The Upswing: How We Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again
- Downloads：4816
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-10-26 07:50:57
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Robert D. Putnam
- ISBN：1800750374
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
'Putnam's book speaks for the many millions who don't think the way zealots do' Guardian
The Upswing is Robert D。 Putnam's brilliant analysis of economic， social， cultural and political trends from the Gilded Age to the present， showing how America went from an individualistic 'I' society to a more communitarian 'We' society and then back again， and how we can all learn from that experience。
In the late nineteenth century， America was highly individualistic， starkly unequal， fiercely polarised and deeply fragmented， just as it is today。 However， as the twentieth century dawned， America became - slowly， unevenly， but steadily - more egalitarian， more cooperative， more generous; a society 'on the upswing， ' more focused on responsibilities to each other and less focused on narrow self-interest。 Over the course of the 1960s， however， these trends reversed once again， leading to today's disarray。
In a sweeping overview of more than a century of history， Putnam and Romney Garrett draw on inspiring lessons for our time from an earlier era， when a dedicated group of reformers righted the ship， creating once again a society based on community。 Engaging， revelatory and timely， this is Putnam's most ambitious work yet， with a relevance right across the anglophone world。 It is an unmissable contribution to the debate about where we want society to go。
The Upswing is Robert D。 Putnam's brilliant analysis of economic， social， cultural and political trends from the Gilded Age to the present， showing how America went from an individualistic 'I' society to a more communitarian 'We' society and then back again， and how we can all learn from that experience。
In the late nineteenth century， America was highly individualistic， starkly unequal， fiercely polarised and deeply fragmented， just as it is today。 However， as the twentieth century dawned， America became - slowly， unevenly， but steadily - more egalitarian， more cooperative， more generous; a society 'on the upswing， ' more focused on responsibilities to each other and less focused on narrow self-interest。 Over the course of the 1960s， however， these trends reversed once again， leading to today's disarray。
In a sweeping overview of more than a century of history， Putnam and Romney Garrett draw on inspiring lessons for our time from an earlier era， when a dedicated group of reformers righted the ship， creating once again a society based on community。 Engaging， revelatory and timely， this is Putnam's most ambitious work yet， with a relevance right across the anglophone world。 It is an unmissable contribution to the debate about where we want society to go。
Reviews
Dan
，
This is an interesting look on how America's politics and awareness has changed and been shaped。 The I we I swing and the divide in the I vs the we seems to explain some of the divide we see。 This is an interesting look on how America's politics and awareness has changed and been shaped。 The I we I swing and the divide in the I vs the we seems to explain some of the divide we see。 。。。more
Marit
，
Putnam has a central argument or case to present in this book and the majority of the book is geared toward making the case: that between approx。 1910-1965， the US functioned as an ever-more collectivist and inclusive society， from politics to economics to 'community' dynamics。 The corollary to that case is that， over the past 30-50 years， we dismantled （or didn't act upon。。。） much of those norms， policies， and economic forces such that we are currently in a second Gilded Age。 Putnam and his co- Putnam has a central argument or case to present in this book and the majority of the book is geared toward making the case: that between approx。 1910-1965， the US functioned as an ever-more collectivist and inclusive society， from politics to economics to 'community' dynamics。 The corollary to that case is that， over the past 30-50 years， we dismantled （or didn't act upon。。。） much of those norms， policies， and economic forces such that we are currently in a second Gilded Age。 Putnam and his co-author make this case through data-driven analyses that really span the gamut of data types and socio-economic fields。 I found myself very intrigued by the data the authors pulled upon and their reasoning; I was not expecting to see line graphs of baby name trends presented along with membership of major national civic associations， for instance。 While the efficacy or meaning of some of the data presented goes deeper and has more ambiguity than they present， in the end， their argument is rather compelling， partially because of the diversity of lens they use。