Latest / Diplomacy and International Relations / Bowling Alone and Hyper Politics

Transcript

Bowling Alone and Hyper Politics · Diplomacy and International Relations

• 0:00
  Welcome to Diplomacy and International Relations by
• 0:02
  Bastian Freiborg. Just a quick heads up before we
• 0:05
  get started. This deep dive is generated with
• 0:08
  AI, but rest assured all the information we'll be covering
• 0:12
  has been carefully verified. And today we're diving into
• 0:14
  something pretty fundamental, really.
• 0:17
  It's this shift in, well, how societies hold together, the
• 0:21
  decline in social connections, in civic engagement.
• 0:25
  And this isn't just some academic idea.
• 0:27
  It has real ripple effects. You see it in international
• 0:31
  relations, the overall health of democracies globally, and, you
• 0:35
  know, even in national politics, like in Denmark for instance.
• 0:39
  OK, let's unpack that. I mean, the groundwork for a lot
• 0:41
  of this discussion, it was really laid by Robert Putnam in
• 0:43
  Bowling Alone, wasn't it? Absolutely.
• 0:45
  He was the one who really highlighted that massive drop in
• 0:48
  people joining things, you know, social activities across the US,
• 0:50
  especially from the mid 20th century onward.
• 0:53
  Fewer bowling leagues, fewer clubs, that kind of thing.
• 0:55
  Exactly. Less community involvement
• 0:57
  overall. And crucially, this wasn't just
• 1:00
  about hobbies, no, this decline in social participation.
• 1:03
  It went pretty much hand in hand with a drop in how much people
• 1:07
  were actually engaging civically in their local communities, in
• 1:12
  politics, the whole picture. Which paints such a different
• 1:15
  scene from, say, 19th century America.
• 1:17
  Oh, completely different. Our sources talk about this
• 1:20
  really strong spirit of optimism back then, but it wasn't just
• 1:23
  like wishful thinking. No, it was grounded.
• 1:26
  Grounded in this really dense web of social connections, local
• 1:32
  schools, churches, trade unions, all sorts of civic societies.
• 1:35
  Community life sounds like it was just buzzing, really active.
• 1:38
  It does in that contrast, you know, between that vibrant
• 1:41
  community life really fueled by connections and the more
• 1:45
  fragmented picture today is striking.
• 1:47
  So the mission for us in this deep dive is to really get into
• 1:50
  this complex issue of declining social capital.
• 1:53
  Now, a lot of our source material focuses on the US and
• 1:56
  the UK. That's true.
• 1:57
  But the core themes, social bonds, civic participation,
• 2:02
  they're absolutely key when you think about international
• 2:05
  relations, global politics, and, yeah, even the specifics of
• 2:09
  Danish politics, where that strong social trust is often
• 2:12
  seen as so vital. So we want to understand what's
• 2:15
  driving the decline. Exactly, and what roles
• 2:18
  different players, governments, corporations might have in maybe
• 2:23
  turning things around. OK, let's start with the state.
• 2:25
  Then there's this big question, isn't there?
• 2:27
  Should governments actively try to, you know, rebuild community
• 2:31
  life? Yeah.
• 2:32
  What are the arguments for that? Well, one viewpoint is that the
• 2:34
  state can be like a crucial civic investor.
• 2:38
  How so? Think about government funding
• 2:39
  for the arts. You know, local festivals,
• 2:41
  national grants, public broadcasting like PBS or NPR in
• 2:45
  the States. Oh, OK.
• 2:46
  Things that bring people together.
• 2:47
  Precisely, they create shared cultural moments, experiences
• 2:51
  that can foster a sense of collective identity, a bit of
• 2:54
  social. Glue.
• 2:55
  That makes sense. Those shared experiences can
• 2:56
  build belonging. Yeah.
• 2:57
  And then there's that other idea, the one about repurposing
• 3:00
  buildings. Yeah, that's a fascinating 1
• 3:04
  taking existing infrastructure. Maybe struggling shopping malls
• 3:07
  or buildings that aren't used much anymore.
• 3:09
  Old churches. Empty downtown shops.
• 3:12
  And turning them into what? Into community hubs, places
• 3:16
  offering a whole mix of things. Maybe small business incubators,
• 3:20
  social services, makerspaces with shared tools, nonprofit
• 3:24
  offices, rec centers, even just like community coffee spots or
• 3:29
  public living rooms. Public living rooms.
