Page 41 - Cultural Change and Ordinary Life

32 Cultural change and ordinary life

Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital
refers to properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections
among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and
trustworthiness that arise from them. In that sense social capital is closely
related to what some have called ‘civic virtue.’ The difference is that
‘social capital’ calls attention to the fact that civic virtue is most powerful
when embedded in a dense network of reciprocal social relations. A soci-
ety of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in
social capital.
(Putnam 2000: 19)

Thus three features of this definition – ‘networks, norms and trust’ – are
the triad which dominates conceptual discussion’ (Schuller et al. 2000: 9).
While in Putnam’s earlier work there was a clear trend to think of social capital
as a positive thing, more recently he has recognized the potentially dark side of
social capital. For example: ‘Networks and the associated norms of reciprocity
are generally good for those inside the network, but the external effects of
social capital are by no means always positive’ (Putnam 2000: 21). In some
respects those things that bind some groups together, and thus build social
capital, are forms of exclusion of other groups and can therefore be socially
pernicious. Aspects of this are picked up by Putnam in his distinction between
bridging and bonding social capital:
Of all the dimensions along which forms of social capital vary, perhaps
the most important is the distinction between bridging (or inclusive) and
bonding (or exclusive). Some forms of social capital are, by choice or
necessity, inward looking and tend to reinforce exclusive identities and
homogeneous groups. Examples of bonding social capital include eth-
nic fraternal organizations, church-based women’s reading groups, and
fashionable country clubs. Other networks are outward looking and
encompass people across diverse social cleavages. Examples of bridging
social capital include the civil rights movement, many youth service
groups, and ecumenical religious organizations.
(Putnam 2000: 22)
In this respect the focus or the scale of the group to which attention
is drawn matters in debates about social capital. While there is a significant
debate on Putnam’s work, which has explored a number of critical issues, 2
it has been significant in drawing attention to the role of networks, formal
and informal association in ordinary life. While, as will be shown, this focus
has been arrived at from other directions as well, Putnam is an important
source. For my current purposes, two critical issues arise, from Putnam and
indeed from Bourdieu. First, there is the relationship between social and cul-
tural capital. Second, there is the need to more fully understand the role of the
media.
One of the problems of works on capitals is that there is a relative lack of
consideration of the interaction between social and cultural capital. Therefore,
Putnam’s work, while recognizing that there are different sources of the idea of
social capital, tends to be drawn to a political science focus on the implications