Effect of Social Capital on Democracy

Effect of Social Capital on DemocracyCritically rate the apprehension of fond capital? What advantages, if any, does it collide wither the instruction of body politic?IntroductionSince the 2001 general election much academic debate has centred on voter calmness as the lowest turnout, especially among the young, led many to posit a crises in democracy (Russell, 2005 555). Various theories have attempted to explain the problem as either the get out of a life-cycle argument, whereby the youngest atoms of society argon always less likely to vote but as they age own houses and mortgages, and pay taxes they suffer more concerned with politics and more likely to vote (Denver in Russell, 2005 556) or a generational effect whereby at that place is an overall decline in active citizenship (Park in Russell, 2005 556). Against this background the work of Robert Putnam appeared to strike a chord. In his influential Bowling Al mavin the Collapse and Revival of Ameri enkindle Community (2000)1, and associated articles, Robert Putnam transferred the pattern of social capital from sociology into the realm of politics, arguing that increasing individualism had resulted in the decline of lodge ties and political participation (Russell, 2005 557), undermining good governance.In the first section I provide an outline of social capital as it was originally formulated by the French sociologist capital of South Dakota Bourdieu, in the second I specific the concepts move from sociology to political science in the work of Putnam. My contention is that in the process of adapting social capital, Putnam changes the meaning of the term and thus undermines its usefulness to the study of democracy that whereas for Bourdieu it was a property held by individuals, in Putnams account it is held by collectives. Also, that although Bourdieu believed that social capital was exchangeable with economic capital but non reducible to it, Putnam relies on a clear economic understanding o f the term. Finally, that Putnams use of the term is essentially neo-liberal, whereas for Bourdieu social capital is ultimately about post relations. In the conclusion assess the usefulness of the term to political science and the study of democracy in light of this conceptual drift.Pierre Bourdieu and the Forms of CapitalPierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) originally developed his speculation of cultural capital as part of an attempt to explain class-based differentials in educational achievement. His theory has five main features, the different forms of capital cultural, social and economic, and the concepts of the field and habitus. For Bourdieu capital is best defined as accumulated labour and has the potential to reproduce (Bourdieu, 1986 241) it is this ability of capital to reproduce that leads Bourdieu to bring to an end that it is part of the structure of society that shapes individual life chances it is the set of constraints, inscribed in the very reality of that world deter mining the chances of success for practices (Bourdieu, 1986 242). Social Capital, for Bourdieu, refers to the lucre of connections that an individual enjoys which produce and reproduce lasting, useful relationships that can secure material or symbolic profits (Bourdieu, 1986 249) the amount of social capital that an individual can draw upon is thus dependant on the number of people in their social network and the amount of capital cultural, economic or social possess by those so included. Both cultural and social capitals are therefore rooted in, without being determined by, the possession of economic capital all cardinal interact to hide the way that social hierarchies are reproduced. Finally, the three forms of capital combine to produce a persons habitus, or set of predispositions whilst the field refers to the arena in which a specific habitus is realised. Thus we can see that for Bourdieu not only was the concept of social capital embedded in relations of situation (Burket t, 2004 236), it was also part of a complex theory that sought to explain the social reproduction of inequality.Bourdieus theory has been criticized as being essentialist and deterministic for John Frow (1995) it is essentialist in that Bourdieu posits a single class experience common to the sociologically quite distinct groups he includes in the dominant class (Frow, 1995 62) that an individuals class position makes them what they are, he reads off both working and middle class culture from their class position, resulting in an essentialist reading of the aesthetic (Frow, 1995 63). Bourdieus theory can also be viewed as deterministic, as individuals predispositions are posited as being the direct result of their class position, entailing a denial of individual agency. Further, much(prenominal) a class-based analysis can lead one to minimize the set up of other forms of differentiation, such as gender, ethnicity and age. However, Bourdieus use of the term capital is both metaphori c and materialistic and can be viewed as similar to power although convertible with economic capital, social capital is not reducible to it (Bourdieu, 1986 243). Also, Bourdieu argued that the social capital possessed by an individual is a result of their enthronization strategies via a continuing series of exchanges in which recognition is endlessly affirmed and reaffirmed (Bourdieu, 1986 250). Finally, Bourdieu argues that social inequalities become part of the very bodies and predispositions of the individual finished his concept of habitus (McNay, 1999 99), not as a principle of determination but as a generative structure (McNay, 1999 100) returning autonomy to the individual his theory is able to transcend determinism it is an open system which allows for social change (McNay, 1999101). In summary, for Bourdieu social capital is ultimately about the way that power works through society, and is concerned with the life chances of individuals. Further, the wider theory, especial ly the concept of the habitus, is useful for theorists who seek to explain patterns of behaviour, including community participation and levels of voting.Robert Putnam Social Capital and DemocracyRobert Putnams argument may be summarised as being that the decrease in participation in voluntary organisations has undermined the effectiveness of good governance that successful and healthy democracies and economies are those possessing dense webs of community participation (Walters, 2002 377). In so arguing, Putnam transferred the concept of social capital from sociology into the realm of political science, arguing that increasing individualism, the anonymity of urban living (Russell, 2002 557), and the negative effects of television (Putnam, 1995 75 Walters, 2002 380), have resulted in the decline of community ties and political participation (Russell, 2002 557) and thus a