The transfer, accumulation, and profit from social capital is unarguably one of the most important drivers influencing power structure, social stratification, and global society as a whole. Robert Putnam and Pierre Bourdieu have two very different and contrasting ideas about the theory of social capital and the problems or societal benefits that arise from its accumulation. Each philosopher’s definitions of the term “social capital” are vastly different. While both theories are extensively developed and thorough, Putnam’s is shallower and pays lacks recognition of the importance of social capital and its impacts on class stratification and inequality. Bourdieu, however, paints a more extensive and informed view about the effects of social capital on driving the class society we live in.
Putnam’s idea of social capital focuses on social networks and their effects on civic engagement and community outcomes. Whether consciously enforced (like social clubs, community organizations, or religious groups), or more organically occuring (like familial relations or “informal leisure activities”), the interactions people have in and around these organizations result in “norms of reciprocity,” the unspoken expectations of giving and receiving and trustworthiness that come along with membership in these groups. Putnam argues that an overall increase in social capital fosters more collective action, demonstrated through channels like voting, participating in formal clubs and teams, or “altruistic activities” like philanthropy and volunteering. He also discusses declines in relationship-based measures, like marriage rates or general trust of other people. Putnam has found these declines in overall American social capital and socialization have led to an immense decrease in all forms of community participation, a “privatization of leisure time”, and, ultimately, a less productive and flourishing society.
Putnam examines variances in what he calls “social capital”, on both a local community and state level, and the outcomes these differences had on American public school education. His analysis is based mainly on statistics such as test scores, dropout rates, and overall “educational performance.” Controlling for major demographic factors like race, poverty, income, inequality, and family structure, Putnam claims that “community-based social capital is still by far the single strongest influence on educational outcomes” (Putnam 72). He also posits that and that SAT scores, dropout rates, parental support, and student misbehavior are only indirectly correlated to important demographic factors like race or income, via their impact on social capital and civic engagement.
Putnam does acknowledge the nuances and complications behind his analysis. Most of his studies show that the states with the highest level of social capital and educational performance include North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Vermont, states that also happen to have much lower rates of urbanization, immigration, crime, or economic activity. He tries to trace the complicated history of social capital, analyzing, for example, the fact that many states in the South may suffer from lower social capital and educational performance due to history of slavery and racial discrimination and injustice. He also brings up the point that many of the states with higher indicators of social capital are already more “congenial” and desirable places to live based on other factors too, like health, child welfare, or local/state governments (Putnam 81). It’s interesting to consider the implications or euphemisms for what Putnam means when he says these places are “congenial”, since they are mostly demographically homogeneous: rural and white.
Putnam establishes two types of social capital: “bonding” social capital, where people gravitate towards their own kind, is more common and easy to create than “bridging” social capital which brings together people of different types (class, race, etc). Though it is difficult, Putnam argues we need to work to create more forms of bridging social capital; avoiding expanding diversity by passing off homogeneity and uniformity as “civic and community engagement” can dangerously act as an excuse for simply stratifying already existing class differences. He even acknowledges that, “in terms of social capital, like financial capital, the rich usually get richer”, and that equalizing and more evenly dividing existing social capital is an uncomfortable shift for a society that naturally gravitates towards those who are similar to us (Putnam 85).
Bourdieu sees social capital as interconnected with economic and cultural capital. These three types of “accumulated labor” can be transformed and converted to leverage power and control of societal structure. He imagines an individual’s social capital to be “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources [from a] possession of a durable network of…relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition”. All the benefits earned from membership in these groups entitles one to “credit”, to a sort of quantified status, a measurable prestige, that can be exchanged or used for power and control. Therefore, Bourdieu argues, the volume of an individual’s social capital is directly tied to the networks they are a part of. Both the quantity and quality of these connections is important. Having an abundance of friends and family to form a “support network” is of course beneficial for success and prosperity, but being a “member” in a group of elite or powerful people, and knowing how to effectively mobilize and use these connections, is just as important, if not more.
Bourdieu emphasizes the cyclical nature of social capital, both its transfer between “owners” and its conversion to other forms of capital. The possession of social capital works in a feedback loop as the profits created from membership in a group work to strengthen the group’s internal bonds and external prestige even more, exerting a “multiplier effect”. Even if efforts to profit off membership in a group aren’t conscious, Bourdieu argues that all relationships are “the product of investment strategies, individual or collective, consciously or unconsciously aimed at establishing or reproducing social relationships that are directly usable” However, these connections will not be beneficial to accruing social capital unless one possesses the “specific competence” and volition to manipulate and cultivate relationships into social capital.
Other forms of capital, especially economic, can never be completely separated from social capital. Economic capital is at the root of all other forms, and therefore apparent social capital can be reduced to being simply a disguised, transformed form of economic capital. Attempts to disguise these economic roots can increase the risk of loss or exposure of capital. Because of this, holders of large sums of social capital have a great interest in trying to maintain better-disguised conversion, so transactions are often hidden or unacknowledged.
Bourdieu views social capital as a commodity that an individual possesses (although its value is grounded in the existence of a group), while Putnam analyzes social capital as a community-based, collectively-held property. Although the phenomenon Putnam is describing may hold true in many situations, his choice to use the term “social capital” is questionable, since the concept of civic engagement he describes isn’t a spendable, exploitable resource (though it is sometimes quantifiable and, as he points out, profitable).
Putnam’s idea of social capital, though well-developed, only skims the surface of the practical applications social capital has on people’s lives in the real world. His analyses of the impact of social capital on educational outcomes are well-developed, but his discussion about the roots of the inequalities of social capital is lacking nuance and development. By focusing on the complicated processes surrounding the accumulation, transfer, and conversion of social capital, Bourdieu is able to situate social capital in a realistic landscape, and his analysis and theories help to explain reasons behind inequality, inequity, and larger, broader global issues and trends.
Bourdieu’s theory of social capital and its exchange and power in the world makes a good lense for looking at a wide variety of practical situations. Social capital is often more important and influential than cultural or even economic capital, especially in systems controlled by the “elite”, or that favor status and prestige, like celebrity culture or corporate entrepreneurship. Even systems claiming to be pure meritocracies, like universities or the government system, are clearly swayed and influenced quite frequently by forces that reflect social capital.
The American university system and academia as a whole both favor and perpetuate social capital in their power structures. Though it is rarely acknowledged, having a network of the proper connections is a primary way people rise to power in these structures, something I’ve (perhaps unfairly) experienced in my own life through my schooling, internships, and other opportunities. Bourdieu’s theory emphasizes the importance of the “quality”, not just the “quantity” of connections when it comes to leveraging social capital to one’s advantage. It is important to distinguish between just having connections–friends, family, loved ones–and having powerful connections. Friends are great, but friends in high places are better; “better” from an objective standpoint of advancing one’s position in life; Bourdieu mostly avoids commentary about the moral or ethical value of using social capital for one’s advantage.
Putnam’s research on civic engagement is optimistic and fitting for the time and specific focus on education, but it lacks deeper commentary on the social and economic issues that make social “capital” (an ill-fitting term for his concepts) profitable and influential in the real world. Bourdieu’s ideas of social capital as an exchangeable, transferable resource comparable to economic capital make much more sense in practical application, both at the time of his writing and now. We only need look at examples of biased university admissions, nepotism in politics, or unfair and prejudiced court rulings, to realize the benefit of a collection of meaningful yet powerful connections in our Western society.
2019-3-6-1551838644