Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology

() - Alejandro Portes

Journal:
Link::
DOI::
Links::
Tags:: #paper #RAT
Cite Key:: [@portesSocialCapitalIts]

Abstract

This paper reviews the origins and definitions of social capital in the writings of Bourdieu, Loury, and Coleman, among other authors. It distinguishes four sources of social capital and examines their dynamics. Applications of the concept in the sociological literature emphasize its role in social control, in family support, and in benefits mediated by extrafamilial networks. I provide examples of each of these positive functions. Negative consequences of the same processes also deserve attention for a balanced picture of the forces at play. I review four such consequences and illustrate them with relevant examples. Recent writings on social capital have extended the concept from an individual asset to a feature of communities and even nations. The final sections describe this conceptual stretch and examine its limitations. I argue that, as shorthand for the positive consequences of sociability, social capital has a definite place in sociological theory. However, excessive extensions of the concept may jeopardize its heuristic value.

Notes

• I argue that, as shorthand for the positive consequences of sociability, social capital has a definite place in sociological theory. However, excessive extensions of the concept may jeopardize its heuristic value.

• Social Capital is not new. Involvement and participation in groups can have positive consequences for the individual and community at large. This dates back to Durkheim emphasising group life as an antidote to anomie and self-destruction and to Marx's distinction between atomised class-in-itself and a mobilised and effective class-for-itself

• The heuristic power of social capital comes from two sources. First, focusing attention on the positive consequences of sociability while putting aside its less attractive features. Second, it places those positive consequences in the framework of a broader discussion of capital and calls attention to how nonmonetary forms can be important sources of power and influence.

• Definitions

• Bourdieu defines social capital as ''the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition'' (Bourdieu 1985 p. 248; 1980)

  • His treatment is instrumental focusing on the benefits accruing to individuals by virtue of participation in groups and on the deliberate construction of sociability for the purpose of creating this resource

  • His definition makes clear that social capital is decomposable inot two elements: first, the social relationship itself that allows individuals to claim access to resources possessed by their associates, and second, the amount and quality of those resources

  • The acquistiion of social capital requires deliberate investment of both economic and cultural resources

  • By their lack of clarity, these transactions can help disguise what otherwise would be plain market exchanges (Bourdieu 1979, 1980)

• A second definition comes from Glen Loury (1977, 1981)

  • The concept captured the differential access to opportunities through social connections for minority and nonminority youth, but we do not find here any systematic treatment of its relations to other forms of capital

• Loury's work paved way for Colemans more refined analysis- the role of social capital in the creation of human capital

  • Defined social capital by its function as ''a variety of entieis with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain action of actors- whether persons or corporate actors- within the structure'' (Coleman 1988a)

  • Coleman included under the term some of the mechanisms that generated social capital; the consequences of its possession; and the ''appropriable'' social organisation that provided the context for both sources and effects to materialise

    • Equating social capital with the resources acquired through it can easily lead to tautological statements

• A systematic treatment of the concept must distinguish among: (a) the possessors of social capital (those making the claims); (b) the sources of social capital (those agreeing to these demands); (c) the resources themselves

  • Often mixed together with Coleman, thus setting the stage for confusion

    • Though his discussion of closure is enlightening. Closure means the existence of sufficient ties between a number of people to guarantee the observable norms.

• Baker defined the concept as '' a resource that actors derive from specific social structures and then use to pursue their interests; it is created by changes in the relationship among actors'' (Baker 1990, p. 619)

• Schiff defines the term as ''the set of elements of the social structure that affects relations among people and are inputs or arguments of the production and/or utility function'' (Schiff 1992 p.161)

• Burt sees it as ''friends, colleagues, and more general contacts through whom you receive opportunities to use your financial and human capital'' (Burt 1992, p.9)

  • Burt highlights the opposite of Coleman and Loury were they emphasise dense networks as a necessary condition for the emergence of social capital. In Burt's view, it is relative absence of ties, labelled ''structural holes'', that facilitates individual mobility.

• Despite these different definitions, the consensus is growing that social capital stands for the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures

• Sources of Social Capital

• Whereas economic capital is in peoples bank accounts and human capital is inside their heads, social capital inheres in the structure of their relationships

• Internalised norms are appropriated by others as a resource

• The accumulation of social chits differs from economic exchange in two respects. First, the currency with which obligations are repaid may be different from that which they were incurred in the first place and may be intangible as the granting of approval or allegiance. Second, the timing of the repayment is unspecified.

