Effect of Social Capital on Democracy

Effect of sociable Capital on republicCritically assess the sentiment of kindly detonating device? What advantages, if any, does it offer the field of country?IntroductionSince the 2001 general election much academic pass on has centred on voter apathy as the lowest turnout, especially among the young, lead many to posit a crises in state (Russell, 2005 555). Various theories pick out exerti unmatchedd to apologise the problem as either the result of a life-cycle argument, whereby the youngest sections of society ar always less likely to vote unless as they age own ho dos and mortgages, and pay taxes they become more bear on with politics and more likely to vote (Denver in Russell, 2005 556) or a generational effect whereby there is an overall decline in active citizenship (Park in Russell, 2005 556). Against this background the campaign of Robert Putnam appeared to strike a chord. In his prestigious Bowling Alone the Collapse and Revival of Ameri bay window Commu nity (2000)1, and associated articles, Robert Putnam transferred the theory of fond groovy from sociology into the realm of politics, arguing that lurch magnitude privateism had resulted in the decline of federation ties and political participation (Russell, 2005 557), undermining good establishment.In the archetypical section I provide an outline of mixer bang-up as it was before formulated by the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, in the irregular I detail the concepts move from sociology to political science in the work of Putnam. My contention is that in the operation of adapting brotherly capital, Putnam transmutes the meaning of the b show and therefrom undermines its utilizableness to the study of democracy that whereas for Bourdieu it was a property held by one-on-ones, in Putnams account it is held by collectives. Also, that although Bourdieu believed that well-disposed capital was translatable with economical capital scarcely non reducible to it, Putnam relies on a distinctly economic understanding of the term. Finally, that Putnams use of the term is essentially neo-liberal, whereas for Bourdieu affectionate capital is ultimately about causality transaction. In the result assess the usefulness of the term to political science and the study of democracy in light of this conceptual drift.Pierre Bourdieu and the Forms of CapitalPierre Bourdieu (1930-2002) originally developed his theory of cultural capital as part of an attempt to explain class-based antitheticalials in educational achievement. His theory has five main features, the different forms of capital cultural, social and economic, and the concepts of the field and habitus. For Bourdieu capital is best defined as accumulated labour and has the potential to procreate (Bourdieu, 1986 241) it is this ability of capital to re bring on that leads Bourdieu to conclude that it is part of the structure of society that shapes singular life chances it is the amaze of con straints, inscribed in the very reality of that world determining the chances of winner for practices (Bourdieu, 1986 242). Social Capital, for Bourdieu, refers to the network of connections that an individual enjoys which produce and reproduce lasting, useful dealingships that can secure material or symbolic profits (Bourdieu, 1986 249) the amount of social capital that an individual can draw upon is thus dependant on the number of people in their social network and the amount of capital cultural, economic or social possessed by those so included. two cultural and social capitals are therefore rooted in, without being decided by, the possession of economic capital all three interact to wipe out the way that social hierarchies are reproduced. Finally, the three forms of capital combine to produce a persons habitus, or set of predis puts whilst the field refers to the arena in which a specific habitus is realised. and then we can see that for Bourdieu not scarcely was the c oncept of social capital embedded in relations of agency (Burkett, 2004 236), it was besides part of a complex theory that sought to explain the social reproduction of inequality.Bourdieus theory has been criticized as being essentialist and deterministic for whoremonger Frow (1995) it is essentialist in that Bourdieu posits a single class experience common to the sociologically quite distinct groups he includes in the dominant class (Frow, 1995 62) that an individuals class position makes them what they are, he reads off some(prenominal) working and middle class refining from their class position, resulting in an essentialist reading of the aesthetic (Frow, 1995 63). Bourdieus theory can also be viewed as deterministic, as individuals predispositions are posited as being the learn result of their class position, entailing a denial of individual agency. Further, such a class-based analysis can lead one to minimize the effects of opposite forms of differentiation, such as gend er, ethnicity and age. However, Bourdieus use of the term capital is both metaphoric and materialistic and can be viewed as similar to causation although convertible with economic capital, social capital is not reducible to it (Bourdieu, 1986 243). Also, Bourdieu argued that the social capital possessed by an individual is a result of their investiture strategies via a continuing series of exchanges in which recognition is endlessly substantiate and reaffirmed (Bourdieu, 1986 250). Finally, Bourdieu argues that social inequalities become part of the very bodies and predispositions of the individual through his concept of habitus (McNay, 1999 99), not as a principle of determination but as a generative structure (McNay, 1999 100) returning autonomy to the individual his theory is able to transcend determinism it is an open system which allows for social change (McNay, 1999101). In summary, for Bourdieu social capital is ultimately about the way that power works through society, an d is concerned with the life chances of individuals. Further, the wider theory, especially the concept of the habitus, is useful for theorists who seek to explain patterns of behaviour, including community participation and levels of voting.Robert Putnam Social Capital and countryRobert Putnams argument may be summarised as being that the decrease in participation in impulsive organisations has undermined the effectiveness of good governance that prosperous and healthy democracies and economies are those possessing dense webs of community participation (Walters, 2002 377). In so arguing, Putnam transferred the concept of social capital from sociology into the realm of political science, arguing that increasing individualism, the anonymity of urban living (Russell, 2002 557), and the negative effects of television (Putnam, 1995 75 Walters, 2002 380), have resulted in the decline of community ties and political