• 3:31
  I like that. Places to just be without having
• 3:34
  to buy something. Exactly addressing that need for
• 3:37
  informal social interaction and think about the potential
• 3:40
  synergy there. Synergy.
• 3:41
  Yeah. You know, different groups
• 3:43
  bumping into each other. Maybe the makerspace folks
• 3:45
  connect with the local ham radio club, leading to new ideas,
• 3:49
  stronger networks overall. But it's not clear cut.
• 3:51
  Is it the state's role? There's a real debate.
• 3:54
  Some say yes government support, others want a much more hands
• 3:57
  off approach. That's the core tension,
• 3:59
  absolutely. On one side you have people
• 4:01
  arguing the state needs to actively fund community centers,
• 4:04
  support local projects. And the other side.
• 4:06
  The other side suggests, well, maybe the state should actually
• 4:09
  pull back. Some argue for abolishing
• 4:12
  welfare, for instance, believing that communities will form more
• 4:16
  organically if people need to rely on each other more.
• 4:19
  Right. The idea that depending on the
• 4:20
  state, might weaken those natural horizontal ties between
• 4:25
  neighbors. That's the logic.
• 4:26
  If the state provides the safety net, maybe there's less
• 4:29
  incentive to build those mutual support systems yourself.
• 4:33
  But you know, there's a counter argument, this decline in
• 4:36
  community third places, it's relatively recent, right?
• 4:39
  States have been around forever. Good point.
• 4:41
  And one source even points to the New Deal era in the US.
• 4:45
  Huge state intervention during the depression, but also a time
• 4:48
  of really strong local organizations.
• 4:50
  Maybe shared struggle brought people together then.
• 4:53
  So it's not a simple equation. More state equals weaker
• 4:56
  community. Don't seem like it.
• 4:57
  It's more nuanced, Which brings us to the perspective that the
• 5:01
  state's role should be, well, more limited.
• 5:04
  Some argue the state's main job is just to protect the right to
• 5:07
  associate freely, get rid of barriers that stop people
• 5:10
  connecting. But the government shouldn't be
• 5:13
  actively creating associations or deciding what a meaningful
• 5:16
  life looks like. Just ensure the conditions are
• 5:18
  right. Kind of.
• 5:20
  And related to that is the idea of the state investing in public
• 5:23
  spaces, parks, libraries, plazas, places people can gather
• 5:27
  without needing to spend money tackling that death of third
• 5:31
  place's idea again. Yeah, providing the physical
• 5:34
  space for interaction. Exactly, though we also have to
• 5:37
  acknowledge the argument that the state itself can sometimes
• 5:39
  be divisive. How so?
• 5:41
  Well, intentionally or not, state policies can sometimes
• 5:45
  deepen political or social divides, actually working
• 5:48
  against community cohesion. That's.
• 5:50
  Yeah, a sobering thought. The institution meant to serve
• 5:54
  everyone, potentially pulling them apart.
• 5:55
  And it makes you question whether the state, just by how
• 5:58
  it manages or doesn't manage public space, is always either
• 6:01
  helping or hindering those social bonds.
• 6:03
  Even things like tax breaks. Right.
• 6:05
  One source points out that technically every tax exempt
• 6:09
  church in the US is state sponsored.
• 6:11
  In a way, it's all quite tangled.
• 6:13
  It's a very tangled web. OK, what about the other big
• 6:16
  players? Corporations.
• 6:18
  How do they fit into this picture of declining social
• 6:21
  capital? Well, there's a pretty strong
• 6:23
  argument emerging that corporations, especially big
• 6:26
  tech companies, carry quite a bit of responsibility.
• 6:29
  Here for weakening social ties. Yeah, the criticism is that
• 6:33
  their business models often put profit way ahead of societal
• 6:36
  well-being. They create these online spaces
• 6:39
  that can feel isolating, maybe even superficial, rather than
• 6:43
  fostering genuine deep connections.
• 6:45
  That feeling of being always online but still feeling alone.
• 6:49
  That's it, exactly. And then there's the idea that
• 6:50
  societies become more litigious, maybe partly because of
• 6:53
  technology, constant recording, online scrutiny.
• 6:56
  Making people afraid to just interact casually potentially.
