Lately, I have been thinking about the concept of “social capital”. Putnam’s definition is (1994. p167):
“Like other forms of capital, social capital is productive, making possible the achievement of certain ends that would not be attainable in its absence. . . .For example, a group whose members manifest trustworthiness and place extensive trust in one another will be able to accomplish much more than a comparable group lacking that trustworthiness and trust. . . . In a farming community. . . Where one farmer got his hay baled by another and where farm tools are extensively borrowed and lent, the social capital allows each farmer to get his work done with less physical capital in the form of tools and equipment”
Yet the use of “capital” here seems problematic for me. Capital is capital when it is productive. Who decides what is productive, and productive for whom? According to the definition I would say that it is “self-defined by a purposive collectivity”. In other words a farming collectivity is productive because they are defined as farmers and their purpose is to farm. That example is easy.
Here is a hard one. Is the social protest part of the social capital? Is social protest “productive”, thus "capital"? Is it productive in Spain, Turkey, Brazil, or Chile?
Social equity is the amount of social resources an individual has acquired over a given period of time. Social capital is the value placed on those social resources and what an individual is willing accept in trade for those social recourses. Hence the social exchange theory.
At least in Bourdieu's definition of social capital, it's about the relations that someone can mobilize in order to do something. I like the example of the farmer you give, but I usually think of a more academic one: a given academic can get jobs or publications not only by doing good work, but also by having the right contacts. If he/she has and does both, even better. In that sense, social capital refers to structure, something that is "there", but not active all the time.
Social protest, on the other hand, refers to process. It is an action that happens at a certain time and place - it involves structures and can create them, protest by itself moves on another level nevertheless. Social movements -the actors behind social protest- can have social capital -contacts to media, certain politicians, the police- and mobilize it in the moment of protest - but protest "is" not capital.
I hope, this helps...
The general consensus is social capital (SC) facilitates collective action. In the case of protest, Philipp is right, the protest is the behavioral outcome of sc. It is due to the fact that people activate their sc (much like people spending money, I guess, thereby making the economy runs) that social protest is possible. Like what happened during the Arab Spring. People were able to gather and show force because they have a very extensive network facilitated by the social media (like facebook) and they acted on that network to bring about such a huge and significant protest - this is similar to what Steven has in mind I think. It may be good if you could look at sc of the collective type if your interest is in the phenomena of protest and the like. Of course, the distinction between individual- and group-level sc is for the most part just academic but it helps to keep the two analytically separate so that we could understand the idea and apply it better. The way I see it, SC is one huge concept to deal with at one go... you have to compartmentalize it somehow in order to make it work. Just my two cents worth of opinion... cheers.
Thanks all for your answers. I agree, SC facilitates collective action and protest is a behavioral expression of it. Thus, would you say that social protest is an indicator of SC? Any publication you might know on that?
Thanks again.
I wouldn't go to the extent of claiming that protest is an indicator of sc. It is definitely an outcome of it (because people are connected & therefore in possession of a crucial resource that makes protest possible) but to say that it is an indicator per se, I think that's stretching it a bit. I haven't come across any publication on that yet, but from what I can gather, the network that enable / facilitate the protest from the very beginning is more appropriate to be considered as an indicator for sc, not the protest itself. You see, some scholars opined that even the mafia organizations possess high level of social capital, but it is not the outcome of the group (e.g. organized crime) that indicates their level of social capital. Instead it is their close relationship (their family-like structure of organization) that contributes towards their pool of social capital. Once they have this family thing going, then the outcomes will follow. So, there's a whole another layer in between social capital and the outcome (i.e. that family-bonding thing) that is more appropriate to be considered as the indicators. I don't know if I make any sense at all, but that's how I can put it. Excuse my long and winding rant, English is not my mother tongue, so I have a bit of a difficulty expressing my ideas in a concise manner. But then again, if you look at the vastness of situations that such a concept can be applied to, protest could somehow be justified as one of the indicators, but I'd be wary about doing it. My point is we must be careful in making such claims. Sc has been heavily criticised already for being too broad and become meaningless as an analytical tool. Personally I love the idea of sc, and I think its very useful, that is why I'm not too keen to see it being watered down and eventually lose its potential as an analytical tool. Btw, Daniela, if you ever come across such publication, do share with us, I'm getting curious as well (especially with this protest thing going on pretty intensely in Egypt and elsewhere...). Cheers.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science