Supplement to Initial Summarization of Putnam
Adrian Johnston (rdm9298@jeeves.la.utexas.edu)
Fri, 6 Oct 1995 12:12:10 -0500
Towards the end of my summary of Putnam, I suppose that I jumped a
bit to hard on him for the "insubstantiability" of his claim that "civil-
ity" leads to economic prosperity. This is not to say that I am not still
extremely skeptical of his causal scheme. Putnam does have some evidence
to back his claim with, but he only takes into account a narrow number of
economic factors (levels of agriculture and industry). It can easily (and
perhaps more convincingly) be argued that the contrary of Putnam's ordering
is true- that economic prosperity fosters "civil society." Once could ask
Putnam, "What enables associations to arise?" "How do these groups pay for
their expenses (soccer teams must have a hired coach, uniforms, a stadium,
practice fields, equipment, etc.)?" "If these groups are voluntary/extra-
cirricular, what kind of lifestyle allows for such activities?" "What is
the origin of this leisure time?" Such types of questions lead one to
seeing the necessary role that strictly financial capital must play in
order to give rise to what Putnam qualifies as legitimately measurable
indexes of "civility." Secondly, Putnam seems reductive in arguing that,
based on only two ambiguous measurements of economic development, that all
20 regions of Italy studied were initially on the same footing economically
around 1900. Certianly there must have been some differentiation (natural
resources, foreign investment, available technology, distribution of wealth
across the general population, rich-poor gaps, etc...) amongst the regions.
Establishing the parity of the regions in terms of initial (year-zero)
levels of economic development is crucial to Putnam's causal scheme. If
the North was initially ahead of the South economically at year-zero, then
their "civility" could easily be linked to their financial standing.
Similarly, Putnam is forced to argue that the South had the same economic
chances as the North initially, and that their subsequent economic failure
must be blamed on their failings as "civil societies." And despite the
absolutely crucial nature of these positions for Putnam's "big picture" of
civil society, his cited economic evidence only serves to invite a massive
torrent of damaging questions. So, I was wrong in saying that he didn't
cite anything, but still feel that he is in some way being pedagogical
himself in assuming that any critical reader will gloss-over the gaping
holes in his line of reasoning.
-----------
Remote host: smf-h6.facsmf.utexas.edu