I very much appreciated their consistent recognition that the period of 'inclusivity' and a sense of "we" （over individualist "I"） was limited， sometimes severely， by racism and sexism。 And they delve deeper into those realities quite deliberately， and while acknowledging those realities， they also present intriguing data that presents a longer-view and deeper story behind the significant achievements of the Civil Rights era。 Their last couple of chapters are tantalizingly short; they use those to offer basic ideas for how the US can become again more collectivistic and egalitarian while not relinquishing a commitment to dismantling racism and sexism。 I'm glad they didn't delve too deep into those 'solution' chapters; it's clearly not their bailiwick。 Plus the ideas speak to the fact that a multiplicity of pathways， coming from the grassroots/local levels， will be necessary， and so two people alone will certainly not have specifics that are meaningful and impactful across the nation。 I will admit my bias in that the ending chapters hit upon a centering that I and other dear ones and near colleagues have also landed upon。。。so basically their ending chapters confirmed my own bias。 Just as the title of the book speaks to my moral and philosophical life bias。 Curious how this would land with folks who don't have those leanings/biases！ 。。。more
Kay
，
I have lately become obsessed with the concept of public trust。 It seems to be a symptom -- or maybe a cause -- of ::gestures around:: all of this。 America， it seems， is a less trusting place than its peer countries， and we have also uniquely grappled with working toward common goals。 The pandemic and climate change are exposing just how broken our government is， and even though the government has started to do more than usual to prop up the economy and navigate the public health crisis， it's cl I have lately become obsessed with the concept of public trust。 It seems to be a symptom -- or maybe a cause -- of ::gestures around:: all of this。 America， it seems， is a less trusting place than its peer countries， and we have also uniquely grappled with working toward common goals。 The pandemic and climate change are exposing just how broken our government is， and even though the government has started to do more than usual to prop up the economy and navigate the public health crisis， it's clear that the overall strategy is a very go-it-alone approach。 Everyone must now calculate their individual risk tolerances， and hope for the best as the Delta variant flattens large parts of the country。 It is all of these thoughts about public trust that lead me back to Robert Putnam。 I remember reading "Bowling Alone" in college and， frankly， hating it。 At the time， documenting the decline of volunteer membership organizations and labeling this a crisis seemed retro。 Those old institutions are old， I thought at the time， and no wonder they couldn't adapt to a rapidly changing and diversifying world。 There were also a lot of critiques of Putnam's research that I found legitimate at the time: pining for the 1950s has plenty of problems。 Women， LGBTQ people， and people of color might all resist the idea of returning to such a time， for perfectly legitimate reasons。The Upswing seeks to make amends on this front， and respond to several of these identity-based critiques。 The thesis behind this book seems roughly to be that -- quite literally -- Putnam noticed some charts measuring major indicators for various aspects of life looked similar。 I will pause here to say that I'm a touch skeptical here。 There seems to be some data cherry picking going on。 A chart that follows a U shape seems like it was more likely to be chosen for this book than one that did not follow such a clean curve。 Several of the charts are missing Y axis labeling， which makes me wonder if the shape is being either exaggerated or compacted to fit the thesis。 However， I don't want to accuse Putnam of malpractice here -- he's a widely respected political scientist， and probably isn't pulling deep shenanigans on a book like this。 The underpinning of his thesis， that economic inequality is inversely correlated with public trust， seems like a reasonable thing to think。 It's hard to think we're all in this together when the rich are barricading themselves in the Hamptons。 It's a thought-provoking idea and one that may be completely correct。 But if the solution to public trust is to raise the taxes on the rich， the solution may well have some trust problems of its own。 I doubt Republicans long for an era of togetherness so much that they're willing to back off their position on tax cuts。 And though public trust and eras of low partisanship certainly have some benefits， parties themselves also benefit a lot from conflict and clear contrast between parties。 It's admirable that Putnam and his colleague Shaymyn Romney Garrett tried to tackle the problem holistically。 And who knows？ Maybe they're ultimately right。 Perhaps we are on the "upswing" from an era of deep inequality， polarization， and low public trust。 But then， the pandemic also taught me that things can always get worse。 。。。more
