Social Capital: Burt and Bourdieu - Term Paper Example

Social Capital: Burt and Bourdieu Social capital is a concept vital when attempting to analyze the interworkings of various social networks. Initially introduced by political scientists and sociologists, the concept has lately become of greater importance in studies involving management techniques within organizations. The simplest explanation of social capital would be to describe it as a social network. The difference in opinion of researchers such as Pierre Bourdieu and Ronald Burt revolves not around the definition if social capital but the specific mechanisms of networking that determine the meaning and importance of varying social associations. This discussion will describe the theory of social capital along with similarities and differences identified between two of the leading and most widely recognized researchers in the field, Burt and Bourdieu. The original concept of Social Capital has been in existence for almost a century (see Hanifan, 1916), but further analysis and definitions regarding this subject blossomed during the 1980’s and have grown exponentially since. Bourdieu is generally credited with the re-emergence of the theory. His studies combining the fields of sociology and political science began as a critique concerning the constricted rational perceptions regarding traditional economic thought (Bourdieu, 1986). His and many case studies since have confirmed the significance of social networking as an explanation for economic behavior. “Social networking describes ties of goodwill, mutual support, shared language, shared norms, social trust, and a sense of mutual obligation that people can derive value from” (Cohen & Prusak, 2001). Social capital can be understood as the value or benefit acquired from an individual’s membership within their particular network. Membership has its privileges in that by being in association with others, individuals enjoy admission to a range of resources which those outside the circle of membership, or network, do not. In short, it’s not what you know, it’s who you know or more precisely, who knows you. Hierarchy within a type of social network brings an individual a wide range of career-oriented benefits including great potential access to promotion, salary and prestige. Of course, social networking operates outside the corporate world including, but not limited to, political and cultural venues. In recent years, the value of social capital has come to be appreciated and is well-suited for the high-tech information field such as organized online communities. “In general, social capital is seen as the glue that brings and holds communities together” (Cohen & Prusak, 2001). Bourdieu, labeled as a ‘pure sociologist’ by Adam and Roncevic (2003), is widely recognized for creating the term social capital and explaining its concepts. His work has led to a recent upsurge of interest in the subject spawning many other academic studies and discussion by organizations of various descriptions. According Bourdieu, social capital is defined as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu, 1986). Stated another way, an individual’s association within a group setting is intended to give that and each member collective powers such as instant credibility in financial and social matters. The definition of social capital as described by Bourdieu seems to center on selfishness as it theorizes that this phenomenon occurs because of class associations and a need for a self satisfying image. Bourdieu’s initial works regarding social capital were evaluated strictly from the perspective of his Theory, Culture and Society, a 1982 journal that was acclaimed internationally by multiple types of readerships including academic as well as business and social organizations. The acclaim it received was due mainly because of its capability of raising and discussing pertinent and developing cultural and social concerns in an honest, unbiased manner. Bourdieu’s journal was built on the legacy laid down by the originators of social capital-type theories and observes in what ways a new generation of researchers and theorists have reshaped the traditional foundations. Bourdieu’s studies do not contain much in the way of empirically analyzed data with only casual references to it. This method differs much from the more functional approach of Burt (1997) in regard to his social networking theories. Burt’s studies, built upon Bourdieu, as well as James Coleman’s (1988) works, center on “variables indicating the position of the individual inside social networks” (Adam & Roncevic, 2003). Commonly referred to as the ‘network approach,’ Burt’s research methodology considers variables within a network by focusing on “accessibility to embedded resources by measuring social capital in terms of network constraint” (Burt, 1997). Additional network constraints indicate fewer ‘structural holes’ according to Burt. “Fewer structural holes result in poorer social capital because structural holes are the source of social capital” (Burt, 1997). As a result of his research into the dynamics of social networking, Burt expressed the significance in the actions of bridges within networks (social ties) which act to facilitate the flow of influence and information. Social ties located within positions of strategy or hierarchy in an organization makes available information that is useful to individuals and provides choices for opportunities not otherwise available. These ties restore confidence among managers of organizations that the individual can offer further resources beyond their personal assets, which could possibly be of use to those managers and their organization. Social associations strengthen identity and individual recognition of people in organizations. According to Burt’s theories regarding social capital, “being assured and recognized of one’s worthiness as an individual and a member of a social group sharing similar interests and resources not only provides emotional support but also public acknowledgment of one’s claim to certain resources” (Lin, 1999). Certain social ties, because of their particular position or structural hole, carry with them additional resources which summarily influence decision-making