Four Dimensions of Social Capital

A Typology for Understanding the Connections among Stanton-Salazar 3/25/2009 [4/22/09]
Different Forms of Social Capital DOC: Typology[Social Capital].docx

"
A Typology for Understanding the Connections among
Different Forms of Social Capital

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/2/2/0/0/pages22003/p22003-11.php

Glanville, et al. [Ricardos 4 Dimensions of SC below]:

I. Social Mediums [social conduits]: social tie[s] and network (either ego-
centric or the network as the unit of analysis)

II. Properties or characteristics of the Social Mediums
Structural-configurational properties:
o strength of the relationship or tie,
o social closure within a network [high density[ (Coleman, 1988);
o structural holes characteristic of a network (Ron Burt)

III. Resources (Lin, 2001; Bourdieu) & Forms of Empowering Social Support
(Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001)

IV. Social Structure

[macro level]: resources and mediums are embedded in a social
structure: linked to a position located in a social hierarchy or the social
stratification system
o Those positions in the hierarchy where occupants have access to (or
control) valuable resources
o racial hierarchy, class hierarchy, gender hierarchy
o The tacit rules that govern interaction and exchange: e.g., upper-
middle class adults can easily enter into relationships with other upper-
middle class adults, & where both parties can exchange highly
valuable resources.

[Literature Review]: Examples of the disparate phenomena labeled as social capital include:
Quantity of mediums: the quantity of the social ties ego can enlist (Bourdieu)
Networks:
o social networks beneficial in attaining good jobs (Boxman, De Graaf and Flap
1991),
Social support (Briggs 1998; Lin 1999),
Parental attention: fostering childrens educational attainment (Teachman, Paasch,
and Carver 1997),
Features of social organization: trust, norms and networks (Putman 1993; 2000),
Civic engagement (Putman 1993; 2000), and
State/society relationships (Woolcock 1998).

POINT[Glanville, et al.]: the construct exists at different levels of analysis.


#
Despite the conceptual confusion about social capital, there are five main components that are
commonly addressed in models of social capital [RSS]

resourcesthat are associated with, but vary in degree and salience for all forms of
social capital.. Resources

o personal and positional resources (Lin, 2001)
o institutional support (Stanton-Salazar, 2001)

social ties & networks.. Social Mediums [social conduits]:
[social relationships]

structure of social ties, network structure [structural-configurational] Properties or
characteristics of the Social Mediums

trust, enforceable norms, reciprocity .. [normative, integrative Properties of the
Social Mediums
[social structural] Properties of the
Social Mediums

social structure.. Social Structure
o micro: (1) rules of social life (Sewell); cultural schemas = generalizable
procedures applied in the enactment/reproduction of social life (Sewell)

o macro to micro: (Lin, 2001, p. 33)defined as consisting of:

(1) a set of social units (positions) that possess differential amounts of one or more
types of valued resources and that
(2) are hierarchically related relative to authority (control of and access to
resources),
(3) share certain rules and procedures in the use of the resources, [micro], and
(4) are entrusted to occupants (agents) who act on these rules and procedures.

[Glanville, et al.]: While there are different forms of social capital, they are related to each
other and that they can be located along four continua:
(1) micro .to macro,
(2) dense to dispersed social networks,
(3) level of trust and / or reciprocity, and
(4) level of resources.

EXAMPLE: For example, different types of social network structure and different types of
reciprocity will create distinct forms of social capital, which in turn are more or less conducive
to particular outcomes. [Glanville, et al.]:


$
BOURDIEU: defines social capital as the aggregate of the actual or potential resources
which are linked to the possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized
relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (1986: 248).

According to this definition, the amount of social capital to which an actor has access depends
on both:
1) the quantity of the network connections that she or he can enlist and
2) on the sum of the amount of capital (e.g., financial, human, cultural) that each
network member possesses.

SC as a Feature of Groups

Bourdieu does not view social capital as a feature of individualsit is a feature of groups. He
argues that the importance of group capital can be seen in cases in which different
individuals obtain very unequal profits from virtually equivalent (economic and cultural)
capital, depending on the extent to which they can mobilize by proxy the capital of a group (a
family, the alumni of an elite school, a select club, the aristocracy, etc.) that is more or less
constituted as such and more or less rich in capital (p. 256).

RSS: one is not limited to his or her own capital, but to the capital of a capital-rich group he/she
is connected to.