David
，
Marshals LOTS of big-picture national data to address trends since about 1900 in。。。。。economic equality"comity and compromise" （vs。 agitated polarization） in politicscohesion in social lifealtruism in cultural values。。。。。。and concludes that Progressive era bottom-up activism of the early 1900's got us going on a long "upswing" in each of these favorable [in the authors' view] indicators till about mid-1960's， and a downturn thereafter till [at least] the present day。The downslope on all these cur Marshals LOTS of big-picture national data to address trends since about 1900 in。。。。。economic equality"comity and compromise" （vs。 agitated polarization） in politicscohesion in social lifealtruism in cultural values。。。。。。and concludes that Progressive era bottom-up activism of the early 1900's got us going on a long "upswing" in each of these favorable [in the authors' view] indicators till about mid-1960's， and a downturn thereafter till [at least] the present day。The downslope on all these curves has been covered quite well （me decade， increased narcissism， wealth gains going mostly to top 1%， "bowling alone" [Putnam's widely acclaimed earlier book] phenomena of social alienation， etc。 etc。）， but less so the earlier upswing， and this sets constraints on some proposed explanations that get a lot of play （internet， notably）， though others （e。g。， globalization of economic trade and cultural influence） do seem to at least partially fit the overall trends。no easy or simple solution of course， but broadly speaking they end up advocating for optimistic activism led by young people -- they don't mention it specifically， but probably happy with "fight for 15" campaigns about minimum wage etc。thoughtful book and interesting to connect so many different strands of data -- i certainly can't do the details anything like justice without taking rest of the day off work。 And to their credit they do note that the next "we" epoch needs to be much better at making sure that "we" is actually everybody equally， not just cisgender heterosexual White men at the center。so my main recommendation is to read the book， but since i know the internet counts on me for at least a little criticism。。。。。。。。。。1。 "climate change" does not appear in the subject index， and unless I missed it the first mention is on p。 335， where it is characterized as "the ultimate 'we' issue" [their shorthand for the upswing and downslope of all their graphs is an I-We-I pattern over time in USA]。 Maybe they can bring that ultimate issue to bear in a sequel -- it wouldn't do to enact political and economic changes that get us all off the couch to join one another at Rotary meetings but don't do anything to save the planet。2。 They weirdly （IMO） enlist Muhammad Ali as "not an advocate of self-love， quite the contrary" （p。 306）， giving his famous super short poem as "Me？ We！" To be sure， they indicate in a note that Ali himself said it should have been heard as "Me！ Whee！"， which is kind of a different message。 I'm no poetry expert， but I've been a sports fan since Ali's first reign as champ before he was stripped of title for refusing induction during Viet Nam War， and i've seen that poem in print as "Me！ Whee！" about 1，000x， and never the other way till reading this book。 。。。more
Mark R。
，
Great evidence but…This book makes a great case that we’ve come out of the national malaise that we are in， before。 But the prescription for doing so seems unlikely at best， and not well-supported by evidence that it could work now…
Wendy Johnson
，
Just skim it。 You’ll get the idea。
Scott Martin
，
（Audiobook） This work looks to describe the current state of America， noting the seemingly insurmountable increase in polarization， isolation and the quest for individual gratification over a collective unity towards helping people and the nation。 Yet， what America is experiencing in the late 2010s/start of the 2020s is not entirely new。 Putnam looks back to the turn of the 19th/20th century to note how America was not all that dissimilar to how it is now。 The inequity of income/rights/etc of no （Audiobook） This work looks to describe the current state of America， noting the seemingly insurmountable increase in polarization， isolation and the quest for individual gratification over a collective unity towards helping people and the nation。 Yet， what America is experiencing in the late 2010s/start of the 2020s is not entirely new。 Putnam looks back to the turn of the 19th/20th century to note how America was not all that dissimilar to how it is now。 The inequity of income/rights/etc of now tend to be like that of the 1900s。 Yet， as the century moved forward， it was the efforts of progressive-type politicians and major， near-existential threats to the American nation that drove the nation into a greater sense of community and social improvements。 However， with the turbulent 1960s， the pendulum swung back towards the quest for individual gain over national unity of purpose。 Perhaps a simpler title would be the driving thesis of the work: I-We-I， as that is the cycle the national population is seemingly caught in。 There is some hope for the future， but Putnam is not all that optimistic。 Granted， fighting the social media bubble is going to be difficult if we can achieve that level of national focus。 The work is solid， but does have a bit of a liberal bent （probably not one that conservatives will enjoy as much。。。but I am not sure this is one you enjoy anyway）。 Worth a listen/read， but more as a library book vs。 an actual purchase。 。。。more