• 6:59
  Yeah, a fear of misspeaking, being misinterpreted, facing
• 7:02
  some kind of online pylon. It could definitely put a chill
• 7:05
  on spontaneous social interactions.
• 7:08
  It's funny though, there seems to be this frustration that
• 7:11
  corporate actions are hurting communities, but also, in some
• 7:16
  circles, a real resistance to letting the government step in
• 7:20
  to fix it. That's a paradox our sources
• 7:22
  definitely highlight. People see the problem caused by
• 7:24
  corporate behavior, but they're hesitant to give the government
• 7:27
  more power to regulate or counteract.
• 7:29
  It often comes down to, you know, philosophical views about
• 7:32
  government intervention in the free market.
• 7:34
  So are companies likely to change course on their own for
• 7:39
  the greater good? The consensus seems to be
• 7:42
  probably not. Not without pressure, anyway,
• 7:44
  either from unions pushing for work or well-being, or from
• 7:47
  government holding them accountable for their broader
• 7:49
  social impact. Right.
• 7:51
  OK, let's pivot a bit. Let's talk about the actual
• 7:53
  factors contributing to this decline.
• 7:55
  It feels like a perfect storm of different trends.
• 7:58
  It really does. One huge factor seems to be just
• 8:01
  the basic economics of life, the rising cost of living combined
• 8:05
  with a really demanding work culture.
• 8:07
  People are just stretched too thin.
• 8:09
  Exactly. Longer hours, maybe longer
• 8:11
  commutes. It just leaves less time, less
• 8:13
  energy to invest in your local community, go to meetings,
• 8:17
  volunteer. Makes complete sense.
• 8:19
  If you're just trying to keep your head above water, joining
• 8:21
  the PTA might not be top of the list.
• 8:23
  Precisely. And tied into that is this idea
• 8:27
  that society's focus on, you know, the free market, the
• 8:30
  profit motive above all else that can clash with older values
• 8:34
  of community, of mutual support. The hustle culture versus
• 8:38
  neighborliness. Kind of that constant pressure,
• 8:41
  what would one source called a transactional mercenary approach
• 8:44
  to life can really wear away at those informal supportive
• 8:48
  connections. And just the stress of modern
• 8:50
  life, things like healthcare, taxes.
• 8:53
  Our sources mentioned civic arthritis.
• 8:55
  Yes, civic arthritis, it's a great phrase.
• 8:57
  The mental load of just navigating these incredibly
• 8:59
  complex systems, it can absolutely lead to people
• 9:03
  disengaging from civic life. Feeling overwhelmed?
• 9:05
  Totally overwhelmed and some argue that even well meaning
• 9:08
  government programs say in healthcare can have unintended
• 9:11
  side effects, rising costs, administrative nightmares that
• 9:14
  just add to that feeling. We also hear a lot about rugged
• 9:17
  individualism, especially in places like the US.
• 9:21
  That probably doesn't help build community either.
• 9:23
  No, a strong cultural focus on individualism, plus that
• 9:26
  tendency towards seeing interactions as transactions.
• 9:30
  It can definitely discourage deeper connections.
• 9:33
  And of course, we can't ignore the pull of more solitary
• 9:36
  activities. Like social media video games?
• 9:38
  Social media, gaming, streaming, TV.
• 9:42
  They offer connection or entertainment, sure, but they
• 9:45
  often replace face to FaceTime. It's easier right scrolling your
• 9:48
  phone versus making the effort to go meet people.
• 9:51
  Often feels that way. And Putnam back in bowling
• 9:54
  alone. He listed a whole slew of
• 9:56
  factors, didn't he? You did.
• 9:57
  What were some of those again? Let's see more time pressure
• 10:00
  from work, economic hard times, more women entering the paid
• 10:03
  workforce, people moving house more often, suburban sprawl, the
• 10:08
  rise of TV and the whole electronic revolution.
• 10:10
  Changes in how the economy works, shifts in marriage and
• 10:13
  family was a long list. Wow, a confluence of massive
• 10:17
  societal shifts. Absolutely.
• 10:19
  Fundamentally, it points towards this move away from shared local
• 10:23
  activities towards more individualized stuff often
• 10:26
  happening online, which maybe just doesn't build the same
• 10:29
  strong bonds. And Putnam also really flagged
• 10:31
  generational change, didn't they, as a major driver.
