The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again

Robert Putnam is best known for the book Bowling Alone, as well as Our Kids, and Shaylyn Romney
Barrett has worked with him on American Grace. Their themes generally are around communitarianism,
the importance of clubs and organizations, where participation has declined in recent decades. This is
not helped, although it could be, by the internet and social media, which have joined TV as a major
distraction from socializing in person. Their thought broadly takes inspiration from Alexis de Tocqueville
and “self-interest rightly understood”. I find Putnam generally to be complimented and balanced by
the work of Charles Murray, such as Coming Apart. Another recent political thinker cited is Danielle
Allen.

The basic narrative is that America has gone through a development from I to we to I. With a general
discontent in the 21st century, the authors are trying to show how things once got better in terms of
social solidarity. But with today’s identity politics, feminists and anti-racists and LGBT activists are
hesitant to acknowledge that there were good old days. So Putnam and Barrett have a lot of disclaimers,
but show that there was legitimate progress before civil rights and the second wave of feminism. (They
note the simplicity of the “waves” narrative, but clearly something happened that can be called the
second). Walter Williams has shown the gains made before civil rights, and Candace Owens is reminding
us of the problems after the legislation.

What they’re highlighting as a positive is the Progressive Era, which brought many organizations such
as the Knights of Columbus, Rotary, and B’nai Brith. They highlight the familiar stories of muckrakers
and the development of unions. The key political figures were Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson,
showing the bipartisan trends of the era. While there unquestionably was “big government”, Putnam
and Barrett argue that it arose from the bottom up. They are usually good about pointing out alternative
narratives. For progressivism, there’s a different interpretation in Ron Paul’s End the Fed, and the Glenn
Beck show of circa 2009-10. Paul of course is a libertarian (in a very specific, not a general sense) so the
authors are arguing against him. But there’s also George Will. He’s right of center, but more communitarian
than individualist. Barrett names David Brooks as a mentor-I don’t find him right of center anymore, but
he is a communitarian in a cautious sense. The one they usually use as the respectable conservative is
Yuval Levin.

The trend from we back to I occurred in the 60s, of course, defined as 1964-1974 or even 75. Just as a
number of “we” achievements like civil rights were taking place, there was a move toward individual
liberation and expression with things like the sexual revolution. The 70s became the “me” decade. The
Reagan Revolution was a factor, of course, but the authors are good about showing how the trends
were bigger than any particular politician, and began in the decades before Dutch. They highlight
Mary Ann Glendon and “Rights Talk”. They point out that while liberals started it, there are conservative
emphases on the rights of the unborn, gun rights, fathers’ rights and white rights. Christopher Caldwell’s
book showed this well, how civil rights eventually had to evolve to the concerns of white people in the
election of Trump in 2016.

They make the argument that the GOP has moved to the right. But it seems to me that society has
moved to the left. See Joe Sobran’s article “The Reactionary Utopian”. Just look at the issue of gay
marriage and how public opinion, including the position of the GOP, has evolved.

The rapid feel of change in the 60s is felt today with Black Lives Matter, Me Too, and Obergefell.
Many members of the Millenials and Generation Z are liberal and unaware of the positive developments
leading up to the 60s. I would just add that solidarity with the unborn is also a “we”. The family, more than
the state and larger institutions, is a “we”. That’s why it’s hard to measure woman’s success quantitatively. If
the woman and man have a true union and partnership, they are becoming happy together, and it’s
elusive to measure her happiness separately. This is one of the many communitarian dimensions
that slipped away in the shifts of the 60s.

I purchased this book after reading David Brooks’ positive review. As a licensed psychologist with over 46 years experience the authors’ research is outstanding. Must reading for anyone looking for a in-depth, data-based understanding of what has happened to us during our recent past. What is missing is an explanation for the upswings. I was left with a very clear, well-reasoned discussion of what happened, but no understanding of how “we-ness” was or may be produced. While I see a great deal of empirical evidence that “we-ness” is happening right now (e.g. Black Lives Matter; #MeToo; The Biden-Harris Victory), but other than a moral imperative to “get involved”, the authors provide no explanation for why the “upswing” occurred or how to bring a future upswing about. Great description, but no explanation.

Dozens of charts show the I, We, I arc of American history . As in Bowling Alone and Our Kids, the quantitative evidence is abundant, clearly presented, and persuasively interpreted. We are spared the technical details of regressions and other advanced statistics.
We historians could assign this book as a case study of how a political scientist writes history. What is gained and lost? For instance, the I/We/I view of the past 125 years underplays the combinations of I and We. At all times most Americans sought both community ties and individual autonomy. How we went about honoring both Self and Other deserved more attention in this book.
Even so, The Upswing is a gem. Race, politics, economics, gender, families: it’s all here. And after reading it you will understand and appreciate Ngram analysis…

I really admired Bowling Alone by the same author. It was path breaking. But this book is a lengthy summary of a research project, with all the tentative and limited conclusions you could hope for. It largely repeats material that is very well known and has been well documented elsewhere, e.g., wealth inequality, racism, gender discrimination, etc. It seems to discuss 25 reasons for every analytic path not taken. This stuff is boring. It’s like the technical appendix was put into the text. If you like reading a lot data, the book certainly does have that, but most of us are totally overloaded with data. So number one, for the reading public this book is twice the length it should be. Second, in terms of substance, the authors’ basic assertion–that U.S. history is going to repeat itself–is dubious to be sure. One could as easily make the more likely case that things are quite different in the U.S. today from 125 years ago and that they are not going to turn out the same. Third, the book does not do justice to role of shared values in the progress of a society. For example take a look at something like The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber, and you will see how deeply the development of this country was influenced by the belief structures of the colonists. Shared values matter. We need to get past thinking that our country will work out fine regardless of what values people hold. This book fails to address that dimension.

Galaxyaudiobook Member Benefit

- Able to comment

- List watched audiobooks

- List favorite audiobooks

- Bookmark will only available for Galaxyaudiobook member