Evan Martin
，
This book really needs an abridged version。 Great information， illuminating parts of history that we are not taught， hilighting patterns and offering paths forward， but needs to be offered in a more consumable format。 Much of the content could be trimmed to make it more accessible。 Would recommend。
Kathy
，
This book not only returns me to my days in sociology classes but it merges history to give understanding to the dynamics of 21 century USA。The I-WE-I curve is explained and projects of how to escape today's I！ This book not only returns me to my days in sociology classes but it merges history to give understanding to the dynamics of 21 century USA。The I-WE-I curve is explained and projects of how to escape today's I！ 。。。more
Johnwall
，
Robert Putterman， author of bowling alone， has mobilized a tremendous amount of social， Political economic and financial data to measure the swing of the American swing of the social Pendulum between the individualistic `to the 1970a; abd the pendulums swing back to the current individualism。 Put an manages to assemble this data into a U shaped upside down graph。 To his credit he offers no externaloverriding force that causes this， it is public policy that drives the shifts。 Robert Putterman， author of bowling alone， has mobilized a tremendous amount of social， Political economic and financial data to measure the swing of the American swing of the social Pendulum between the individualistic `to the 1970a; abd the pendulums swing back to the current individualism。 Put an manages to assemble this data into a U shaped upside down graph。 To his credit he offers no externaloverriding force that causes this， it is public policy that drives the shifts。 。。。more
Rosie Hepner
，
Meh。 I know this book wanted to diminish the generational divide but I only feel more contempt for white boomers now。
Chelsea
，
3。5。 Thought provoking， but I’m not sure I find much of what’s here compelling。 The authors really underestimate the role of anti-Black racism in American history， IMO， as though that were an unfortunate side effect of the progressive movement， rather than a plank in its platform。 I wouldn’t discourage anyone from reading it for that reason — I like to have mental debates with authors — but it’s worth knowing when you go in。
Scott
，
Really great analysis of the shift from self focus over community that was dominant in America in 1900 to the “we” community focus growing all of the way up to the early 1960’s and the shift back to self focus over the last 60 years。 Backed by a broad set of statistics in charts across economics， social， political， cultural， literary and other areas the argument is compelling。 I’m kinda sad I’ve only been around for the slide away from community but hopeful that we have reached a new low and are Really great analysis of the shift from self focus over community that was dominant in America in 1900 to the “we” community focus growing all of the way up to the early 1960’s and the shift back to self focus over the last 60 years。 Backed by a broad set of statistics in charts across economics， social， political， cultural， literary and other areas the argument is compelling。 I’m kinda sad I’ve only been around for the slide away from community but hopeful that we have reached a new low and are turning back。 Putnam points to a few areas that provide hope， but we shall see。 。。。more
Karen Treadwell
，
Excellent listen。 Highly recommend。
Jonathan Weaver
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 The first chapter of The Upswing begins by comprehensively describing the challenges that American society faces today - rampant inequality， political polarization， etc。 It then explains， in a bit of a fun record scratching moment， that this description was of the state of America in the year 1900。This introductory chapter serves as an inticing segue into the overall tale of the book: the dismal state of America at the turn of the 20th century， the gradual improvement and ascent of society until The first chapter of The Upswing begins by comprehensively describing the challenges that American society faces today - rampant inequality， political polarization， etc。 