User:Holiday218

Definition

“Social Capital is the extent of the valued social relations possessed by and actor” (Ritzer 2007: 178). In other words the idea that the more social relationships you have the better off you are or the more “capital” you have socially. There are many other definitions from such theorists as Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putnam.

“Social capital is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition -- or in other words, to membership in a group--which provides each of its members with the backing of the collectivity-owned capital, a "credential" which entitles them to credit, in the various senses of the word” (Bourdieu 1983: 183-98).

“Social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Putnam 2000: 288-290).

Coleman’s use of the idea of social capital derives from rational choice theory but attempts to overcome the excessive individualism of the paradigm by examining the resources inherent in particular kinds of social structure (Ritzer 2007).

History

The notion of social capital first appeared in Lyda Judson Hanifan's discussions of rural school community centres. He used the term to describe 'those tangible substances that count for most in the daily lives of people. Hanifan was particularly concerned with the cultivation of good will, fellowship, sympathy and social intercourse among those that make up a social unit. (Putnam 2000) However, it has taken some time for the term to come into widespread usage. Most recently, it has been the work of Robert D. Putnam that has launched social capital as a focus for research and policy discussion. There are other notable contributions that have come from Jane Jacobs in relation to urban life and neighborliness, Pierre Bourdieu[1] with regard to social theory, and James S. Coleman in his discussions of the social context of education. It has also been picked up by the World Bank as a useful organizing idea. It is argued that increasing evidence shows that social cohesion is critical for societies to prosper economically and for development to be sustainable. (Putnam 2000)

Putnam View

There are reasons why social capital is important, Putnam lists three specific reasons… First, social capital allows citizens to resolve collective problems more easily… People often might be better off if they cooperate, with each doing her share. But each individual benefits more by shirking their responsibility, hoping that others will do the work for her…. [Resolving this dilemma is] best served by an institutional mechanism with the power to ensure compliance with the collectively desirable behavior. Social norms and the networks that enforce them provide such a mechanism. (Putnam 2000) Second, social capital greases the wheels that allow communities to advance smoothly. Where people are trusting and trustworthy, and where they are subject to repeated interactions with fellow citizens, everyday business and social transactions are less costly…. (Putnam 2000) A third way is which social capital improves our lot is by widening our awareness of the many ways in which our fates are linked. People who have active and trusting connections to others – whether family members, friends, or fellow bowlers – develop or maintain character traits that are good for the rest of society. Joiners become more tolerant, less cynical, and more empathetic to the misfortunes of others. When people lack connection to others, they are unable to test the veracity of their own views, whether in the give or take of casual conversation or in more formal deliberation. Without such an opportunity, people are more likely to be swayed by their worse impulses…. (Putnam 2000) The networks that constitute social capital also serve as conduits for the flow of helpful information that facilitates achieving our goals…. Social capital also operates through psychological and biological processes to improve individual’s lives. Mounting evidence suggests that people whose lives are rich in social capital cope better with traumas and fight illness more effectively. … Community connectedness is not just about warm fuzzy tales of civic triumph. In measurable and well-documented ways, social capital makes an enormous difference to our lives. (Putnam 2000)

Bourdieu view

Relationships may exist only in the practical state, in material and/or symbolic exchanges which help to maintain them. They may also be socially instituted and guaranteed by the application of a common name (the name of a family, a class, or a tribe or of a school, a party, etc.) and by a whole set of instituting acts designed simultaneously to form and inform those who undergo them; in this case, they are more or less really enacted and so maintained and reinforced, in exchanges. Being based on indissolubly material and symbolic exchanges, the establishment and maintenance of which presuppose re-acknowledgment of proximity, they are also partially irreducible to objective relations of proximity in physical (geographical) space or even in economic and social space. (Bourdieu 1983: 183-98)

The volume of the social capital possessed by a given agent thus depends on the size of the network of connections he can effectively mobilize and on the volume of the capital (economic, cultural or symbolic) possessed in his own right by each of those to whom he is connected This means that, although it is relatively irreducible to the economic and cultural capital possessed by a given agent, or even by the whole set of agents to whom he is connected, social capital is never completely independent of it because the exchanges instituting mutual acknowledgment presuppose the re-acknowledgment of a minimum of objective homogeneity, and because it exerts a multiplier effect on the capital he possesses in his own right. (Bourdieu 1983: 183-98)

The profits which accrue from membership in a group are the basis of the solidarity which makes them possible. This does not mean that they are consciously pursued as such, even in the case of groups like select clubs, which are deliberately organized in order to concentrate social capital and so to derive full benefit from the multiplier effect implied in concentration and to secure the profits of membership -- material profits, such as all the types of services accruing from useful relationships, and symbolic profits, such as those derived from association with a rare, prestigious group. (Bourdieu 1983: 183-98)

Criticisms

The criticism[2] has taken three main forms. First, Durlauf, Bowles, Manski and others have argued that there still exists a great deal of ambiguity about what the term represents and whether it conveys ideas that are conceptually new. Within the sociology literature at least, Portes argues that there is a growing consensus that “social capital stands for the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures.” A second set of criticisms has to do with the measurability of social capital. Some, such as Solow, have questioned whether social capital is measurable, while many have focused on the particular proxy variables used, survey responses to questions about trust andgroup membership. A final criticism, based in part at least on the previous one, is that the empirical research has not presented convincing evidence that social capital has any significant economic effects. (Durkin 2000)

The resources one can have access to because of social capital might be something as esoteric as friendship or companionship or as concrete as having someone watch your home when you are out of town. Having more relationships with neighbor’s means a household is more likely to be able to count on one of them to look after its house. As in the home watching example and many others like it, social capital is often associated with resources for which the provision implies very low costs to the providers. Thus, while a market could and in some cases even may exist for purchasing the resources, the market price for these resources often greatly exceeds the cost to provider. (Durkin 2000)

An example of resources provided by social capital that Coleman emphasizes is information. Individuals can often rely on others within their social network for information that they themselves have not devoted time to acquiring. If more information raises household output for a given level of consumption, then the theory suggests that those households which devote more time to social interaction should have more relationships, more information and higher household output for any level of consumption. (Durkin 2000)

Bibliography

Durkin J. T. (2000) Measuring Social Capital and its Economic Impact, Chicago: Published by University of Chicago

Bourdieu P. (1983) The Forms of Capital, Sozial Ungleichheiten: published by Otto Schartz & Co

Putnam R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American Community, New York: Published by Simon and Schuster