Hiding for Whom? Obscurity, Dignity, and the Politics of Truth

The moral anger in [Jean Elshtain’s] argument is the righteous anger of these daughters of Antigone, defending the home, the children, intimacy itself against the marauding hordes of anomic gays.

—Richard Rosenfeld, “A Comment on Elshtain’s ‘Homosexual Politics’”¹

Putnam’s Challenge

Ten years ago, fed up with declining marriage rates and declining morality, David Blankenhorn founded the Institute for American Values to focus conservative and progressive intellectual resources on “the status and future of the family as a social institution.” In order to revitalize America’s moral and familial life, the Institute would aim to “examine the social sources of competence, character, and citizenship in the United States.” ² With active research councils on divorce rates, fatherlessness, Black fatherhood, and civil society, the Institute has become quite a force in social and public policy arenas.

In the last few years, the Institute has taken up the question of civil society. Attracted to the sweeping popularity of “Bowling Alone,” Robert Putnam’s 1995 essay that identified local, voluntary associations of civil society as potential bellwethers for democratic life, the Institute wanted to examine how the renewed discourse of civil society squared with the Institute’s goals and values. ³ To this end, Blankenhorn asked Jean Bethke Elshtain, Chair of the Board of Directors, to chair a council that would include twenty-four public intellectuals, elected officials, and citizen activists, including Cornel West, Mary Ann Glendon, Frances Fukuyama, William Galston, James Q. Wilson, Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and Senator Dan Coats (R-IN). ⁴ In 1998, the Council published its findings as A Call to Civil Society: Why Democracy Needs Moral Truths. ⁵

In Putnam’s familiar assessment, America’s voluntary associations, which have been a noted hallmark of American life since Tocqueville wrote Democracy in America , have been in decline for quite some time. Social networks, or “social capital,” play a central role in access to public and private resources. Consequently, “social connections and civic engagement pervasively influence our public life, as well as our private prospects.” ⁶ In more familiar terms, “who you know,” more than “what you know,” shapes access to education, professional, and private relationships that cultivate an individual’s sense of self. The consequences of social capital are not small. As individuals become disengaged from social networks, they simultaneously feel disconnected from politics and government writ at large.

In spite of civil society’s longstanding role in Western political thought, Putnam’s work re-focussed the concept of civil society for a contemporary audience. ⁷ In his somewhat esoteric example of the increase in individual bowling, and simultaneous decrease in league bowling, he tapped into a larger cultural trend. Civic participation has become privatized. People are involved in politics, in the form of NOW, Sierra Club, and AARP, for example, but these organizations - like bowling alone - do not cultivate relationships among individuals. “Mass-membership organizations” provide no common physical space through which citizens establish social bonds and social trust. In Putnam’s words, “[t]he bond between any two members of the Sierra Club is less like the bond between any two members of a gardening club and more like the bond between any two Red Sox... they root for the same team, and they share some of the same interests, but they are unaware of each other’s existence.” ⁸

From his observations about the decline in bowling leagues, as well as labor unions, PTA, and churches, Putnam concludes that vibrant local institutions help teach citizens skills necessary for political activity. Without these opportunities, Americans risk forgetting how to govern themselves. Tocqueville argued that individuals needed schooling in an “apprenticeship of liberty.” ⁹ Similarly, Putnam suggests a link between the decline in ostensibly apolitical forms of association and explicitly political participation, such as electoral turnout. ¹⁰

Putnam’s argument was mostly well received. It could please liberals and communitarians alike. He affirmed the need for social bonds, but spoke of these bonds in terms of their voluntary nature. Putnam’s localism played well to conservatives and progressives who have come to share a suspicion of centralized authority. For politicians...