It then explains， in a bit of a fun record scratching moment， that this description was of the state of America in the year 1900。This introductory chapter serves as an inticing segue into the overall tale of the book: the dismal state of America at the turn of the 20th century， the gradual improvement and ascent of society until the mid-1960s， and the subsequent turn back towards unrest and turmoil in our present moment。 The authors do this by meticulously dissecting many various metrics on the state of the economy， politics， society， and culture over the last 120 years。 The result， as is shown on the cover of the book， is what they call an "I - We - I" curve - a curve from an individualistic society to an altruistic one and back again。One question this might immediately raise to some readers is the often narrow description of we during the time period leading up to the downward turn in the 1960s - leaving out marginalized communities such as women or people of color。 Fortunately， the authors don't shy away from this discrepancy and go a long way in chapters 6 and 7 to explain the role that this I-We-I curve played in the slow progress towards equality for these groups over the course of the 20th century。While many of the metrics that the authors use in explaining this I-We-I curve are fascinating， insightful， and， at times， indisputable， others come across as strained attempts to gather data from subjects or periods of time without sufficient empirical data to analyze。 Regardless of the credibility of the data， the presentation during these middle chapters comes across as very dry - to the extent that， at times， one might believe they're reading a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal。Fortunately， this slow grind through the middle portion of the book gives way towards the end to a very interesting explanation not of the trend itself， but of the turning points around the years 1900 and 1960。 During these final two chapters， the dry data analysis of the preceding chapters is gathered and presented in a narrative of how America lost its way， how we fixed things the last time， and how we might do it again。 And in doing so， the book ultimately leaves the reader with a cautious optimism that Americans can indeed change the trajectory of our nation towards a more equitable， tolerable， and prosperous society。 。。。more
Tanya
，
I started reading this book that's been on my TBR list for awhile， but it just felt like the same old thing I've read in several other books lately， and I'm getting tired of the topic。 I started reading this book that's been on my TBR list for awhile， but it just felt like the same old thing I've read in several other books lately， and I'm getting tired of the topic。 。。。more
Brian G
，
Fascinating premise with lots of relevant and interesting lessons。 Probably could have been a long magazine article， though。
Susan
，
I watched a webinar with Robert Putnam and Shaylynn Romney before buying the book。 I found the information to be really compelling， and it really helped me understand what is happening in our country。 He calls it the I-We-I curve and makes the case that we are going through a period of history similar to the gilded age in the 1890s。 He is also relatively hopeful that through awareness we can combat what is happening to bring us more into balance as a society。 I listed to about half of the book o I watched a webinar with Robert Putnam and Shaylynn Romney before buying the book。 I found the information to be really compelling， and it really helped me understand what is happening in our country。 He calls it the I-We-I curve and makes the case that we are going through a period of history similar to the gilded age in the 1890s。 He is also relatively hopeful that through awareness we can combat what is happening to bring us more into balance as a society。 I listed to about half of the book on Audible。 Unfortunately， it was hard to listen to with all of the numbers being thrown around。 I got the gist of the book， and I think it is a major contribution to social science。 。。。more
Andrew
，
I listened to this as an audiobook。 That was interesting。 Learning about America's culture and looking at how it has gone back and forth between individualistic to communitarian。 I feel like society as a whole would generally be better off if we were all less individualistic。 I listened to this as an audiobook。 That was interesting。 Learning about America's culture and looking at how it has gone back and forth between individualistic to communitarian。 I feel like society as a whole would generally be better off if we were all less individualistic。 。。。more
Matthew Mowell
，
