Social Capital

There’s been a lot of talk about social capital in AS/A sociology for a while now. So I’ll take this opportunity to suggest some reasons for caution in using the concept.

Social capital refers to the social connections and institutions which foster connections and community which some social groups have. The idea has roots in communitarianism - an American vein of political thought which I guess you could very roughly compare to the British social democratic tradition, or even a conservative paternalistic approaches to welfare. A recent promoter of the concept is the American academic Robert Putnam in his book, Bowling Alone. Here, policy wonks in Government have been keen to promote the concept.

I’ve seen social capital covered at AS/A level linked up to welfare and poverty, crime and deviance, and education. In these contexts, it seems to me that the idea is very much a newer, glossier version of cultural deprivation theory. By the way - I also noted that last year an A level sociology student who won the prize offered each year by Cambridge University, had written on social capital.

Advocates like Putnam argue that deprived areas in industrial countries like the USA, become deprived because they lack the social capital possessed by those in more affluent areas. In the ‘better’ areas people will have more friends, will meet up for social activities and clubs and so on. This is social capital.

There are some criticisms which can be made of this idea.

It assumes that affluent social groups do indeed have good social capital - arguably, individualization and atomised social relationships are the norm nowadays in capitalist societies.

The idea of social capital seems to imply that capital itself - wealth - is far less important an ingredient in bringing about harmonious and well-balanced social life.

Social capital is a vague concept (unlike capital itself) - what exactly is it? What types of groups are included, does the frequency of social connections matter?

The idea does seem to put most emphasis on the poor and deprived to be responsible for helping themselves. In this sense it seems very similar to cultural deprivation theory - which was criticised by some for appearing to be in effect, simply telling the poor that the way to solve their problems was to adopt the values and attitudes of the rich.