Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:17:02.196Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Religion and American Public Life

A Discussion of Robert Putnam and David Campbell's Saving Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2012

Laura R. Olson
Laura R. Olson
Affiliation:
Clemson University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In his 2000 best seller Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Civic Community, Robert Putnam analyzed the links between social capital and civic engagement. Lamenting the decline of “civic America,” he called for a Tocquevillean renewal of voluntary association in the United States. In American Grace, Putnam and coauthor David Campbell—who also helped with the preparation of Bowling Alone—return to the analysis of American civil society, focusing their attention on America's changing religious landscape and its implications for democracy. Their basic argument is that while the United States is religiously diverse and pluralistic to a profound degree, and while in recent years it has witnessed growing religious polarization, it has also succeeded in muting religious tensions and hostilities. As they conclude: “How has America solved the puzzle of religious pluralism—the coexistence of religious diversity and devotion? And how has it done so in the wake of growing religious polarization? By creating a web of interlocking personal relationships among people of many different faiths. This is America's grace” (p. 550).

Given the importance of religion in American life and the influence of Putnam's broad agenda on much current social science research on social capital and civic engagement, we have decided to organize a symposium around the book, centered on three questions: 1) How is American Grace related to Putnam's earlier work, particularly Bowling Alone, and what are the implications of the continuities and/or discontinuities between these works? 2) What kind of a work of political science is American Grace, and how does it compare to other important recent work dealing with religion and politics in the United States? 3) What are the strengths and weaknesses of Putnam and Campbell's account of “how religion divides and unites us,” and what is the best way of thinking about the contemporary significance of religion and politics in the United States and about the ways that the religious landscape challenges U.S. politics and U.S. political science?

Type
Review Symposium: Religion and American Public Life
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 103 - 106
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Djupe, Paul A., and Gilbert, Christopher P.. 2009. The Political Influence of Churches. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Djupe, Paul A., and Olson, Laura R.. 2007. “A Meditation on and Meta-analysis of the Public Presence of Religious Interests.” In Religious Interests in Community Conflict, ed. Djupe, Paul A. and Olson, Laura R., 253–280. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.Google Scholar
Green, John C. 2007. The Faith Factor: How Religion Influences American Elections. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Guth, James L., Green, John C., Kellstedt, Lyman A., Smidt, Corwin E., and Poloma, Margaret M.. 1997. The Bully Pulpit: The Politics of Protestant Clergy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J., and Weiler, Jonathan D.. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1995. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, James Davison. 1991. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jelen, Ted G. 1993. “The Political Consequences of Religious Group Attitudes.” Journal of Politics 55 (1): 178–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leege, David C. 1992. “Coalitions, Cues, Strategic Politics, and the Staying Power of the Religious Right, or Why Political Scientists Ought to Pay Attention to Cultural Politics.” PS: Political Science & Politics 25 (2): 198–204.Google Scholar
Leege, David C., Wald, Kenneth D., Krueger, Brian S., and Mueller, Paul D.. 2002. The Politics of Cultural Differences: Social Change and Voter Mobilization in the Post–New Deal Period. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2002. “Cross-cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice.” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 111–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neiheisel, Jacob R., Djupe, Paul A., and Sokhey, Anand E.. 2009. “Veni, Vidi, Disseri: Churches and the Promise of Democratic Deliberation.” American Politics Research 37 (4): 614–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Smith, Christian, ed. 1996. Disruptive Religion: The Force of Faith in Social Movement Activism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wald, Kenneth D., Silverman, Adam L., and Fridy, Kevin. 2005. “Making Sense of Religion in Political Life.” Annual Review of Political Science 8 (1): 121–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wald, Kenneth D., and Wilcox, Clyde. 2006. “Getting Religion: Has Political Science Rediscovered the Faith Factor?” American Political Science Review 100 (4): 523–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, Alan, and Katznelson, Ira, eds. 2010. Religion and Democracy in the United States: Danger or Opportunity? Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, Robert B. 2001. “Mere Exposure: A Gateway to the Subliminal.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 10 (6): 224–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar