Why the Concept of Social Capital Provides a Limited Perspective on Local Community Life - Research Paper Example

Explain why the concept of social capital provides a limited perspective on local community life Introduction Social capital builds on the concept of an integrated community. Cooperation and sharing of resources for the common good is important in realizing the goals and concepts of social capital. However, in the smaller and local communities, social capital is said to have a limited perspective. This paper shall discuss why the concept of social capital actually provides a limited perspective on local community life. It shall discuss concepts of community inequality, community power, economic development, partnerships, growth machines, local government, ideologies, and globalization in the hope of understanding and explaining further the issue at hand. In the local community setting, social capital has a limited perspective because it is focused on a bigger and wider perspective. There are so many specific things that need to be considered in the local community in terms of social capital. Some authors point out that social capital does not take into consideration variations in the local community life. These variations usually affect the direction and the success of social and government programs. And authors point out that social capital “fail[s] to pay attention to the role of socio-demographic variation within the locale” (Kawachi, 2007). Social capital does not conceptually highlight factors like age, sex, population, location, religion, and such other data within the local community. Instead it focuses more on the overall contribution of the society and the community to the bigger picture. “Social capital is the cumulative capacity of social groups to cooperate and work together for the common good (Montgomery, 1998, as quoted by Asian Development Bank, 2001). Social capital also focuses on putting aside differences, personal and sub-group preferences in favour of the greater good. This often calls for members of local communities to give up their individuality and their distinct identity; to compromise; and to trust in the fact that what they would be giving up will ultimately benefit them all. And for the above reason, social capital provides a dim and limited perspective on the local communities – who they are, what they do, what they practice, and what they aim for. Social capital and community inequality Social status often affects social capital in local communities. Members of society are governed, not based on their individual abilities, but based on their status in the community. This status may often be owed to wealth, educational achievement, or political leadership. For instance, when society pays much attention to academic success in the community, “teachers can call upon parents to help them in implementing new policies, such as stricter rules regarding the completion of homework” (Levinson, et.al., 2002). In these situations, the parents who will be called by teachers would usually be those who have children excelling academically; or those parents who are occupying influential and reputable positions in society. And the more social capital involved in the community, the greater the likelihood that people in the community would follow these rules for completion. Social capital helps the community ease into these activities. However, social capital may also limit certain activities. In effect, community activities end up being based on certain class or status determinants, not on the will of more specific or smaller sub-groups in the community. Gender-based roles are not thoroughly emphasized when exploring social capital. The overall focus is not on individual contributions of members in the society. The ultimate goal of community welfare is focused on. Authors claim that “although the women’s role frequently rates a passing mention in some social capital literature, it tends to be superficial and perfunctory, generally pointing approvingly to the emergence and participation of women’s groups in various forms of post-conflict communal action” (Bouta, et.al., 2004). In other words, the participation of women in social capital measures comes after the fact, and does not undertake and rise to the level of concerted and active participation. Race and ethnicity are still one of the most crucial aspects of community life. Social capital implies concerted efforts of different members of society in order to achieve and attain common goals for the community. However, race and ethnic issues often interfere with measures related to social capital. “By grouping like with like, segregation or homophily increases the contact of members advantaged groups with advantaged associates, and decreases their contact with members of disadvantaged groups” (Lin & Harris, 2008). Under this context, social capital works more to benefit of those who are more advantaged in life, and excludes those who are disadvantaged by reason of segregation or classification. Race and ethnicity remains a sensitive issue in Australia and other nations in the West. Various studies have revealed that in most communities – large or small – racial and ethnic disparities always colour different aspects of social issues and relationships. “Racial gaps in neighbourhood conditions experienced by members of different racial groups are larger than differences in most measures of economic or social status” (Lin & Harris, 2008). Employment, crime, and educational aspects are the factors most affected by community inequality. The above points mentioned indicate how social capital does not show the specific intricacies of a community. They show us how minority members of the community – the women, the racial and ethnic communities, and the poor have not been included in the concept of social capital. And this gives social capital a limited perspective on the workings of the local communities. Social areas and social capital Social capital is the raw material of civil society (Bullen & Onix, 1998). In areas where there is greater space and a greater area involved, there is a bigger possibility of gaining a larger social capital. However, in smaller communities, social capital can be limited. There are less people to contribute worthwhile and stable investments. And studies have revealed that “low levels of social capital and human capital are associated with a wide range of social malaise and that while these connections are important to understand at the level of the individual, they are increasingly important to understand at an aggregate community level” (Newton, 2008). But, social capital is very much detached from community life and is often a vague concept in various social areas in the community who do not benefit from the social capital. One of the vital points to consider in social and spatial dimensions is the fact that a social area which is more affluent or rich in resources would also most likely produce a richer social capital. But a full homogenously affluent community is not always possible, no matter how small the community is. In most instances, local communities would still contain important differences in status, race, and ethnicity. Social capital often does not take into account details that have to be worked out in the community including matters of class position, local organizations, cultural traditions, social interaction, and trust. A community analysis of social area in relation to social capital often does not take into account the nuances of a smaller community or area in its assessment. And for this reason, it may be said that social capital has vague precepts about the spatial dimensions of local communities. Nevertheless, social capital is very much affected by demographic details in relation to social class, ethnicity, location, spatial dimension and social areas. Social capital and communion Civic communion is a vital aspect of social capital. Some authors point out that “if an individual comes into contact with his neighbour, and they with other neighbours, there will be an accumulation of social capital, which may immediately satisfy his social needs and which may bear social potentiality sufficient to the substantial improvement of living conditions in the whole community” (Putnam, as quoted by Procter, 2006). There is a high level of social relation and communion among the members of the community. However, being a part of a local community does not, by itself, provide social cohesion or communion. Communion and social cohesion cannot be assumed in a community because there are various factors that often rule and determine community cooperation. Neighbouring is an often assumed concept in the community. But it does not always happen or occur anymore. In some parts of the world, the community of limited liability has become the trend. They possess limited loyalty to their communities because they also limit their interaction with their neighbours. Social capital is often difficult to formulate in these instances when the members of the community shy away from making firm and long-lasting commitments to their neighbours and their community. The different and varied concerns of individuals and families often take them away from community and civic concerns. This, in turn, gives them little and limited attachment to neighbourly activities. As a result, “as common tasks disappear, so does social interaction as a value in its own right” (Greer & Abu-Lughod, 1998). But interaction is an important basis for communication which helps build on the principles of social capital and civic communion. So, without common tasks from members of the community, the concept of social capital has limited reach. Physical boundaries are not often known in communities, they are also assumed. Boundaries help define a community. By pointing out and setting up the physical boundaries of a local community, it is possible to define and shape its identity. Members of the community can establish a definite outlook and perception of their town by looking on its four corners and particular landmarks and call them their own. Some authors emphasize that “the consciousness of community is, then, encapsulated in perception of its boundaries, boundaries which are themselves largely constituted by people in interaction” (Cohen, 1985 as quoted by Purcell, 2006). The concept of social capital does not place particular attention to physical boundaries as long as concerted efforts from the members of the community are made available. Sometimes, boundaries are even forced on communities in order to establish the possible sources for social capital. And the specific traits of the community as defined by its physical borders are not even considered as symbols of community and identity. This gives social capital a limited perspective on community life. Common interests in small communities are less familiar. Sociologists and other authors claim that homogeneity is more likely to be found in bigger towns and cities, but for small and rural communities, heterogeneity of interests is more applicable. Of particular note is the fact that a heterogeneous community with a high tolerance for diversity is most likely to develop a strong social capital as well. However, some rural communities have little and limited tolerance for diversity in their community, and this often affects their activities towards the establishment of a strong social capital. Some studies have revealed that “tolerance of diversity typically correlates most with the factors of social agency and feelings of trust and safety” (Dekker, et.al., 2001). Small communities may sometimes be wary of minorities and other small groupings in their society; their wariness will often translate to decreased tolerance