Collaborative Thinking

Field, J. (2008). Social Capital (2nd ed.). Routledge.

 Abstract

John Field is Director of the Division of Academic Innovation and Continuing Education at the University of Stirling. His book, Social Capital, is part of a complimentary collection of essays to the series, Key Sociologists. The author continues to focus on the topic of social capital as it apples to lifelong learning. In this publication, Field adopts a social networking centric view of social capital. The connections people establish through social networks create resources that can be subsequently leveraged (thus the association that this intangible “good” is a type of capital). Field also introduces the role of “agency” and connects the ability to act to social capital.  People will use both formal (institutions and entities of various kinds) and informal structures to mobilize and apply social capital in enabling (positive) and constraining (negative) ways. While social capital is a relatively simply concept, Field concludes that conceptualizations to-date are incomplete, too loose, and even possibly flawed. The lack of theoretical maturity concerning social capital suggests that more empirical investigation needs to be done.  For instance, how participants mobilize their networks to activate their social capital is one topic Field notes. What can be concluded is that social capital is the property of relationships. Also, social capital delivers no value unless its participants possess the agency to leverage it. A more through examination of social capital also enables researchers to gain a better understanding of the “meso level” of social structures that integrates individuals to broader societal-wide structures.

Membership in networks is key for social capital to form and evolve. Field frames the work of Bourdieu and Coleman in the context of their respective era and context. Bourdieu examined social capital in an era where elites and social hierarchy were dominant. Coleman’s perspective was influenced by the field of economics and the theory of rational choice / rational action. For Coleman, social capital was driven by an individual’s desire to maximize his or her own self-interests. Social capital was a means for rationalizing how people managed to cooperate (investing in a future reciprocity rather than an immediate gain). It seems that social capital becomes more of a public good and rationalizes collective action, even though individuals are pursuing their own agendas, according to Coleman. Social capital then is more of a by-product of a cooperative pursuit by individuals to further his or her own self-interests.

In addition to Bourdieu and Coleman, Field points to the work of Robert Putnam and his influence on raising the visibility of social capital. Putnam’s perspective comes from the political and public policy realm. He is best known for the book, “Bowling Alone”.  Putnam focuses on the decline of social capital in the U.S. and attributes its collapse to the decline in civic and social engagement (note: others in the field argue that Putnam ignores new structures and forms of social capital). For Putnam, “social capital” refers to the collection of networks, norms of reciprocity, and the trust that arises within them which enables its participants to act together more effectively to pursue their shared objectives. Putnam also distinguishes between types of social capital: “bridging” (social capital that brings diverse participants together) and “bonding” (social capital that reinforces solidarity within a homogeneous group). Field also notes that Bourdieu, Coleman, and Putman have not dived deeply enough into the negative aspects of social capital.

Field notes the contribution of Pamela Paxton to the thinking around social capital. Specifically, that social capital can have different effects at the individual and community level – that there can be differing sphere’s of social capital that can act with or against each other. Field also highlights the contribution of Nan Lin who examines social capital and how participants cooperate and gain reciprocity in the context of strong and weak ties (leveraging the work of Granovetter). Lin suggests that certain mechanisms help lead to the type of cooperation and reciprocity necessary for social capital to deliver positive benefits (e.g., information, influence through intermediaries, confirmation of trustworthiness, and reinforcement of promises and commitments). However, Field notes that cooperation that benefits its participants does not always result in a positive benefit to society (which gets back to negative aspects of social capital that can sometimes be a derivative result).

Measuring social capital is challenging and Field points to the work of the World Bank and OECD in this area. Indicators of social capital are often proxies that do not directly measure social capital and can mislead as well as inform. There is also the risk that attempts to measure and adjust policies to influence social capital can come across as attempts at social engineering.

Keywords:  social_capital, social_structures, social_networks, Field

Source:

Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology. Annual Reviews.

Abstract

Portes is professor of sociology at Princeton University. His primary focus is on economic sociology with an emphasis on immigration and urbanization. In this paper, Portes examines the origins of social capital, concentrating mostly on the works of Bourdieu, Loury, and Coleman. Portes concludes that there is a level of enthusiasm for the concept of social capital that is unlikely to subside.  However, while the formation, evolution, and application of social capital is a dynamic with sound research grounding, that grounding is also incomplete. There is a risk that proponents of social capital will over-reach and see it as a remedy for too many of our major social issues. Portes points out that the processes that underpin social capital have been historically examined in other contexts. There is a temptation to “re-label” some of this prior work as “social capital” to modernize presentation of the information. Portes also infers that there is a tendency for us to celebrate its positive value of social capital without critical examination of its negative effects. A more dispassionate assessment of social capital is necessary in the field to better situate its theories and applications. Overall, Portes adopts a positive position on social capital as a phenomenon and consequence of sociability.

Portes credits the first modern-day analysis of social capital to Pierre Bourdieu. Portes’ interpretation of Bourdieu’s work credits him with focusing on the benefits that accrue to individuals through their participation in groups with the intent of that sociability to create the resource (i.e., social capital). According to Bourdieu, social capital enables people to gain access to a variety of benefits (economic and cultural – introduction to experts, status, etc). Social capital is fungible and creates unspecific obligations over an unknown time period with no promise of return (that is, there is no guarantee of reciprocity). 

My Note: It seems that Portes and/or Bourdieu seem to agree with Burt (in Neighbor Networks) that benefits of social networks are not a given – that affordances of any relation need to be accompanied by a strategy at group and individual levels to be in a position to claim that resource (social capital) down the road. This connects nicely to work done recently by Ellison (Benefit of Facebook Friends) concerning her research on the cultivation of social resources (CSR) and other work that examines “social grooming” as a means of gaining future reciprocity.

Portes makes note of Loury’s work but seemingly in passing as a gateway to the work of Coleman (who Coleman acknowledges in addition to Nan Lin and Mark Granovetter). Coleman’s definition is somewhat vague, focusing on social structures and how such structures facilitate actions of its actors as the core elements. With such an umbrella framework, a lot of associated processes can be framed under the social capital label. Portes seems to prefer the more explicit distinctions made by Bourdieu that distinguishes social capital from the resources acquired through it.

Portes seems to be advocating that more research is needed to understand the motivations of recipients and donors of social capital. Portes sees a systematic approach as distinguishing between “(a) the possessors of social capital (those making claims); (b) the sources of social capital (those agreeing to these demands); (c) the resources themselves”. 

Absence of such analysis has led to much confusion in how the term “social capital” is used and its scope when applied. For instance, social capital is often hidden in other contexts according to Portes. A good example is Granovetter’s “strength of weak ties” findings  re: referral for a job by someone with whom you have lost touch with can be viewed as the reciprocity expectation created through social capital processes. 

Portes identifies other definitions of social capital as well:

• W. Baker: “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”
• M. Schiff: “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”
• R. Burt: “friends, colleagues, and more general contacts through whom you receive opportunities to use your financial and human capital”

Portes concludes then that the consensus definition for social capital has become as follows: the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures.

There are negative aspects of social capital such as: its use to exclude outsiders, its abuse by other group members (“free riding”), as a means of control (demands for solidarity with community norms limits personal behaviors). The negative causes and consequences are often overlooked, as we tend to view social capital as only a positive phenomenon.  

Keywords: social_capital, social_structures, social_networks, Portes