COLEMAN

[Coleman] sought to bridge the gap between sociological and economic explanations of social
action by showing how explanations based on rational action could fit into a framework that
also emphasized the importance of social context. As such, his conception is more general than
Bourdieus.

SC as social structures (e.g., social closure---a structural/configurational feature of the
organization of a group/community)

According to Coleman, social capital is a variety of entities with two elements in common:
(1) they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and
(2) they facilitate certain actions of actors-whether persons or corporate actors-within
structures (1988: S98; 1990: 302).

[Glanville, et al.]: In essence, social capital has the property of inhering in relationships among
actors, rather than being located in the individuals themselves. A key feature of social capital
that Coleman (1988; 1990) stressed was that social structures that originate for one purpose are
often appropriated for different purposes. For example, an organization that is created to help
residents of a housing development demand better services from the builder could later be used
for other purposes after the original demands have been meet. Coleman also noted, however,
that a form of social capital that is useful for one desired end may not necessarily be useful for
another end, and it may even be disadvantageous to the achievement of some goals.


%
Bourdieu & Coleman--Notably, B & C agree on some fundamental aspects of social capital:

(1) First, both identify social capital as something that inheres in social relationships
rather than as something that is tangibly possessed by individuals;

(2) INVESTMENT: Second, both of their definitions treat it as capital in the sense that it
is something that is invested in, whether consciously or unconsciously, and as
something that can be used to gain something else (i.e., a means to an end)

(3) social relations or social organizations that originate for one purpose can often be
appropriated for other purposes. Bourdieu pointed out that obligations that have accrued
in one context can be translated to others, whereas Coleman observed that social capital
is often created as a byproduct of other activities.

(4) Not-FUNCTIONAL (Bourdieu): social capital represents a capacity for the achievement
of certain goals, but it is not defined by whether it serves in achieving those goals

(5) CONSOLIDATION OF CAPITAL: Bourdieu attributes the activities of interest groups
(e.g., elite schools and clubs or cultural events) as efforts to reinforce the consolidation
of social capital within the group.

PUTNAM

features of social organization - - - - - improve the efficiency of society by facilitating
coordinated actions
trust,
norms and
networks

1) According to Putnam, social capital refers to features of social organization, such as
trust, norms and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating
coordinated actions (1993: 167).
2) Putnam characterizes the production or exhaustion of social capital in terms virtuous or
viscous circles because it increases through use and is depleted without use.

Criticisms:
(1) He often conflates trust, association membership, and social networks
(2) Levi (1996) argues that a stronger theory of when and how network structure and norms
of trust and reciprocity are related is needed, and we must define the mechanisms that
link the two.
(3) Tautological: In other words, if social capital and civic engagement are synonymous,
then it is no surprise that the more civically engaged regions of Italy have governments
that are more responsive to their constituents

Glanville, et al. (social networks are an essential component of social capital)


&
[however] There is considerable disagreement regard what other component/s embody social
capital. The major division is between definitions that include:
resources versus
the definitions that include trust or reciprocity, as the other component of social
capital.

(1) Resources (Lin, 2001; Bourdieu) & Forms of Empowering Social Support

(2) Properties or [structural-configurational] characteristics of the Social Mediums
a. strength of the relationship or tie,
b. social closure within a network [high density[ (Coleman, 1988);
c. structural holes characteristic of a network (Ron Burt)

(3) [social structural] Properties of the Social Mediums (e.g., trust)

[focus on resources]: Interestingly, this difference roughly corresponds to the level of analysis
on which the researcher focuses. Those who focus primarily on the benefits of social capital to
individuals or sometimes small groups (Bourdieu, Portes, Lin, and Burt) tend to consider the
resources embedded in social networks to constitute social capital, not a subjective component
such as trust.

[trust or reciprocity] In contrast, those who focus primarily on larger aggregates such as
communities or nations (Putnam, Paxton, and Woolcock) tend to consider subjective aspects
like trust or reciprocity as part of social capital, but not the resources of the various members of
the social network. Therefore, it appears that the term social capital refers to fundamentally
different phenomena as conceptualized at different levels of analysis.

[Glanville, et al. ]: We argue below that the different types of social capital can be placed along
four different continua. The continua are:
(1) dense networks to dispersed networks,
(2) level of reciprocity and trust, and
(3) level of resources, and
(4) micro to macro.