for these minorities. Hence, small rural communities may not have a strong capital because they are less tolerant of their neighbours who may be different from them. Local communities and central power Leadership in local communities potentially affects social capital. Control and build-up of social capital often depends on strong leadership in the community. Support for this leadership is also crucial, but is still very much dependent on leadership qualities. A strong leader has a better chance of rallying support and cooperation from the people. There are various considerations that need to be put into perspective in local communities as far as leadership is concerned. First and foremost, in order to establish a strong social capital in local communities, the membership potential needs to be enhanced. Secondly, “social capital needs to be bridged across communities, especially those divided by race” (Murphy & Cunningham, 2003). And lastly, in order to establish strong leadership, mediating institutions need to be established in order to find means to intervene and manage politics. Strong leadership in local communities is often taken for granted, and as a result, local communities sometimes have difficulties in coming up with a strong social capital. In the bigger scheme of things, they end up being absorbed into the global community. In the process, they often lose their identity as an independent community. Some communities have managed to survive by aligning themselves with the government. Through sheer willpower, they too have managed to remain strong and independent. But eventually, they often buckle under the strain of national interests which are different from their own. In order to truly achieve social capital and strong local leadership, a sustainable regional and local development must be emphasized. And ultimately, this implies “a greater degree of government intervention and capacity among regional communities to direct that intervention” (Gray & Lawrence, 2001). Economic development and social capital Economic development in local communities based on social capital may not always be beneficial to the community. In instances when economic development is based on concepts of class and status, economic development becomes elitist. There is a strong possibility for smaller communities to be dominated and ruled by the social structures prevalent in the community. Often “rural communities struggling to remain viable in the face of major social and economic change, the presence or absence of social capital is a major factor in how well they can cope” (Community builders, n.d). Economic development in local communities through firmly established social capital often depends on community response and local social linkages. However, these social linkages may focus more on social club membership, sports club and other elitist groupings. As a result, the economic development that may be initiated through social capital may benefit only those who belong to these elitist groups. Consequently, social capital as a growth machine becomes ineffective in establishing social equality for members of the local community. Instead, it ends up protecting the status quo, and withdrawing substantial support for economic development. Local government and Social capital Local government in communities are crucial leadership fronts in achieving a strong social capital. However, local government is often not given enough importance or perspective in the field of social capital. Admittedly, authors claim that local government is often elitist, focusing more on property and taxation matters for the community. Other people in less elite circles and with different needs are often discouraged from vying for government offices. As a result, their needs are also less likely heard by the local government officials. Prevalent social groups and personalities in the community end up representing their own interests in the local government. In the end, social stratifications in society become more defined. And the more active social stratifications are usually those favoured by local governments. Political analysts claim that “we have given too little attention to the importance of social capital to the healthy functioning of societies and rarely consider the impact of economic structures and policies on its formation or depletion” (Korten, 2001). The healthy functioning of society depends on its local enterprises and smaller social groupings. But social capital often ignores these basic elements in favour of those who can contribute most to the community in terms of finances and status. Effective local government and social capital relies heavily on sub-groupings and social activities that cater to the needs of specific members of the society. These local industries or groupings may include: local shops, farmers’ markets, community gardens, community choirs, credit cooperatives, and protected local forests. The presence of these industries “are powerful predictors of the sense of dignity, freedom, responsibility, prosperity, and security of local people and the extent to which relationships are characterized by trust, sharing, and cooperation” (Korten, 2001). Social inequalities created by favoured groups often create tension with smaller and less favoured groups in the community, and these tensions eventually create friction among local government officials. As a result, the strength and effectiveness of social capital created under these conditions is often diminished or weakened. Ideology and power Social inequality is a possible price for ideology. When a certain ideology is maintained or achieved for one group, other groups may be sacrificed or defaced in the process. And for those who have the means to achieve and maintain their ideology, the welfare of the rest of society will hardly make a difference to the means they will employ in