterprise among social scientists. Reflecting upon the social, cultural, historical, economic, and political dynamics affecting the erosion of community in Western societies has turned into a major topic of (post)modern accounts of the Res Publica. It even seems that in an era of widespread disillusion with the highly fragmented disciplinary status of the social sciences, particularly of sociology, the preoccupation with the collapse of community develops into what appears to be a growing unifying theme (Misztal, 1996). The number of publications by social scientists on the loss of community, often phrased as the decline of social capital, is augmenting (e.g., Norris, 1999; Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999; Van Deth et al., 1999; Putnam, 2000, 2002; Dekker & Uslaner, 2001; Edwards et al., 2001). The debate on the waxing and waning of community, the decline of civic life, the weakening of social bonds, the inflation of social capital, on what makes a good citizen, on what the good society stands for, is—once again—a core theme within the social sciences. Contributions vary from highly normative approaches, embodied in the morally pronounced writings by (new) communitarians (e.g., Etzioni, 1993, 1996, 2001), to more matter-of-fact quantitative approaches that study empirical trends in citizen involvement (e.g., Norris, 1999a; Putnam, 2002). We witness a significant growth of studies on trends in citizens’ civic virtues, political participation, volunteering, and involvement in informal social networks, which recently accumulated in Robert Putnam’s both much applauded and criticized book Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community (2000). Putnam’s main message is that in the last quarter-century Americans have become increasingly disconnected from their families, friends, neighbors, communities, social institutions, and public life; in short: American communities are ______________
公民社会、社会信任与民主参与
市民社会的兴衰分析已成为社会科学家们蓬勃发展的学术事业。反思影响西方社会社区侵蚀的社会、文化、历史、经济和政治动态,已成为《共和》(re Publica)(后)现代描述的一个主要主题。甚至在社会科学,特别是社会学的高度分散的学科地位普遍幻灭的时代,对社区崩溃的关注似乎发展成为一个日益统一的主题(Misztal, 1996)。社会科学家关于社区丧失的出版物数量正在增加,通常被称为社会资本的下降(例如,Norris, 1999;Skocpol & Fiorina, 1999;Van Deth et al., 1999;Putnam, 2000,2002;Dekker & Uslaner, 2001;Edwards et al., 2001)。关于社区的兴衰,公民生活的衰落,社会纽带的弱化,社会资本的膨胀,关于什么是好公民,好社会代表什么的争论,再次成为社会科学的核心主题。贡献各不相同,从高度规范的方法,体现在(新)社群主义者的道德宣言著作中(例如,Etzioni, 1993,1996,2001),到更实事求是的定量方法,研究公民参与的实证趋势(例如,Norris, 1999a;普特南,2002年)。我们见证了对公民的公民美德、政治参与、志愿服务和参与非正式社会网络的趋势的研究的显著增长,这些研究最近在罗伯特·普特南(Robert Putnam)的《独自打保龄球》(Bowling alone)一书中得到了广泛的赞扬和批评。美国社区的崩溃与复兴(2000)。帕特南的主要观点是,在过去的25年里,美国人与家人、朋友、邻居、社区、社会机构和公共生活越来越脱节;简而言之:美国社区是______________
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信