decline in social capital. Similar debates were effectuate within the British context, as were calls for a revival of participation and stakeholder values (Walters, 2002 377). Arguing that a range of issues including drugs, crime, unemployment, development, education and political performance (Walters, 2002 379), and the effectiveness of democracy itself (Putnam, 1995 66) would benefit from a resurgence of voluntary associations, Putnam therefore calls for a reinvigoration of community participation (Walters, 2002 377) as members of associations are much more likely than non-members to participate in politics, to spend time with neighbours, to express social corporate trust (Putnam, 1995 73). Defining social capital as features of social organisation such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1995 67), Putnam argued that not only has the post-war period witnessed a decline in participation in voluntary associations, but that such rank is now increasingly tertiary that the only act of membership consists in writing a check f or dues or perhaps occasionally reading a newsletter (Ibid. p. 71). Putnam argues that this declining membership, and the increasingly tertiary nature of remaining membership, represents a significant erosion of American social capital (Ibid. p. 73) and, as such, undermines democracy.However, Putnams use of the term is markedly different from that of Bourdieu whereas in Bourdieus conception social capital was held by the individual (Walters, 2002 387), for Putnam social capital is held by collectives (Ibid. p. 379), further, it is difficult to see how there can be a reduction in social capital, rather than a qualitative change in its composition. William Walters (2002) argues that Putnams use of the concept differs from Bourdieus in some other key respect whereas for Bourdieu social capital, although transferable with economic capital, is not reducible to it (Bourdieu, 1986 243), Putnam assumes a self-maximising individual for whom associative activity can, under certain circumstan ces, be an investment (Walters, 2002 379, my emphasis). Rather that discussing the social capital of individuals embedded within relations of power, for Putnam social capital implies a learning mechanism that is more economic that socio-psychological (Ibid. p. 387), and as such represents an extension of the economic metaphor in order to convince us that society is self-governing (Ibid. p. 391) by using social capital in this way, individuals are made responsible for good governance now conceived as a horizontal space of multiple communities (Ibid. p. 388) adding the discourse of the civic and uncivic to the list of divisions by which prescriptive judgements are naturalised (Ibid. p. 392). Thus for Putnam social capital is simultaneously cause and effect (Ibid. p. 380). Further, rather than situating the individual within a web of power relations, Putnam relies on the atomised individual of neo-liberalism (Burkett, 2004 236). Finally, whilst this author agrees that society benefit s when individuals participate in voluntary organisations, Putnam assumes a think between such involvement and an improved performance for democracy, yet this link remains to be clearly, empirically, demonstrated (Freitag, 2006 124). Such an argument also undermines the role of government in shaping civil society (Walters, 2002 380) and in shaping social capital (Freitag, 2006128), and as such can only provide a skewed picture of the link between community participation and the functioning of democracy.In ConclusionIn conclusion, we can see that in the process of adapting social capital to the realm of political science, Putnam changes the meaning of the term that whereas for Bourdieu it was a property held by individuals, in Putnams account it is held by collectives. Also, that although Bourdieu believed that social capital was exchangeable with economic capital he believed it was not reducible to it, whilst Putnam relies on a distinctly neo-liberal, economic understanding of the term that whereas for Bourdieu the individual and therefore their social capital resources are ultimately concerned with relations of power, Putnam utilises an atomistic and self-maximising conception of the individual (Walter, 2002 386) compound in building networks of self-governance (Walters, 2002 388) and one wonders if such an argument may, in part, justify the rolling back of the state. Finally, that the use of the term in political science rests on the assumption of a link between membership of voluntary organisations and political participation, but this link remains to be empirically proven. Indeed, Markus Frietag argues that it is political institutions that matter, that there are in fact three political prerequisites for collective social capital institutional provision for direct democracy, respect for minorities and outsiders as part of consensus building, and a degree of local autonomy (Frietag, 2006 145). Ben Fine argues that academia has become subject to a social c apital fetish (in Burkett, 2004 234) that its now weak conceptualisation means that social capital can be virtually anything (Burkett, 2004 238). He is also concerned that, too often, social capital is in fact originally participation from below imposed from above (in Burkett, 2004 243) perhaps we should be wary that calls for increased social capital are not simply calls for a masturbation of state responsibility.BibliographyBourdieu, Pierre (1986) The forms of Capital in Handbook of surmise and Research for the Sociology of Education, London Greenwood Press, pp. 241-258.Burkett, Paul (2004) Book Review Social Capital versus Social Theory Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium by Fine, Ben (London Routledge) in Historical Materialism, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 233-246.Freitag, Markus (2006) Bowling the State Back In Political Institutions and the Creation of Social Capital in European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 45, pp. 123-152.Frow, John (1995) Ac counting for Tastes Some Problems in Bourdieus Sociology of Culture in pagan Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 59-73.McNay, L (1999) Gender, habitus and the Field Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of Reflexivity in Theory, Culture Society, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 95-117.Putnam, Robert (1995) Bowling Alone Americas Declining Social Capital, An reference with Robert Putnam in Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 65-78.Russell, Andrew (2005) Political Parties as Vehicles of Political Engagement, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 555-569.Walters, William (2002) Social Capital and Political Sociology Re-imagining Politics? Sociology, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 377-397.1Footnotes1 New York, N.Y. Simon Schuster.