Book Review: Can we get from “Me” back to “We?”

Reviewed by David Zaiser 

In 2000, Robert D. Putnam wrote Bowling Alone, an influential best-seller that identified a range of causes for the dramatic decrease in participation in community-centered organizations in America (such as bowling leagues and parent-teacher associations) beginning in the 1950s. His follow-up, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis (2015), focused on reduced  
opportunity and upward mobility, highlighting inequalities among U.S. youth. In Putnam’s latest, The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do it Again, he and co-author Shaylyn Romney Garrett provide context to both earlier texts by using a variety of economic, political, social and cultural data.  

They identify a 125-year cycle that begins with the individually-focused and economically disparate “me” atmosphere of the late 19th-century Gilded Age, evolves into the more community-based “we” social environment of the mid 1960s, and then returns to the individualistic “me” atmosphere of today. The authors represent this process as an inverted u-shaped graph, with the x-axis being defined by time, and the y-axis representing social well-being, economic equality, social cohesion, and cultural solidarity.  

Their thesis is compelling, not just for its scholarly approach (there are more than 800 references) but also for how it describes a familiar history while simultaneously providing a compelling explanation for the social and political strife we are experiencing today. In the very first chapter, Putnam and Garrett cleverly connect our current divided atmosphere with that of the Gilded Age, using quotes from that era that are hauntingly similar to what we might read in a newspaper today. But while none of us was alive to experience the negative results of the economic disparities of the late 1800s and early 1900s, many have first-hand experience of the pro-community movements of the 1960s, including the Civil Rights Movement, the Women’s Movement, and the Anti-War Movement. The undercurrents of those movements are still with us today, but the social climate they created feels altogether different from today’s polarized milieu. The world is a different place than it was 60 years ago, and the downslope of Putnam and Garrett’s inverted U-curve is a compelling image of just how much has changed. 

But that explanation is not the thesis at the core of The Upswing. Putnam and Garrett’s inverted U-shaped graph is meant to show not only how we got here, but also to suggest that the process can be repeated. The authors propose that we can shift the cultural dialogue away from the “me” of hyper-individualism toward a more inclusive “we” by deliberately replicating some of the initiatives of the early 20th century. This includes promoting and strengthening civic and community groups (the early 20th century saw massive growth in voluntary associations, 80 percent of which are still in existence according to the authors), addressing economic inequality, encouraging political cooperation, and strengthening familial and community bonds. From where we are now, languishing in the trough of the curve, we can rise toward a more community-oriented environment. “What’s past is prologue,” insist the authors, quoting Shakespeare. By gaining an understanding of our past, we have a chance to define our future. 

As architects, why does this matter? Does this inverted U-shaped graph apply to architecture just as it does other cultural trends? Architecture’s stylistic evolution would suggest so. Our design work is the product of our cultural, political and economic environment and also, occasionally, reflective of our desire to change it. Obviously, clients play a primary role in the architectural expression that results from our commissions, but architects undoubtedly have influence, particularly with the specific forms the work takes. 

Consider suburban sprawl. In the 1950s, 60s, and particularly in the 1970s, forces began to move people away from the small town and urban environments that were more communally based (a topic that Putnam emphasized in detail in Bowling Alone). Then there is the rise of “Starchitecture,” which began in the 1980s — and continues today — with its proliferation of hero buildings purposely designed to create iconic imagery in contrast with their local environments. These initiatives reflected new design approaches among building owners, developers and architects alike, but they were also cultural phenomena. Reconsidering their impact today within the context of The Upswing, they can be seen as promulgating individualism as an ideal, which likely frustrated community-building and helped to define the downhill slope of Putnam’s and Garrett’s inverted U-curve. 

But architecture can also bring us together. The architecture of the first half of the 20th century helped create spaces that fostered community. Driven by technological advances in materials such as concrete and glass, architects created a “modern” style that allowed the construction of larger structures, which brought people together in close proximity for work, residence, and play. Fueled by industrialization and a strong economy, the architecture of the late 19th and early 20th centuries encouraged the creation of strong communal ties, economic equality, and social cohesion. 

What role can architects play today in recreating the atmosphere of the early 20th century and renewing support for community-building? As architects, our duty is to promote the general welfare. Too often, we have limited that duty to concern for the physical safety of building occupants rather than consideration for the good of our broader society. But recent design trends are more encouraging. Sustainability, historic preservation, resiliency, and universal design all entail consideration of the common good ahead of individual needs — even those of the client. When we overlay these concerns with our client’s programmatic needs in developing a building design, we are being intentional about accelerating our movement along the inverted U-shaped curve toward an architecture that is in alignment with the needs of all, not just those who pay for our services. 

The work of recent Pritzker Prize winners suggests a change in direction: away from Starchitecture and toward an architecture that uses local materials and efficient building technologies to lower the negative impacts of construction and support community. Riken Yamamoto, the Chinese-born, Japanese architect and winner of the 2024 Pritzker Prize, focuses his architecture specifically on building community. Of Yamamoto’s work, Pritzker Prize selection chair Alejandro Aravena wrote, “By carefully blurring the boundary between public and private, Yamamoto contributes positively beyond the brief to enable community. He is a reassuring architect who brings dignity to everyday life. Normality becomes extraordinary. Calmness leads to splendor.” The work of this year’s Pritzker winner, Liu Jiakun, also reflects an everyday approach to community-building, integrating circulation and gathering spaces to create unique and engaging forms, as he did for his West Village project in Chengdu, China. 

These are all reasons to be optimistic. But success begins with recognizing how we got here. Putnam and Garrett have provided that perspective. Now it is left to us to be intentional in supporting community in our design work and fostering The Upswing. 

David Zaiser, AIA is a project principal at HDR and a member of the CONTEXT Editorial Board.  

CAPTION: 

The Upswing: How America Came Together a Century Ago and How We Can Do It Again  

By Robert D. Putnam and Shaylyn Romney Garrett 

New York: Simon & Schuster, 2020