Reading 'Bowling Alone' in the early 2000's alerted me to a genuine problem I was missing--the decay of 'community' in our society。 Putnam follows-up on this work by looking at how 'community' in America has shifted over time and the results are intriguing。 For instance， whilst many associate the 1950's with being 'ultra-conservative' many policies of the era would actually be considered 'progressive' even by today's standards。 To be sure， Putnam goes to great length to highlight that these mid- Reading 'Bowling Alone' in the early 2000's alerted me to a genuine problem I was missing--the decay of 'community' in our society。 Putnam follows-up on this work by looking at how 'community' in America has shifted over time and the results are intriguing。 For instance， whilst many associate the 1950's with being 'ultra-conservative' many policies of the era would actually be considered 'progressive' even by today's standards。 To be sure， Putnam goes to great length to highlight that these mid-century policies were not always designed to benefit everybody。 The upshot is that America has been more 'we' than 'I' focused in the past and this is something we can return to！ The overall tone of the book was positive and timely in the post-Trump era。 Finally， it's refreshing to read sociological research that is data-driven and doesn't lean entirely on the shaky foundation of 'standpoint theory' or 'lived experience'。 Putnam/Romney's mastery of the relevant datasets is impressive and tells a powerful story。 。。。more
Larkin Tackett
，
Harvard Political Scientist Robert Putnam and his former student， Shaylyn Romney Garrett， write about a number of data that — when tracked over the 20th century — show an inverse U。 Also called an “I-We-I curve” by the authors， the trend line begins during the Gilded Age of the late 19th Century （characterized by robber barons， widespread corruption， mutual mistrust， political scandal， exploitation of wageworkers and pillaging of the natural environment。） From the Progressive Era to the 60s， cal Harvard Political Scientist Robert Putnam and his former student， Shaylyn Romney Garrett， write about a number of data that — when tracked over the 20th century — show an inverse U。 Also called an “I-We-I curve” by the authors， the trend line begins during the Gilded Age of the late 19th Century （characterized by robber barons， widespread corruption， mutual mistrust， political scandal， exploitation of wageworkers and pillaging of the natural environment。） From the Progressive Era to the 60s， called the Great Convergence， the curve bends upwards toward a “more egalitarian， cooperative， cohesive and altruistic nation，” only to decline again to the current point， which Putnam calls the Second Gilded Age。 Like Putnam’s other books， recommendations for swinging up again represent a too small portion of the book。 Nevertheless， he offers insights and lessons from his analysis of the Progressive era。 First is to compromise， but not on issues of equality and inclusion。 As President Teddy Roosevelt said， “the fundamental rule of our national life — the rule which underlies all others — is that， on the whole， and in the long run， we shall go up or down together。” 。。。more
Gregory
，
Putnam is a thorough researcher， but his modeling of periods of individuality vs communal thinking in US history strikes me as over-fitting。 Useful history; no real insights into how we can recover a shared set of values or recognition of what are facts vs fiction。
D。j。 Meister
，
This is a brilliant book we read in our "Political Issues" book club。 A timely， comprehensive， data-driven review and analysis of the interrelated political， economic and social factors correlated to the "me vs。 we" zeitgeist of our recent history of the USA since the late 1800s， extended to today。 If one reds only one book on the USA political economy， this would be a great choice。 The book is not perfect。 The consensus of our book club is that the "how we can do it again" aspect of the book of This is a brilliant book we read in our "Political Issues" book club。 A timely， comprehensive， data-driven review and analysis of the interrelated political， economic and social factors correlated to the "me vs。 we" zeitgeist of our recent history of the USA since the late 1800s， extended to today。 If one reds only one book on the USA political economy， this would be a great choice。 The book is not perfect。 The consensus of our book club is that the "how we can do it again" aspect of the book offers no easy solutions。 Not unexpected given the difficulty of the problem， but the title over-sells the solutions aspect。 Nevertheless， it establishes a brilliantly researched historical context for attacking the issue。 。。。more
Rog
，