The consequences (both positive and negative) of a given form of social capital depend on its
location along these four continua

A. Within the field of social network analysis networks characteristics identified as
important, include density, the prevalence of bridges and structural holes, levels of
homogeneity, etc

B. Social Capital Literature: In the social capital literature, the term social network often
refers to one salient network characteristic relevant to a particular outcome rather than
an underlying structure that contains that feature. For example, a major point of

'
contention in the social capital literature is whether it is more advantageous to have a
dense or a dispersed network.
Dense networks are characterized by a set of strong and supportive ties, while
dispersed networks have ties that bridge social worlds. Coleman emphasized the
role of dense networks of intergenerational closure in the educational attainment of
youth.
In contrast, Burt (1997) argues that having social networks rich in structural holes
characterizes social capital.
others have emphasized the importance of weak or bridging ties for employment-
related outcomes and community collective action (Granovetter 1973)

Part of this disagreement has emerged because researchers use social capital to explain different
types of outcomes.
Research on outcomes that are related to social support has tended to emphasize dense
networks,
whereas research on more strategic outcomes has tended to focus on dispersed networks.

In view of this, Briggs (1998) distinguishes between two forms of social capital at the individual
level. One form of social capital provides social support and the other provides access to
strategic resources which Briggs calls leveraging resources.

Lin (2001: 27) makes a similar distinction in his characterization of the utility of these different
types of networks. Density and social closure are more beneficial for preserving or maintaining
resources, whereas dispersed networks are more beneficial for searching for and obtaining
resources not presently possessed.

[Balance]: At the macro-level, a certain amount of interconnectedness combined with
bridging ties between groups could provide the best social structure for community organizing
(Granovetter 1973).

Reciprocity and Trust

There is consensus in the literature that reciprocity and/or trust are related to social capital. With
regard to trust,
some consider trust or reciprocity antecedents of,
while others consider them elements of [SC], and
still others consider them outcomes of social capital.

Lin: Another distinction is on whether the focus is on trust, reciprocity or both. Some critics of
the use of trust in defining social capital argue that this dissociates social capital from its
original roots in interpersonal relationships (e.g., Lin 1999).

Glanville, et al.: .in many ways levels of trust and reciprocity are indicators of the
confidence with which people feel free to invest in social relations and institutions.


(
SOCIAL STRUCTURE ---Ricardos 4 Dimensions of SC below]:

I. Social Mediums [social conduits]: social tie[s] and network (either ego-
centric or the network as the unit of analysis)

II. Properties or characteristics of the Social Mediums
Structural-configurational properties:
o strength of the relationship or tie, trust;
o social closure within a network [high density[ (Coleman, 1988);
o structural holes characteristic of a network (Ron Burt)

III. Resources (Lin, 2001; Bourdieu) & Forms of Empowering Social Support

IV. Social Structure

macro to micro: (Lin, 2001, p. 33)defined as consisting of:

(1) a set of social units (positions) that possess differential amounts of one or more
types of valued resources and that
(2) are hierarchically related relative to authority (control of and access to resources),

micro: (1) rules of social life (Sewell); cultural schemas = generalizable procedures
applied in the enactment/reproduction of social life (Sewell)

micro: [Stanton-Salazar, 2004, revised 2009]


)
(IV.) Social Structure

micro: [Stanton-Salazar, 2004, revised 2009]

[Nan Lin, 29]: social capitalshould be defined as resources embedded in [social relations]
and social structure that are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive actions.

"Connections" are conduits for the transmission of resources

connections embody capital because they embody key "social structural
properties"

"social structural properties" that, when activated or exploited by actors, set in
motion psychological processes, deeply ingrained cultural rules, and social
interactions that lead one through the door, into the storehouse, and eventually to
those goods, resources, and supportive interactions that facilitate the
accomplishment of goals. "Social structure" is the motor that propels all
relationships, whether between individuals or between groups in society; it's what
makes them resource-ful, and thus, enduring.

Social structures have two simultaneous and interactive dynamics which are mutually
reinforcing.
o On the one hand, structure is composed of cultural schemas or procedures that
guide social life and that create forms of power and influence in social interaction
(Giddens, 1979, 1984; Sewell, 1992). For instance, relative to those who speak
English with a heavy Spanish accent, Chicano students who speak without a
Spanish accent, in a vernacular closely approximating standard English, are
deemed to have "higher academic potential"a cultural schema.
o On the other hand, forms of power and influence (i.e., resources) create and
sustain the cultural schemas that guide social relations. The mutually reinforcing
schemas and resources (or forms of power) operate in ways that produce what we
see as the recurrent and enduring social practices that make up social life in
families, schools, school systems, governmental bodies, the workplace, and the
economy.

