Abstract
Did social capital in America increase or decrease between 1970 and the turn of the new millennium? Motivated by a desire to unpack the pessimistic notion seemingly omnipresent in modern America that society is falling apart, Jones attempts to answer this deceptively simple question through a straightforward accounting in Social Capital in America: Counting Buried Treasure. He approaches the question directly by examining the degree to which Americans’ involvement in four institutional sources of social capital—work, family, informal network connections, and voluntary association—has changed over this 30-year period. As the subtitle suggests, determining the answer to even this simple question is trickier than it first appears, but Jones astutely addresses the complexity by methodically building up from simple concepts and analyses to the big, multifaceted picture, which helps uncover this buried treasure, especially for an audience unfamiliar with sociological theory and quantitative analytic methods.
While the book is not formally broken down into parts, the chapters cluster into sections that address four distinct objectives. The first two chapters (“‘What Is Wrong with People?’” and “Designing a Model of Social Capital”) frame the book and embed the concept of social capital within the classical and contemporary history of sociological thought, laying the theoretical groundwork for Jones’s model of social capital. Chapters 3 through 6 (“Work,” “Family,” “Social Networks,” and “Voluntary Association”) explore the four core components of his model and examine how each one has changed over time. Chapters 7 and 8 (“The Model of Social Capital” and “Modeling Trends”) then tie the separate components together by investigating the complex ways in which they impact each other and by tracking how those connections change over time. Chapters 9 and 10 (“Social Capital and Social Inequality” and “Social Capital Futures”) add exogenous factors to the model in order to further explore and explain how the amount of social capital present in American society has changed during the last three decades of the twentieth century.
Throughout the entire text Jones keeps his lay audience in mind, which makes the book accessible for both public and undergraduate audiences. The theoretical foundations of his model are established by pointing to the centrality of social capital in both classical and contemporary sociological thinking. The linkages between social capital and work, family, and both formal and informal community associations are spelled out clearly as well.
By focusing on the areas of agreement, rather than on the sometimes extremely nuanced differences between theorists, Jones establishes the importance of the concept of social capital to sociological thinking and lays a solid theoretical foundation for his model of social capital without losing his intended audience. For example, while important differences exist between Marx’s and Weber’s classical macrolevel perspectives, Jones recognizes that at the microlevel, both theorists emphasize the role of voluntary associations, particularly, unions and churches, in developing the shared interests of social groups and, as such, are a source of social capital for the members of these groups. Similarly, much ink could be spilled covering the distinctions between institutionalist and networks perspectives on social capital, but Jones seamlessly ties these perspectives together while briefly pointing out the distinctiveness of the networks approach (i.e., interpersonal connections within and across institutions, rather than institutions themselves, provide access to social capital).
Similarly aimed at a nonprofessional audience, the empirical analyses are presented as a series of figures, rather than the standard regression tables, which show the results of the statistical analyses, the details of which remain hidden out of the way in the endnotes for those who are curious. The visualizations of the analyses are especially helpful in that they allow the reader to quickly grasp otherwise complex two- and three-way interaction effects among the independent variables, especially as they impact trends over time. Jones, assuming limited statistical familiarity from his audience, also expertly describes the results of his analyses in clear-cut, uncomplicated language, helping to make sense of the sometimes complex patterns in the data visualizations.
While the book is expertly written and is exceptionally accessible, determining how best to employ it in a classroom is somewhat difficult. The simplicity of the book is both its greatest strength and its greatest weakness in this regard. By focusing solely on the basic goal of documenting any changes in the amount of social capital in the United States between 1970 to 2000 and by limiting theoretical and empirical discussions to the most general and basic elements, there is not much material to interrogate, nor is there much substance with which to interact.
This is not a criticism of the book. Jones accomplishes what he sets out to do: provide a thorough and accessible accounting of the amount of social capital in the United States during the time period when the idea that America was coming apart at the seams with popular fears, such as super predators, stranger danger, and mass school shootings, was amplified in the minds of most Americans. Jones’s analyses clearly demonstrate that while the sources of social capital certainly shifted between 1970 and 2000, the total amount of social capital actually rose in America, meaning a loss of social capital cannot be to blame for the rise of such fears, as many, most notably, Putnam (2000), have suggested.
This insight, while contributing an important data point to the discussion of social capital’s role in creating a sense of societal breakdown, can easily be incorporated into a lecture or covered as part of a well-researched student presentation. Despite its brevity and accessibility, I suspect that most undergraduates would balk at being asked to read 129 pages to be rewarded with such a deceptively simple answer.
However, courses that spend significant time on social capital (e.g., cultural sociology, stratification, networks, and contemporary theory) or those touching on social capital taught at universities and colleges with established cultures of reading primary sources would benefit from adding this book to the reading list. Additionally, in social problems courses or in other courses that examine the connections between social capital and social outcomes, the book would provide an important counterpoint to the overly simplistic notion that a decline in social capital during the latter third of the twentieth century contributed to either the coming apart of American society or the perception among Americans of such a deterioration.
And yet, even here, where the book would be most useful, the simplicity of the book’s perspective creates another drawback. Because Jones is interested in a straightforward accounting of the amount of social capital in the United States, he leaves the content of the various sources of social capital unexamined. Relatedly, while shifts in the relative amount of social capital each institutional source of social capital contributes to the total amount of social capital are detailed, how these different weightings of the sources of social capital might contribute to a sense of social decline is left unconsidered. Jones correctly points out that taking into account the content of social capital resources would make the book significantly more complex and thus would limit his ability to reach a diverse audience, but failing to do so severely restricts the contribution his work makes and thus constrains its usefulness in the classroom.
There is a final potential criticism of the book that is worth briefly considering but ultimately rejecting. Some may see the time period analyzed by Jones to be out of date, but this time period is worth understanding on its own. As Jones points out, this period of time, between 1970 and 2000, is when the idea of moral decay in America seems to have increased in amplitude. Additionally, it is the time period focused on by a number of scholars seeking to connect a decline in social capital to the deterioration of the social fabric of America (see Putnam [2000] for a broad overview of this perspective; Coleman [1988] for a focus on educational outcomes; Kawachi, Kennedy, and Lochner [1997] for a focus on public health; and Messner, Baumer, and Rosenfeld [2004] and Rosenfeld, Messner, and Baumer [2001] for a focus on crime generally and homicide in particular). Therefore, paying attention to the simple accounting of the amount of social capital and to the adjustments in the locus of social capital during this specific time period is appropriate. Furthermore, the potential disruptions caused by the Great Recession are such that the mid- to late 2000s deserves its own separate accounting. For these reasons, Jones is correct in his assertion that a focus on the 1970-to-2000 time frame is both useful and justified.
Despite the drawbacks identified above, any social science course that includes the presentation of findings to a non-expert audience as part of the curriculum, including but not limited to research methods and senior seminar or capstone courses, would benefit from incorporating this book into the course material. In settings such as this, Social Capital in America would serve as an excellent example of writing for the audience. Jones’s ability to present just enough theory to ground the concepts and to present complex concepts and statistics in easily understandable ways would serve as an excellent illustration for students to emulate.
Social Capital in America: Counting Buried Treasure is an accessible and well-written book that sheds light on one important question in the literature on social capital. It is a book that anyone interested in social capital in America should invest the day or two it takes to read. But, while it accomplishes its goals of counting the amount of social capital in America and conveying that finding to a broad audience, its usefulness as a resource in most classrooms is quite narrow.