Vast in scope， interesting research methods， fascinating and， sometimes， poignant findings result in an important and thought provoking document。 I will not summarize the books themes and methods because so many of the reviews on Goodreads already do that。 Rather， I will present the questions that came to mind as I was reading the last 30% of the book。 While the title and text suggest cause for optimism for a turn-around from America's current polarization and stagnation of many citizen's qualit Vast in scope， interesting research methods， fascinating and， sometimes， poignant findings result in an important and thought provoking document。 I will not summarize the books themes and methods because so many of the reviews on Goodreads already do that。 Rather， I will present the questions that came to mind as I was reading the last 30% of the book。 While the title and text suggest cause for optimism for a turn-around from America's current polarization and stagnation of many citizen's quality of life， I have my doubts that an upswing will occur anytime soon。 Our country is so polarized and the forces that enable this condition are only getting stronger。 Currently， truth， ethics and goodwill all take a back seat to lies， selfish interests， and demonization。 Obviously， the American youth is our future。 Will the younger generation take the lead and take up the challenge to correct the national ills？ Will they persevere when strong forces try to keep the status quo？ Will the maturing generation called millennials enable the youth movement and support a return to an egalitarian society that practice's communitarianism activities？ Will national， state and county leaders listen to these younger voices？ Will the voting public turn off the 24/7 news media and use there own eyes， ears and mind for independent thought and see the light？ Will people listen to each other， discuss what is important and respect different points of view？If the answer to these questions is mostly "yes"， then there can be another upswing。 。。。more
James Schisler
，
This is an incredibly interesting， thought provoking book， and I'll be re-reading it with an eye on better understanding the details of the methods and the data the authors use。 The authors make a compelling case that a lot of things radically changed， largely for the worse， in the 1970s or so。 But they then go on to claim these changes are all connected in a single curve they refer to as the "I-We-I" curve- and that's where I begin to get a little skeptical。 I want to believe the authors are co This is an incredibly interesting， thought provoking book， and I'll be re-reading it with an eye on better understanding the details of the methods and the data the authors use。 The authors make a compelling case that a lot of things radically changed， largely for the worse， in the 1970s or so。 But they then go on to claim these changes are all connected in a single curve they refer to as the "I-We-I" curve- and that's where I begin to get a little skeptical。 I want to believe the authors are correct， but I do t feel they provided evidence enough to convince me。 Ultimately， it's a rare book that I can read and disagree with， and only want to read it more because of my disagreement。 The authors build a fascinating narrative， combining diverse methods of analysis to try to drive home the same point over and over。 In short， I would absolutely recommend this book to anyone interested in social science or who wants to think critically about how our society has reached the troublesome point it is now at。 But I believe it should be read with healthy skepticism。 。。。more
Ken K
，
This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers。 To view it， click here。 This is an interesting study of four different areas （Economics， Politics， Society， Culture） and how their charts are very similar from 1890-2020。 From the Gilded Age through Progressive Era， the country came together， peaking around 1960-1975， depending on the category。 Then things suddenly got worse。 The authors cannot point out which， if any， thing caused this to happen。 What brings us together is grass roots sense of morality and people doing what they can without becoming siloed。 America i This is an interesting study of four different areas （Economics， Politics， Society， Culture） and how their charts are very similar from 1890-2020。 From the Gilded Age through Progressive Era， the country came together， peaking around 1960-1975， depending on the category。 Then things suddenly got worse。 The authors cannot point out which， if any， thing caused this to happen。 What brings us together is grass roots sense of morality and people doing what they can without becoming siloed。 America is strongest when we embrace both being individuals and a sense of community。 Despite the title， there are very few ways suggested that America can come together again。 Especially in race and women's rights， the country needs to make a lot of progress。 I am fascinated that the graphs of totally different measurements have a similar shape， but slightly cringe at the ways the different graphs are combined into one for each area （which means the range has no numeric meaning）。 In spite of this， I very much enjoyed reading the authors' study， and am contemplating what I can do to this country a better place。 。。。more
John Girard
，
Very important - but very academic and a bit light on the promised prescription。
Graeme Stewart
，