• 10:34
  A huge driver, yes. Different generations just seem
• 10:37
  to connect and participate in different ways and that accounts
• 10:40
  for a big chunk of the decline. Plus more recently say since the
• 10:44
  80s you've got things like anti union laws, globalized labor
• 10:49
  market. Pushing people out of old
• 10:50
  associations. Exactly, while at the same time
• 10:53
  these easier, often passive online alternatives just keep
• 10:57
  multiplying. OK, let's shift gear again.
• 11:00
  Modern political engagement. It just feels different now,
• 11:03
  doesn't it? It really does.
• 11:04
  There's this concept, hyper politics.
• 11:07
  Hyper. Politics.
• 11:08
  Yeah, it's used to describe a kind of politicization that's
• 11:11
  very individualistic, often focused on the short term, and
• 11:14
  maybe lacks the sort of collective weight or value that
• 11:17
  20th century civic action had. So lots of noise online maybe,
• 11:21
  but not the same collective action.
• 11:23
  Kind of think about how quickly online outrage flares up and
• 11:26
  dies down, or the focus on individual expression in digital
• 11:30
  activism. Compare that to the long, slow,
• 11:34
  collective work of traditional political organizing.
• 11:37
  Right, online activism feels more fluid.
• 11:41
  Ephemeral. Exactly like the Internet
• 11:43
  itself, you get these swarms of individuals coalescing around an
• 11:48
  issue, but it's not quite the same as stable long term
• 11:52
  community building through say a party or a union.
• 11:54
  One source made a really interesting point about the left
• 11:57
  versus the right in this landscape.
• 11:59
  Challenges in building culture. Yeah, the argument goes that the
• 12:02
  right can often operate more easily within the kind of social
• 12:05
  structures that capitalism naturally creates.
• 12:08
  It has an advantage there. Potentially, whereas the left
• 12:11
  often faces the bigger task of actively building a
• 12:14
  counterculture, something separate from the dominant.
• 12:16
  One and then there's the far right project we see focusing on
• 12:19
  boundaries and the state. Yes, the goal there often seems
• 12:23
  to be about reinforcing boundaries, using history to
• 12:26
  draw lines between us and them. The state is seen as this
• 12:30
  biopolitical. Agent and focused on
• 12:32
  identification politics, basically sorting and
• 12:35
  classifying people. And this doesn't always mean
• 12:38
  like a total revolution. Not necessarily.
• 12:41
  Often these movements can work within the existing system just
• 12:45
  by expanding what they call zones of internal exclusion.
• 12:48
  Like detention centers? Stricter border controls.
• 12:50
  Things like that without tearing down the whole structure.
• 12:53
  And they often have strong grassroots support.
• 12:56
  Churches, charities, online forums backing them up.
• 12:58
  Which contrasts with the left, where civil society seems more
• 13:02
  fragmented. That's the assessment in some
• 13:05
  sources. Even with lots of activist
• 13:07
  groups focused on specific issues, there isn't always that
• 13:10
  same kind of unified nationwide network you might see on the
• 13:13
  right. Leading to a politics of
• 13:15
  resistance. Yeah, where the focus becomes
• 13:16
  more about pushing back against the state.
• 13:18
  Maybe because actually wielding state power feels more remote?
• 13:23
  And we're seeing traditional parties decline too, right
• 13:25
  across Europe. Membership is definitely down
• 13:27
  for many traditional mass parties left and right, although
• 13:31
  in the US context it's worth remembering they never really
• 13:33
  had mass parties in quite the same European way, at least not
• 13:37
  since the late 1800s. Which brings up Prenawerski's
• 13:39
  dilemma, that challenge for left parties.
• 13:43
  Right. How do you broaden your appeal
• 13:45
  beyond the traditional working class without losing that core
• 13:48
  support? It's a constant balancing act
• 13:50
  they face throughout history. Trying to appeal to farmers, the
• 13:53
  middle class, the people more broadly.
• 13:55
  Exactly. Often involving a kind of
• 13:57
  populist shift in rhetoric. So the big question then, can
• 14:02
  online engagement actually replace that declining
• 14:06
  traditional social capital? That's the $1,000,000 question,
• 14:09
  isn't it? We're still figuring it out.
• 14:10
  Online communities are easy to join, easy to leave, Lower
• 14:13
  stakes, much lower stakes. The connections might not be as
• 14:16
  deep or as lasting as those you build in a face to face group
• 14:19
  where leaving has real social consequences.
