(ref: Gordon Johnston and Janie Percy-Smith, Policy Press vol 31, 231-34)
Described on the opening page as an “attractive but elusive” concept, throughout the document and references contained within, it appears that common influencing factors appear be the natural influences of social and family cohesion, respect, mutual learning and understanding of community values, and acceptance of like-minded culture, with culture being defined here as that of historic society, not artistic, sports or similar.
Investigating, defining and delivering improvement of social capital programmes and initiatives have been my professional role for many years, and my personal experiences of social capital have been both positive and negative.
To show appropriate recognised practice however, within local government programmes, the term social capital is broadly focussed mainly on community cohesion, as an integrated part of Local Area Agreements and Strategies, which are delivered through urban regeneration activities and programmes, administrated via community action teams and evaluated by local scrutiny boards. Supporting all of these processes is the value placed on social capital; with the focus and drive being towards accurate assessment, improved community capacity and social gain; engagement, mutual understanding and support mechanisms for the elderly, parents, families and children.
The reading set has afforded me the opportunity to learn some of the theories and conceptual underpinnings for the recognised approaches to social policy. In daily life in the UK today, the systematic failure of effective social capital is having a profound effect on our society, drawing attention to ever-familiar terms, such as: exclusion, health inequalities, self confidence and esteem, self worth, entitlement, drug abuse, alcoholism, domestic instability, antisocial behaviour, and educational underachievement to mention but a few.
In the documents definition of social capital, as quoted “little more than a new term for an old idea” appears to ring true. Historical, institutionalised relationships, mutual acquaintance, recognition, expectations of conformity, normal structures are indeed relevant to productive social capital for individuals an groups, as highlighted by both Bourdieu and Coleman. One word that is continually repeated throughout the document is ‘trust’, and this is used in many contexts quoted within.
As highlighted in the recent lecture session (week 4, Interactive Cultures), the guanxi principle appears to be one possible ideal to be attained, in both individual and community relationships. If this can be successfully attained in society, perhaps social capital would be operating at a successful level, facilitating mutual exchange of acts and favours, born from mutual understanding, respect, honourable practice and trust in one’s fellow citizen. This approach and ideal is very similar to that of Putnam (1993): “those features of social organisations, such as networks, norms and trust, that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit”.
Putnam also argues that effective family ties are an important source of social capital. I would like to suggest that this could be expanded upon, to incorporate the mutually understandable and accepted relationships with peers, colleagues and neighbours, drawing upon similar historical evidence, as witnessed during the Blitz and the community cohesion experienced by the British populous during World War II.
The origin and reason behind this beneficial human characteristic, which suggests the biological root of social capital has been offered by Fukuyama (1997) when he says that “reciprocity is “hard wired” into the genetic code of human beings”. This suggests perhaps that when the maternal and paternal bond between parents and child are broken (either by parental separation, or the child being placed in state care or similar) that this can lead to a depletion in social capital. There is evidence in the UK today, such as the increase in reported crime, antisocial behaviour reporting, lowering in educational attainment, the increase in reported adolescents not in education, employment or training (NEET) and the increased requirements by Primary Care Trust mental health services that a combination of the above written works and theories are a significant factor to the decline in perceived social capital today.
In the summary section of the reading, the statement: “social capital in the form of strong forms and informal networks, contributes to shared norms and trusting social relationships” can draw a direct comparison to social media practices, communications and physical gatherings. The use of social media technology provides a cohesive format of communication where links, friendships and mutual exchanges of discussion material, ideals and opinions take place. The increase in social capital then becomes real and effective when those taking part meet face-to-face, which leads to further reciprocal bonding, increased cohesion and mutual understanding, bringing a real and true human trust element to the developing relationship. “Such relationships improve the quality of life for communities and the life-chances of individuals” (page 329), ergo, enhancing inclusion, self worth, mutual understanding of acceptable norms and thus improving social capacity.
One significant section of note is the concluding final sentence, where it is stated “such an enterprise is likely to require a re-engagement with historical context…” This suggests that there are lessons to be learned that have already been experienced, lived and practiced by our earlier generations.