An accessible an engaging exploration of a fascinating trend - the movement from the hyper-individualistic Guilded Age， to a more communitarian America by the 1960s， and back to polarized individualism by the beginning of the 21st century。 The "upswing" had broadly （though not complete） positive implications for progress on income， race and gender equality， and for a productive and collaborative political culture。 The second part of the subtitle - How We Can Do It Again - gets short shrift。 Yes， An accessible an engaging exploration of a fascinating trend - the movement from the hyper-individualistic Guilded Age， to a more communitarian America by the 1960s， and back to polarized individualism by the beginning of the 21st century。 The "upswing" had broadly （though not complete） positive implications for progress on income， race and gender equality， and for a productive and collaborative political culture。 The second part of the subtitle - How We Can Do It Again - gets short shrift。 Yes， we need to create a broad social movement to re-establish shared values， but the book doesn't provide a lot of insight on how to actually do that beyond a few individual case studies。 Still， a strong reminder that our current unequal， conflict-riven reality is not destiny。 。。。more
Martyn Smith
，
Good social science delivers a story that makes sense of an era。 Robert Putnam and co-author Shaylyn Romney Garrett identify the construction of a narrative as their goal in The Upswing。 The originality of their work isn’t so much one strand of facts， but rather the working together of several strands into narrative of the last century。 By mashing up the long-term changes in economic equality， political polarization， levels of social solidarity， and cultural values they bring us the “I-We-I” nar Good social science delivers a story that makes sense of an era。 Robert Putnam and co-author Shaylyn Romney Garrett identify the construction of a narrative as their goal in The Upswing。 The originality of their work isn’t so much one strand of facts， but rather the working together of several strands into narrative of the last century。 By mashing up the long-term changes in economic equality， political polarization， levels of social solidarity， and cultural values they bring us the “I-We-I” narrative that is central to their book。 The US began the 20th century in an individualistic mode， then under the pressure of progressive era reforms and World War II the US became a more communal or We-oriented society。 An inflection point came in the 1960s， and all those markers began to head back in the direction of an individualistic society。This I-We-I narrative is communicated visually by the upside down U that’s on the （rather unimaginative） cover of The Upswing。 The data and facts of each section are made to fall into this same visual pattern。 At times the upside down U isn’t the most obvious way to depict the facts under consideration。 For example， when it comes to the “rise” of political polarization we expect rather to see a rising line for the greater number of filibusters， but we are made to see it instead as the “decline” of political comity。 But the narrative demands this dominant visual image， and part of making the argument clear is to convert all the facts into the form of this upside down U that represents the I-We-I story。If we accept the argument of The Upswing it brings historiographical consequences。 Looking back over the 20th century we might ask about the era that is most important era for understanding American cultural history。 It would be easy to land on the Great Depression or World War II。 If we look further down the line perhaps we would say the tech revolution that began in the 80s and gathered steam in the following decades。 But The Upswing shifts our focus to one really dominant era that serves as century’s hinge: the Sixties。 From the first decades of the 20th century until the mid 1960s all the strands of change were moving in the direction of community and solidarity。 Then something happened in the 1960s and those indicators head back down。 My mental note in reading this book was to pay still more attention in my reading and thinking to the 1960s。 It also wouldn’t hurt to listen more carefully to Bob Dylan， since his moment “going electric” is something Putnam points to as a point where the communal values of the folk scene gave way to a new focus on the individual。 One fact that Putnam cites I find astounding。 In 1950 only 12 percent of students agreed with the statement “I am a very important person。” In 1990 a full 80 percent of students agreed with that sentiment。 This is used by Putnam as a data point showing decline in social solidarity and the rise in individualism。 It also makes me pause to think about what it would take to get that number back down to something like 12 percent。 Certainly it would take changes on both the political left and right for large numbers of people to let go of that self-importance。 。。。more
Du
，