• 14:22
  And people are talking about post fascism now as something
• 14:25
  different from the 20th century version.
• 14:27
  Yeah, it's one term being used. It points to maybe more
• 14:30
  atomized, volatile right wing movements still focused on
• 14:34
  limiting citizenship, reinforcing borders, but maybe
• 14:37
  lacking that highly organized mass mobilization aspect of
• 14:41
  historical fascism. So maybe comparisons to the
• 14:44
  1930s aren't always the most helpful.
• 14:46
  Some argue not. They suggest looking at other
• 14:49
  historical moments, like Marx's analysis of 1848 France,
• 14:53
  focusing on things like private debt, the relationship between
• 14:56
  debtors and creditors that might actually be more relevant to
• 14:59
  today's politics. Interesting.
• 15:01
  The idea being that focusing only on a fascist frame might
• 15:05
  actually overestimate the left's strength today and distract from
• 15:08
  the bigger picture of, well, political disengagement
• 15:11
  generally. That's definitely a concern
• 15:12
  raised. Which brings us back nicely to
• 15:14
  the core concept, social capital itself.
• 15:17
  Let's pin down that definition. OK, so our sources define it as
• 15:21
  basically the connections between people, social networks
• 15:24
  and the trust and reciprocity that grow out of.
• 15:26
  Them. Exactly.
• 15:27
  It's not just the institutions themselves, but the glue that
• 15:29
  holds them together. Good glue, I like that.
• 15:31
  And it feeds itself, right? Trust builds more trust.
• 15:34
  When you have good experiences relying on people, you become
• 15:37
  more likely to trust others. Generally that leads to
• 15:41
  generalized reciprocity. Doing something for someone
• 15:44
  without expecting something back immediately, but having the sort
• 15:47
  of background confidence that down the line someone will
• 15:50
  probably do something for you. A sense of mutual obligation.
• 15:54
  So it underpins that feeling of community support.
• 15:57
  And there's a difference between thick and thin trust.
• 16:00
  Yes, thick trust is for the people you know really well.
• 16:02
  Family, close friends, colleagues you see all the time.
• 16:05
  It's personal, embedded in strong ties.
• 16:08
  And thin trust. That's the trust you extend to
• 16:11
  strangers, people you don't know personally.
• 16:14
  It still relies on shared norms and that expectation of
• 16:16
  reciprocity, but it's broader, less personal, essential for,
• 16:20
  you know, complex societies to function.
• 16:22
  OK. And what builds that trust?
• 16:24
  What are the key ingredients? Three main things pop up
• 16:27
  Trustworthiness itself, people being reliable, having
• 16:30
  integrity, reciprocity that give and take, and networks, the
• 16:34
  actual structures that allow people to interact repeatedly.
• 16:36
  So getting involved in the community is pretty key then?
• 16:39
  Absolutely. Joining things, whether it's a
• 16:41
  choir, a residents association, even old style groups like
• 16:45
  burial societies, it all forces interaction, improves
• 16:49
  communication, helps people learn to cooperate.
• 16:52
  That's how you build social capital.
• 16:54
  And why do people join in the first place?
• 16:56
  All sorts of reasons, just enjoying the activity, needing
• 16:59
  social contact, wanting to fix a local problem, seeing a clear
• 17:03
  benefit for themselves, or just believing they can actually make
• 17:06
  a difference by getting involved.
• 17:08
  Religious groups have historically been huge for this
• 17:10
  right. Massively important People
• 17:12
  involved in congregations often show higher levels of civic
• 17:15
  engagement. Generally, they tend to have
• 17:17
  bigger, more diverse social networks, especially in, say,
• 17:21
  African American communities. Faith groups have been
• 17:24
  absolutely central, though as we noted, church membership is
• 17:27
  falling in some places. And what about these types, the
• 17:30
  moshers and the schmoozers? Yeah, moshers are the doers, the
• 17:34
  organizers within formal groups, the ones who really make things
• 17:37
  happen. And schmoozers.
• 17:39
  They're active in the informal stuff, conversations, casual
• 17:42
  relationships, networking. Both are vital to the social
• 17:46
  fabric, just in different ways. Interestingly, research shows
• 17:49
  being part of these networks is a better predictor of
• 17:52
  volunteering or donating money than just having generally
• 17:55
  altruistic feelings. So connection, drive, action?