These fundamental structural propertiesresources and schemascan be translated in
ways to illuminate the relation between social capital and familiar forms of social
organization.

Cultural schemas or procedures that value and encourage:
o cooperative activity and reciprocal exchange,
o shared meaning-making,
o [shared feelings of solidarity]
o continual assessments of common interests

.motivate members of large and small communities, nationally and locally.

*

Among Latino student communities, cultural schemas underlying instances of solidarity
may be linked to any number of statuses rooted in community life (e.g., generational
status, length of residence, neighborhood affiliation, previous school membership,
language proficiencies, mutual affiliation in school organizations, and of course,
academic track or curricular program) (see Matute-Bianchi, 1986; Valenzuela, 1999).

o Such schemas are mobilized as the basis for the further building of trust and for
the accumulation of experiences of mutual benefit within the realm of school.

o On the basis of these "schemas," actors establish relationships or connections that
serve as the basis for the further building of trust and for the accumulation of
experiences of mutual benefit, that in time, become a form of protected and
growing investment (Lin, 2001; Portes, 1998).

o When needed, such investments are activated into forms of social support that
facilitate the accomplishment of goals. Eventual reciprocity keeps the investment,
and the productive potential of these relations, growing.

Appendix: Stanton-Salazar, 2001 (pp. 265-66)

Social structure3 fundamental properties:

(1) a dynamic process founded on reciprocal investments in a relationship or set of relations

Cultural schemas or procedures that value and encourage: [Stanton-Salazar, 2004]
o cooperative activity and reciprocal exchange,
o shared meaning-making,
o [shared feelings of solidarity]
o continual assessments of common interests

POWER Differentials: The party who is more powerful than the one occupying the
provider role makes investments and asks for assistance one way, while the party with
less power .makes investments and asks for help in another way.

(2) Reciprocal investments lead to trust as well as to enforceable expectations and
obligations (in Colemans terms [1988, 1990], a credit slip).
These cultural rules and resulting obligations, set within contextualized power
relations, represent the second property of [social capital?] [social structure?]

(3) third property: . resource-generating capacity: valued resources flow back and forth
between individuals engaged in these relationships of trust and mutual (and enforceable)
expectations.


"+

(V.) Social Structure

macro to micro: (Lin, 2001, p. 33)defined as consisting of:

(1) a set of social units (positions) that possess differential amounts of one or more types of
valued resources and that
(2) are hierarchically related relative to authority (control of and access to resources),

micro: (1) rules of social life (Sewell); cultural schemas = generalizable procedures
applied in the enactment/reproduction of social life (Sewell)

(VI.) Social Structure

micro:

(1) rules of social life (Giddens) v. (Sewell); cultural schemas = generalizable
procedures applied in the enactment/reproduction of social life

(2) resources are anything that can serve as a source of power in social interactions (p. 9)
command over people (RSS: getting them to do things)
command over resources

[creates] Power in social interactions:
(1) cultural schemas
(2) resources

Those that are able to control the basic resources of a society get to make the rules
(resources: e.g., the land and its resources, a societys intellectual resources, the production
process, peoples labor and creative capacity, etc.) CTSE 203

RESOURCES: Human resources
physical strength
dexterity,
knowledge
emotional commitments (trust)

.that can be used to enhance or maintain power.


""

Resources --------- Power in social interactions

Structure: simultaneousdual character

(1) cultural schemas are produced and maintained by resources
(2) resources are produced and maintained by cultural schemas

Nan Lins resources: (see page 37)

(1) positional resources: status (prestige), class, authority

(2) individual resources: reputation, wealth, power

Questions for Nan Lin:

(1) Do your positional resources and individual resources correspond to Sewells
resources (i.e., resources are anything that can serve as a source of power in social
interactions [p. 9], command over people, command over resources)

Four Dimensions of Social Capital

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Four Dimensions of Social Capital

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Typology for Understanding the Connections among Stanton-Salazar 3/25/2009 [4/22/09]

Different Forms of Social Capital DOC: Typology[Social Capital].docx

Potrebbero piacerti anche