participation (Russell, 2002 557) and thus a decline in social capital. Similar debates were found deep down the British context, as were calls for a revival of participation and stakeholder values (Walters, 2002 377). tilt that a range of issues including drugs, crime, unemployment, development, education and political performance (Walters, 2002 379), and the effectiveness of democracy itself (Putnam, 1995 66) would benefit from a resurgence of voluntary associations, Putnam therefore calls for a reinvigoration of community participation (Walters, 2002 377) as members of associations are much more likely than non-members to move in politics, to spend time with neighbours, to express social trust (Putnam, 1995 73). define social capital as features of social organisation such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit (Putnam, 1995 67), Putnam argued that not solo has the post-war period witnessed a decline in participation in voluntary associations, but that such membership is now increasi ngly tertiary that the only act of membership consists in writing a check for dues or possibly occasionally reading a newsletter (Ibid. p. 71). Putnam argues that this declining membership, and the increasingly tertiary nature of remaining membership, represents a significant erosion of American social capital (Ibid. p. 73) and, as such, undermines democracy.However, Putnams use of the term is markedly different from that of Bourdieu whereas in Bourdieus conception social capital was held by the individual (Walters, 2002 387), for Putnam social capital is held by collectives (Ibid. p. 379), further, it is difficult to see how there can be a reduction in social capital, rather than a qualitative change in its composition. William Walters (2002) argues that Putnams use of the concept differs from Bourdieus in other key respect whereas for Bourdieu social capital, although transferable with economic capital, is not reducible to it (Bourdieu, 1986 243), Putnam assumes a self-maximisi ng individual for whom associative activity can, under certain circumstances, be an investment (Walters, 2002 379, my emphasis). Rather that discussing the social capital of individuals embedded within relations of power, for Putnam social capital implies a learning mechanism that is more economic that socio-psychological (Ibid. p. 387), and as such represents an extension of the economic metaphor in order to convince us that society is self-governing (Ibid. p. 391) by using social capital in this way, individuals are made responsible for good governance now conceived as a horizontal space of multiple communities (Ibid. p. 388) adding the cover of the civic and uncivic to the list of divisions by which normative judgements are naturalised (Ibid. p. 392). Thus for Putnam social capital is simultaneously cause and effect (Ibid. p. 380). Further, rather than situating the individual within a web of power relations, Putnam relies on the atomised individual of neo-liberalism (Burkett, 2004 236). Finally, whilst this designer agrees that society benefits when individuals participate in voluntary organisations, Putnam assumes a splice surrounded by such involvement and an improved performance for democracy, yet this link the Great Compromiser to be clearly, empirically, demonstrated (Freitag, 2006 124). Such an argument also undermines the role of government activity in shaping civil society (Walters, 2002 380) and in shaping social capital (Freitag, 2006128), and as such can only provide a skewed picture of the link between community participation and the work of democracy.In ConclusionIn conclusion, we can see that in the process of adapting social capital to the realm of political science, Putnam changes the meaning of the term that whereas for Bourdieu it was a property held by individuals, in Putnams account it is held by collectives. Also, that although Bourdieu believed that social capital was exchangeable with economic capital he believed it was not reducible to it, whilst Putnam relies on a distinctly neo-liberal, economic understanding of the term that whereas for Bourdieu the individual and therefore their social capital resources are ultimately concerned with relations of power, Putnam utilises an atomistic and self-maximising conception of the individual (Walter, 2002 386) involved in building networks of self-governance (Walters, 2002 388) and one wonders if such an argument may, in part, justify the rolling back of the state. Finally, that the use of the term in political science rests on the assumption of a link between membership of voluntary organisations and political participation, but this link remains to be empirically proven. Indeed, Markus Frietag argues that it is political institutions that matter, that there are in fact three political prerequisites for collective social capital institutional provision for direct democracy, respect for minorities and outsiders as part of consensus building, and a degree of lo cal autonomy (Frietag, 2006 145). Ben Fine argues that academia has become hooked to a social capital fetish (in Burkett, 2004 234) that its now ill-defined conceptualisation means that social capital can be near anything (Burkett, 2004 238). He is also concerned that, too often, social capital is in fact primarily participation from below imposed from above (in Burkett, 2004 243) perhaps we should be wary that calls for increased social capital are not simply calls for a withdrawal of state responsibility.BibliographyBourdieu, Pierre (1986) The forms of Capital in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, London Greenwood Press, pp. 241-258.Burkett, Paul (2004) Book analyze Social Capital versus Social Theory Political Economy and Social Science at the Turn of the Millennium by Fine, Ben (London Routledge) in diachronic Materialism, Vol. 12, no(prenominal) 1, pp. 233-246.Freitag, Markus (2006) Bowling the State Back In Political Institutions and the doma in of Social Capital in European Journal of Political Research, Vol. 45, pp. 123-152.Frow, behind (1995) Accounting for Tastes Some Problems in Bourdieus Sociology of horticulture in Cultural Studies, Vol. 1, no(prenominal) 1, pp. 59-73.McNay, L (1999) Gender, habitus and the Field Pierre Bourdieu and the Limits of Reflexivity in Theory, Culture Society, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 95-117.Putnam, Robert (1995) Bowling Alone Americas Declining Social Capital, An consultation with Robert Putnam in Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 65-78.Russell, Andrew (2005) Political Parties as Vehicles of Political passage of arms, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 555-569.Walters, William (2002) Social Capital and Political Sociology Re-imagining Politics? Sociology, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 377-397.1Footnotes1 New York, N.Y. Simon Schuster.