order to fulfil their ideologies. In as much as egalitarianism seems to offer idyllic conditions for the local community, it is ultimately a lopsided perspective on social capital. “Autonomy and social standing, which are associated by rural tradition with self-reliance, are not always consistent with mutual goals, egalitarianism, and trust” (Gray & Lawrence, 2001). Tensions in policies and programs are created because of fundamental differences in the ideologies of the members of the community. The dominant ideology that will most likely be followed by the rest of society relies heavily on the power holders in the community. The principles laid out in previous paragraphs make mention of financial, social, and political factors as powerful indicators of dominant ideology. Some analysts point out that there is an important relationship between social capital, the ideologies of society, and the government that manages the community. In smaller communities where there is greater heterogeneity, small social groupings may interfere with the establishment of common and egalitarian ideologies. However, it has been established by some authors that “government actions and explicit constitutional arrangements that emphasize common rights of citizens act as a form of a bridging social capital, making it easier for disparate communities to live together in peace” (Halpem, 2005). Consequently, it would seem that the communities which foster a high degree of egalitarianism among its members create citizens which are more manageable; it also creates political leaders which cooperate more with each other. Modernisation, Globalisation, and social capital We are presently living in the age of globalization. By virtue of economic agreements and technological advancements in computer technology, our world has become smaller. We are now in better communion with our neighbouring countries; and they with us. However for small and local communities, globalisation gives a limited perspective on their community life. The shift in social capital is now geared towards the global economy. Local industries are bound to suffer from the global marketplace. They would most likely be absorbed by bigger and well-financed global industries. Possible measures to survive in this global economy may be set-up by local communities however these measures have to consist of “social bonding strategies and bridging connections to resources and opportunities...[in order to] help those in or near poverty gain an economic foothold and a stake in society” (Weil & Reisch, 2004). In the present trend of globalization, social capital provides a limited perspective on local communities because these local communities will have a difficult time competing and establishing a strong social capital. Local communities will be continually and excessively challenged by infiltrations of the global economy; therefore measures to create jobs, establish traditional practices, determine and meet local needs “will be critical in maintaining the social and political fabric of small communities and neighbourhoods” (Weil & Reisch, 2004). Whatever adjustments that can be made for the local community in order to keep up with globalization and modernization will be definite and crucial steps which will lead it further and further away from its established identity and community living. Conclusion Social capital provides a limited perspective on local community life because social capital focuses on the community as a collective and as a viable source of capital. The ideologies and leadership potentials of the community are only considered in as much as they help contribute to the overall community goals. But the identity, the culture, and the desires of the members of the community are not taken into account. Social capital reduces individual nuances of the society to figures and contributions; they are not viewed as faces and voices in the midst of the global economy and marketplace. Works Cited Bouta, T., et.al. (2004) Gender, Conflict, and Development. Washington: World Bank Publications Bullen, P. & Onyx, J. (March 1998) Measuring Social Capital. Management Alternatives Pty Ltd. Retrieved 04 June 2009 from http://www.mapl.com.au/A2.htm Dekker, P., et.al. (2001) Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life. New York: Routledge Gray, W. & Lawrence, G. (2001) A future for regional Australia: escaping global misfortune. London: Cambridge University Press Greer, S. & Abu-Lughod, J. (1998) The emerging city: myth and reality. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers Halpern, D. Social capital. United Kingdom: Polity Kawachi, I., et.al. (2007) Social Capital and Health. New York: Springer Korten, D. (2001) When corporations rule the world. California: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Levinson, D., et.al. (2002) Education and sociology: an encyclopedia. New York: Taylor & Francis Lin, A. & Harris, D. (2008) The Colors of Poverty: Why Racial and Ethnic Disparities Exist. New York: Russell Sage Foundation Murphy, P. & Cunningham, J. (2003) Organizing for community controlled development: renewing civil society. California: SAGE Newton, P. (2008) Transitions: Pathways Towards Sustainable Urban Development in Australia. New York: Springer Procter, D. (2006) Civic Communion: The Rhetoric of Community Building. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Purcell, P. (2006) Networked Neighbourhoods: The Connected Community in Context. New York: Springer Social Capital (n.d) Community builders. Retrieved 04 June 2009 from www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au/download/social_capital.pdf Social Capital (2001) Asian Development Bank. Retrieved 04 June 2009 from http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Social_Capital/chapter01.pdf Weil, M. & Reisch, M. (2004) Handbook of community practice. California: SAGE Read More