• 17:59
  What about bigger social movements?
• 18:01
  The links may be a bit less direct, but grassroots movements
• 18:04
  definitely can build social capital.
• 18:07
  They forge new identities, create new networks among people
• 18:10
  who might not have otherwise connected.
• 18:12
  And education level seems to be a pretty strong predictor too,
• 18:15
  especially for joining formal organizations.
• 18:17
  And this isn't just about feeling good, is it?
• 18:19
  There are tangible benefits to high social capital.
• 18:22
  Oh absolutely. More and more research links
• 18:25
  strong community connections to better health, more wells, even
• 18:28
  sort of collective wisdom, communities being better at
• 18:30
  solving problems together. How does that work?
• 18:33
  Well, it lowers the friction of social life, right?
• 18:35
  If there's trust, transactions are easier.
• 18:38
  People are more aware of how their actions affect others.
• 18:41
  It even seems to help people cope better with trauma, fight
• 18:43
  illness, real psychological and biological effects.
• 18:47
  So stronger communities are literally healthier communities.
• 18:50
  Seems that way, and they're more resilient.
• 18:52
  In neighborhoods with strong ties, people rely on each other.
• 18:56
  They can use social pressure, you know, moral suasion, to deal
• 19:00
  with local issues. And it's good for kids, too.
• 19:02
  Consistently linked to better outcomes for children, healthier
• 19:06
  births, lower teen pregnancy, fewer dropouts, less crime,
• 19:10
  lower rates of premature death. It's quite remarkable.
• 19:13
  Conversely, a lack of social capital makes problems like
• 19:16
  poverty or unemployment even worse.
• 19:19
  It removes that buffer, that support system, even St. gangs
• 19:22
  in a way, can be seen as a distorted form of social capital
• 19:25
  when positive alternatives aren't there.
• 19:27
  And. There's an economic.
• 19:29
  Yes, quite a few studies link higher social capital measured
• 19:32
  by things like trust levels, directly to better economic
• 19:34
  growth. Trust is good for business, it
• 19:36
  seems. It really touches everything and
• 19:39
  our sources had some simple ways to gauge this.
• 19:41
  Just basic questions. Yeah, things like, do you know
• 19:45
  your neighbors names? Go to local events, volunteer.
• 19:48
  Do you trust the police? Know your senators, go to
• 19:51
  church, sign petitions. Feel like local leaders care?
• 19:55
  Feel like you can make a difference?
• 19:56
  How often do you see friends or family?
• 19:58
  Simple stuff, but indicative. And then there are bigger
• 20:01
  surveys like that benchmark survey.
• 20:03
  Right the Social Capital Community benchmark survey that
• 20:06
  looks at multiple dimensions Trust, political engagement,
• 20:09
  giving and volunteering, faith involvement, informal
• 20:13
  socializing, group memberships, civic leadership, how diverse
• 20:17
  people's friendships are, and whether participation is equal
• 20:19
  across different groups. And that survey showed patterns
• 20:23
  like geographical ones. It often does.
• 20:25
  For instance, in the US, higher social capital tends to show up
• 20:28
  more in northern states, lower in the South, and there's a
• 20:30
  strong correlation between high social capital States and states
• 20:33
  where kids generally do better. Also, places with lots of
• 20:36
  associations tend to have more public meetings, higher voter
• 20:40
  turn out, more nonprofits. It all connects.
• 20:43
  OK, let's zoom in on the UK now. What's the picture there?
• 20:47
  Similar declines. Well, yes and no.
• 20:50
  There's definitely evidence of decline in some traditional
• 20:52
  areas, working men's clubs, unions, religious groups, that
• 20:55
  sort of thing. Similar to the US and it
• 20:58
  coincides with the rise of social media.
• 21:00
  But perhaps surprisingly, overall generalized social trust
• 21:03
  in the UK has actually gone up recently, reached its highest
• 21:06
  point since the early 80s. Apparently rings pretty well
• 21:09
  internationally too and the increase seems to be across the
• 21:12
  board age, income, region. That is interesting.
• 21:16
  A counter trend almost. What about COVID?
• 21:18
  How did that impact things in the UK?
• 21:20
  It seems to have been complex. On the one hand, there were
• 21:23
  reports of more informal volunteering, people checking on
• 21:26
  neighbors, more meaningful chats.