at the managerial level. In other words, a recommendation from a supervisor influences an individual’s career and thus societal growth thereby raising their social capital. These elements of social construct, including influence, information, reinforcement and communally recognized credentials, explain Burt’s explanation regarding why social capital works in instrumental and expressive measures. Social capital cannot be explained by personal capital in the form of human or economic capital as described by other theorists. These four methods of personal social fortification prove vital in maintaining the psychological well-being regarding individual powers and the associated privileges in which to gain additional personal capital. Burt further equates social capital to a similar degree of community commitment and aligns his concepts of social capital with communities, regions and entire countries. His understanding of social capital is based upon individual and organizational attributes of social ties which include levels of social networking and trusted relationships within groups, ones that enable cooperative actions for joint benefit. If one contends that a closed or dense network is a condition of social capital, Burt indicates denial of the importance of social ties, ‘bridges’ or structural holes. The basis for this concept lies upon the reasoning that an individual desires a dense or ‘closed’ network depending on outcomes of specific interest to the individual. The denser the social network, the better the comparative benefit in favor of those wishing to maintain the status quo and those resources of personal advantage. According to Bourdieu (1986), those in upper classes would typically be better off to exist in a closed network in order that those particular resources are kept for themselves only. Another example of the attractiveness of a closed network is a mother who moves her children into a more socially cohesive neighborhood so as to better safeguard their safety and security. Conversely, Burt postulates that if an individual is searching for or otherwise wanting to obtain resources they do not presently possess, instrumental measures such as seeking employment or better employment for example, it is more beneficial to extend access to bridges within the network. According to Burt’s theory, instead of claiming that an open or closed network is necessary concerning social capital, theoretically, it would be a more practical methodology to concentrate on what type of outcome and by which set of circumstances either a sparse or dense network may produce a greater benefit. In addition, “a denser network would be more likely to promote the sharing of resources which, in turn, maintain group or individual resources or, an open network would be more likely to access advantaged positions and resources, which in turn enhance the opportunity to obtain additional resources for empirical examination” (Lin, 1999). In theoretical terms, Burt’s contributions have provided valuable insights regarding the dialogue of social capital. Burt recognizes social capital as “friends, colleagues, and more general contacts through who you receive opportunities to use your financial and human capital” (Burt, 1992, p. 9). Bourdieu views the concept of social capital only as a particular type of capital in that the subject must be considered with respect to cultural and economic types of capital. Bourdieu defines social capital to be “the aggregate of actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationship of more or mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 248). Social capital, as are all types of capital, is described as a collective effort within which individual capitalists accumulate this commodity in the form of personal contacts, networks and business-type relationships. The networks involving relationships, as postulated by Bourdieu, are “the product of investment strategies, individual or collective, consciously or unconsciously aimed at establishing or reproducing social relationships which are directly usable in the short or long term” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 249). Bourdieu is particularly attracted to the way the different forms of capital shape aspects of human behavior as, for example, how the nature of class struggles affects the social world. As an illustration, Bourdieu cites that the privileged class takes for granted their elevated level of social capital. At the same time, the subordinate classes are generally very aware of the lack of resources regarding their provisions of social capital, for instance, the lack of access to social and business organizations and high quality employment. The conception of social capital is rooted in Marxism which Boudrieu expanded through his theories. He suggests studying social capital is vital to improving knowledge-based organizations and economies. Expanding on Boudrieu’s study, Burt’s research tracked individuals (actors) occupying differing positions and the various dynamics involved with social capital in an organizational environment. Though Burt and Bourdieu offer somewhat inconsistent concepts with respect to their degree of reasoning the definitions of social capital, both theorists have highlighted throughout their respective works the close relationships relating human assets to social capital. References Adam, F. & Roncevic, B. (2003). “Social Capital: Recent Debates and Research Trends.” Social Science Information/Information sur les Sciences Sociales. Vol. 42, N. 2, pp. 155–183. Bourdieu, P. (1986). “The Forms of Capital.” Handbook for Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. J.G. Richardson (Ed.). pp. 241-258. Burt, R.S. (1997). “The Contingent Value of Social Capital.” Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 42, pp. 339–365. Cohen, D. & Prusak, L. (2001). In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Coleman, J. S. (1988). “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 94, pp. 95-121 Hanifan, L. J. (1916). “The Rural School Community Center” Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Vol. 67, pp. 130-138. Lin, N. (1999). “Building a Network Theory of Social Capital.” Connections. Vol. 22, I. 1, pp. 28-51. Read More