In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Assessing the role of religion in revitalizing civil society requires addressing four questions: What is civil society? What are the marks of its vitality or lack of vitality? Is there compelling evidence that some or all of these particular marks have declined? And how might religion contribute to the strengthening of those aspects of civil society that are declining or prevent their further erosion? I shall argue that recent scholarly literature on the first three questions is quite divided , meaning that the answer to the fourth cannot be straightforward. But I also suggest that a reasonable argument can be made for greater attention being paid—both by scholars and by policy makers and religious leaders—to the complex institutional realities of which contemporary society is composed and that doing so provides additional insight into religion’s contributions to the preservation of American democracy. To anticipate my argument, it is notable that most discussions of civil society —and especially those that emphasize social capital—focus on interpersonal relations and the behavior and beliefs of individuals, especially in small, local, or informal and voluntary settings and in ways that privilege the moral resolve, trustworthiness, civility, character, and altruistic sentiments of individuals. Many of these discussions pay homage to Alexis de Tocqueville’s remarks about Americans’ voluntary spirit in the 1830s, while others feature data from recent surveys asking about individual membership in local organizations, voting, neighborliness, or views about fellow workers and neighbors or the personal Chapter 12 Can Religion Revitalize Civil Society? An Institutional Perspective Robert Wuthnow 191 characteristics of particular community leaders or public officials (Tocqueville 1969; Putnam 1995a, 2000). I do not challenge the importance of these kinds of activities and beliefs for understanding civil society; however, to concentrate exclusively on them is to miss a great deal about the way contemporary social life is organized. One has only to consider some of the following to indicate what is missing: the public and private system of elementary, secondary, and higher education —virtually none of which was present when Tocqueville visited—that currently shapes the values and lifestyles of nearly all Americans; the massive system of federal highways and transcontinental airlines that has emerged in the past half-century and on which much of the population’s ability to interact with one another depends; and the thousands of watchdog agencies, political action committees , party officials, think tanks, law firms, research scientists, and community organizations that are formally separate from government but that receive funding from government and ostensibly serve the public interest (Boyte & Kari 1996; Schlozman & Tierney 1986). Examples such as these point to the fact that the yawning gap between government and private individuals that many analysts describe as civil society—precariously filled only by good-hearted people participating in town meetings and bowling leagues—neglects almost everything that actually constitutes civil society and that has long been of interest to social scientists who specialize in the study of institutions. Although my argument is meant to emphasize the nuances and complexity of civil society (and can thus be read in various ways), it is most pointedly directed against recent arguments about social capital (especially that advanced in Robert Putnam’s widely read and highly controversial Bowling Alone) in which all aspects of contemporary society sometimes appear to be reduced to a single factor—a factor that privileges the moral worth of gregarious people who happen to be well-connected to friends and neighbors through membership in middle -class clubs, associations, churches, and bowling leagues (Putnam 2000). To be sure, there is reason to be interested in such people and perhaps even cause for concern if such people are no longer as active as they once were. But interest in social capital, and indeed the revived usage of the term “civil society” (which was more common among political philosophers two centuries ago than it is among social scientists today), runs serious danger of being a step backward in social theorizing, not a step forward. For good reason, much of the best social theorizing of the last half of the twentieth century emphasized the structure and functions of institutions. This emphasis needs to be rediscovered in order to move beyond the present, often simplistic, discussions of social capital and civil society. WHAT IS CIVIL SOCIETY? Discussions of civil society1 have emerged during the past decade despite the fact that relatively little use of the term was evident in nearly a half century of 192 Can Religion Revitalize Civil Society? [3.149.234...

Share