• 21:28
  Some research even hints it might have boosted national
• 21:31
  unity a bit, maybe even led to lasting increases in trust.
• 21:35
  But you know, experience has varied a lot internationally.
• 21:38
  And UK governments have tried to boost social capital before,
• 21:40
  haven't they? Oh yes, there have been various
• 21:43
  initiatives over the years. Active citizenship back in the
• 21:47
  Thatcher era, a speaker's Commission on it, interest in
• 21:50
  communitarianism, the New Deal for communities.
• 21:54
  The idea has been around Whitehall.
• 21:56
  But maybe not always front and center.
• 21:59
  Often not, especially in the big economic ministries.
• 22:02
  Despite all the evidence linking it to growth and well-being, it
• 22:05
  sometimes gets overlooked, though it did get a mention in
• 22:08
  the recent leveling up plans. And sometimes other policies can
• 22:12
  hurt it unintentionally. Exactly like the trend towards
• 22:15
  larger secondary schools, which can also become more segregated
• 22:19
  by wealth, that might unintentionally weaken local
• 22:21
  social ties built through smaller, more local schools.
• 22:25
  But university seems to help graduates report higher social
• 22:28
  capital. They do, yeah.
• 22:30
  Significantly higher trust levels.
• 22:32
  The thinking is that the whole residential university
• 22:34
  experience, living closely with others, building networks in
• 22:37
  that high trust environment, has a lasting positive effect.
• 22:40
  So, thinking about policy in the UK, what kinds of things could
• 22:43
  actually help build social capital?
• 22:45
  Well sources suggest things at different scales.
• 22:47
  Micro level stuff like making it easier for older people to move
• 22:51
  nearer to family, maybe changes to property taxes like stamped
• 22:55
  duty or a right to move in social housing.
• 22:58
  OK, practical things. What about the meso level?
• 23:01
  Community level. Supporting community development
• 23:03
  more strategically. Maybe mapping local areas not
• 23:06
  just for economic data, but for social capital measures too.
• 23:10
  Mapping where civil society groups are active.
• 23:13
  Perhaps revisiting programs that support community organizers?
• 23:17
  And housing. Promoting things like Co housing
• 23:19
  could help and maybe using subsidies for business networks
• 23:22
  not just for business advice but specifically to create peer
• 23:26
  groups, build trust and knowledge sharing there.
• 23:29
  And at the macro national level? Tackling the trust problem head
• 23:32
  on, helping people figure out who and what is trustworthy.
• 23:36
  Maybe designing welfare systems differently so they don't
• 23:38
  automatically signal distrust towards citizens.
• 23:41
  Assuming honesty first, perhaps interesting and also consciously
• 23:46
  nurturing shared experiences and common values through national
• 23:48
  events, popular culture, media. Trying to build that sense of
• 23:52
  shared identity. So the take away is social
• 23:55
  capital matters a lot, but it's often neglected.
• 24:00
  That seems to be the bottom line.
• 24:01
  It's crucial for the economy, for social mobility, for
• 24:04
  well-being, but it doesn't always get the attention it
• 24:06
  deserves in policy making. Well, this has certainly been a
• 24:11
  really comprehensive look at a complex issue.
• 24:13
  We've touched on so many factors changing social capital and
• 24:15
  civic life, the state, corporations, our own behaviors.
• 24:19
  It's a big puzzle. It is.
• 24:21
  And while yes, our sources focus mainly on the US and UK, these
• 24:25
  underlying principles, connection, trust,
• 24:27
  participation, they're clearly vital for international
• 24:29
  relations, for healthy democracies everywhere,
• 24:32
  including here in Denmark. Understanding this is just so
• 24:35
  important in our connected world.
• 24:37
  Absolutely crucial. So a final thought for you, our
• 24:40
  listener, thinking about everything we've discussed, all
• 24:42
  these different angles, what single policy or maybe societal
• 24:47
  shift do you think could make the biggest positive difference
• 24:50
  in rebuilding social capital, where you live, in your
• 24:54
  community, your nation? Definitely something to Mull
• 24:56
  over. Thank you so much for joining us
• 24:58
  for this deep dive into diplomacy and international
• 25:01
  relations. Yes, thank you for listening.
• 25:03
  And if you found this conversation valuable, please do
• 25:05
  consider following the podcast and maybe leave us a five star
• 25:08
  rating. It genuinely helps us reach more
• 25:10
  people.