• Two other sources of social capital exist that fit the consummatory versus instrumental dichotomy.

  • First finds itself influenced by Marxist analysis of class consciousness. By being in a common circumstance, the workers learn to identify with each other and support each others inititatives. The altruistic dispositions of actors in these situations are not universal, but bounded by the limits of their community

    • Bounded solidarity is the term used tor efer to this mechanism. It is the source of social capital that leads wealthy members of a church to anonymously endow church schools

      • Coleman refers to the extreme of this mechanism as ''Zeal''

  • Second finds itself influenced by Durkheim's theory of social integration and the sanctioning capacity of group rituals

    • The embedding of a transaction into such structure has two consequences: first, the donors returns may not come directly form the recipient but from the collectivity in the form of status, honour, or approval. Second, the collectivity itself acts as a guarantor that whatever debts will be repaid

• Effects of Social Capital: Recent Research

• Review of the literature sees three basic functions of social capital: (a) as a source of social control, (b) as a source of family support, (c) as a source of benefits through extrafamilial networks

• A - the social capital created by tight community networks is useful to parents, teachers, and police to seek to maintain discipline and promote compliance

  • Commonly found in bounded solidarity and enforceable trust, and its main result is to render overt controls unnecessary

• C- this definition comes closest to that of Bourdieu (1979), for whom parental support of children's development is a source of cultural capital, while social capital refers to assets gained through membership in networks

• Negative Social Capital

• Research strongly emphasises the positive consequences of social capital

• Bad things are commonly associated with the behaviour of homo economicus

• Important to emphasise bad effects for two reasons: first, to avoid the trap of presenting community networks, social control, and collective sanctions as mixed blessings; second to keep analysis within the bounds of serious sociological analysis rather than moralising statements

• Four negative consequences of social capital: exclusion from outsiders, excess claims on group members, restrictions on individual freedoms, and downward levelling norms

  • First, the same strong ties that bring benefit to members of a group commonly enable it to bar others from access

  • Second, is the obverse of the first, group closure may under certain circumstances prevent the success of business initiates by their members

  • Third, community participations necessarily creates demand for conformity

  • Fourth, there are situations where group solidarity is cemented by a common experience of adversity and opposition within mainstream society

• Social Capital as a feature of Communities and Nations

• Political scientists equate social capital with the level of ''civicness'' in communities such as towns, cities, and nations

• Putman defines social capital as ''features of social organisations, such as networks, norms, and trust, that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit''. ''Working together is easier in a community blessed with a substantial stock of social capital'' (Putnam 1993)

  • Putnam argues that the decrease in civicness was the blame of ''baby boomers''. An elitist argument that does not consider economic and political changes wrought by the corporate and government establishment

  • Putnam also suffered from logical circularity

    • Tautology results from two analytical decisions; starting with effect and working retroactively to find out what distinguishes them, second, trying to explain all of the observed differences

• To avoid saying the same thing twice, the analyst of social capital must observe certain logical cautions: first, separating the definition of the concept, theoretically and empirically, from its alleged effects; second, establishing some trolls for directionality so that the presence of social capital is demonstrably prior to the outcomes that it is expected to produce; third, controlling for presence of other factors than can account for both social capital and its effects; fourth, identifying the historical origins of community social capital a systematic manner.

Summary:

Social capital has a long existence within the sociological tradition. It's potential heuristic power comes from its broader attachment to the notion of capital, and how non-material or non-economic forms of capital can translate to important sources of both power and influence. The accumulation of social capital is a contentious issue within the literature; Coleman and Loury for example emphasise dense networks as a necessary precondition for the emergence of social capital, whereas Burt argues instead via the absence of ties, in other words structural holes, individuals navigate forms of mobility and thus capital. Social capital finds itself within the social relationships of individuals- internalised norms are appropriated as a form of resource. There are three basic functions of social capital; as a source of social control, as a source of family support, as a source of benefits through extra family networks. The first being connected to bounded solidarity and enforceable trust whereby overt forms of control become unnecessary. The last being connected to Bourdieu's definition of social capital referring to assets gained through memberships in networks, Negative social capital does exist; strong ties bar others from access, demand for conformity, opposition to mainstream society. Social capital must observe certain logical cautions; separate the definition from the concept from its alleged effects, demonstrate that the presence of social capital is prior to the outcomes that it is expected to produce, controlling for presence of other factors.