In this paper, Coleman’s concept of social capital is introduced and illustrated. Due to a lack of a critical observation concerning negative effects caused by social capital an approach is being made to show that also social capital is not only a source of good.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Coleman’s concept of social capital
2.1 Forms of capital
2.2 Forms of Social Capital
2.3 Realtive quantity of social capital
2.3 Bridging versus Bonding
3. The dark side of social capital
3.1 Direct and indirect negative externalities
3.2 Bonding forms of social capital
3.3 Social capital and inequality
3.4 Restrictions inside a network
4. Fazit
Objectives and Topics
This paper aims to critically examine James S. Coleman's concept of social capital, which is traditionally viewed in a predominantly positive light. By analyzing the theoretical framework and incorporating perspectives from authors like Robert Putnam, the paper explores the potential negative externalities of social capital, particularly focusing on inequality and the exclusionary nature of certain social networks.
- Theoretical foundations of social capital within the Rational Choice Theory.
- Differentiation between various forms of capital and the specific role of social capital.
- The importance of network closure and the distinction between bridging and bonding social capital.
- Analysis of negative externalities and the "dark side" of social relations.
- Examination of how social capital contributes to systemic inequality and network constraints.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Direct and indirect negative externalities
The probable most basic distinction is between people and networks that use their social capital for purposes that are socially or economically destructive (direct) and those where the negative externalities are more or less an unintended by-product (indirect).
Of course the definition of “negative” varies: For many people Osama Bin Laden is a freedom fighter and a defender of morals and contrary for others a terrorist that has to be chased. I want to show with that example that it depends on the individual perception of what is destructive and what is not.
The most popular example might be organised crime, but there are uncountable instances where destruction is an intentional goal. An example is among other things especially when information potential is being misused for propaganda: At the end of World War II hundred thousands of Japanese civilians committed suicide and were killed because it was told to them that Americans looked like Aliens and would rape and kill them anyway. The Japanese government knew of course that the pronounced information was a lie but they hoped to gain a better basis for negotiation if the death toll was high.
As history proofs social capital can be very well used to cause bad effects. Coleman is of course not wrong by arguing social capital utilizes things that would not be possible without it but it is important to add that the same way it can be used for good things it can be used for bad purposes.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Presents the rising popularity of the term "social capital" and outlines the paper's objective to critically evaluate Coleman’s approach, specifically focusing on its potentially negative aspects.
2. Coleman’s concept of social capital: Explores Coleman’s definition based on Rational Choice Theory and differentiates social capital from physical and human capital.
2.1 Forms of capital: Discusses the unique characteristics of social capital, emphasizing its tangibility and public-good nature compared to physical and human capital.
2.2 Forms of Social Capital: Details the five specific forms of social capital as defined by Coleman, including obligations, norms, and authority relations.
2.3 Realtive quantity of social capital: Examines the significance of network closure in creating social capital through examples of three-actor systems.
2.3 Bridging versus Bonding: Introduces the distinction between inclusive (bridging) and exclusive (bonding) networks as conceptualized by Robert Putnam.
3. The dark side of social capital: Argues that social capital is not inherently positive and can be utilized for malevolent purposes or create exclusionary barriers.
3.1 Direct and indirect negative externalities: Distinguishes between intentional destructive use of social capital and unintended negative consequences, illustrated by historical examples.
3.2 Bonding forms of social capital: Explores how strong in-group loyalty can lead to out-group antagonism and restricted access to external resources.
3.3 Social capital and inequality: Investigates the link between unequal distribution of social capital and social stratification, referencing studies on ethnic groups and income.
3.4 Restrictions inside a network: Analyzes how social networks can constrain their own members, limiting individual agency and mobility.
4. Fazit: Concludes that Coleman’s positive view of social capital is incomplete, as social capital can produce significant negative externalities and perpetuate inequality.
Keywords
Social Capital, James S. Coleman, Rational Choice Theory, Network Closure, Bridging, Bonding, Negative Externalities, Inequality, Social Structure, Trustworthiness, Norms, Obligations, Social Networks, Exclusion, Human Capital.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental objective of this paper?
The paper aims to introduce and illustrate James S. Coleman’s concept of social capital while addressing a perceived lack of critical observation regarding its potential negative effects, arguing that it is not solely a source of positive outcomes.
What theoretical framework does the author apply?
The author bases the analysis on Coleman’s "Theory of action," which is rooted in the Rational Choice Theory (RCT), implying that actors make rational decisions to maximize their utility and profit.
What are the primary thematic fields covered in this work?
The work covers the definition and forms of social capital, the role of network closure, the distinction between bridging and bonding types, and a detailed critique of the negative externalities associated with social structures.
Which scientific methods or approaches are used?
The paper utilizes a literature-based theoretical analysis, contrasting Coleman’s original views with concepts from other scholars like Robert Putnam and Anthony Giddens to provide a more nuanced, critical perspective.
What is explored in the main body of the text?
The main body examines the five forms of social capital, the mechanics of network closure, the duality of "bridging vs. bonding" networks, and specific scenarios where social capital leads to inequality and individual suppression.
What are the characterizing keywords of the research?
Key terms include social capital, network closure, negative externalities, inequality, rational choice, bonding vs. bridging, and social structure.
How does the author define the difference between bridging and bonding social capital?
Bridging social capital is described as inclusive and outward-looking, connecting diverse groups, whereas bonding social capital is characterized as exclusive, inward-looking, and focused on maintaining homogeneity.
What specific critique does the author level against Coleman's original concept?
The author argues that Coleman’s interpretation is too optimistic and fails to adequately address how social capital can be directed toward malevolent ends or perpetuate systematic social inequality.
- Quote paper
- Valentin Marquardt (Author), 2007, Colemans concept of social capital, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/81424
