Social capital, the individual

1
Social capital, the individual agencyWhat
works for whom in what circumstances

• Leesa Wheelahan10 November 2004Faculty of
  Education Monash University

2
Central argument

• social justice advocates seduced by the social
• social capital been colonised by economics to an
  even greater extent than other areas of social
  science
• putative rational actor methodological
  individualism
• struggle power relations replaced by
  information flows transaction costs
• collective irreducible properties of groups
  replaced by aggregated actions
• for social capital to be useful we must restore
• Bourdieus notion of field (with some
  modifications)
• contextualise ask what works for whom under
  what circumstances

3
Overview

• explores the way in which colonisation taken
  place 3 mechanisms
• theory of motivation (rational choice versus
  sociological explanations)
• methodological individualism
• illicit reduction of qualities to narrow
  measurable quantities
• consequences methods dismal science used
  additive, not generative

4
Overview cont

• contrast an approach based on critical realism
• groups have different irreducible properties
• social capital a property of groups not
  individuals varies with context
• emerges from the interplay between agency
  structure
• cannot be considered independently of power
  conflict Bourdieu much to offer, but some
  differences
• asks different sorts of questions
• causal mechanisms, not correlations
• implications for methodology

5
Definitions of social capital

• Productivity Commission (2003)
• Social capital is an evolving concept. It
  relates to the social norms, networks and trust
  that facilitate cooperation within or between
  groups.
• Woolcock (1998 155)
• a broad term encompassing the norms and
  networks facilitating action for mutual benefit.

6
The 3 key theorists

• Bourdieu (1992 119)
• Social capital is the sum of resources, actual
  or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a
  group by virtue of possessing a durable network
  of more or less institutionalised relationships
  of mutual acquaintance and recognition.
• will argue that Bourdieu taken completely out of
  context

7
Coleman (1988 98)

• Social capital is defined by its function. It is
  not a single entity but a variety of different
  entities, with two elements in common they all
  consist of some aspect of social structures, and
  they facilitate certain actions of actors-whether
  persons or corporate actors-within the structure.
  Like other forms of capital, social capital is
  productive, making possible the achievement of
  certain ends that in its absence would not be
  possible.
• unlike other capitals, inheres in the structure
  of relations between actors not individuals
• takes three forms obligations expectations,
  information channels, social norms

8
Putnam (2000 18-19)

• By analogy with notions of physical capital and
  human capital tools and training that enhance
  individual productivity the core idea of social
  capital theory is that social networks have
  valuesocial contacts affect the productivity of
  individuals and groups
• social capital refers to connections among
  individuals social networks and the norms of
  reciprocity and trustworthiness that come from
  them.

9
Presumed commonalities

• social networks facilitate action within social
  structures (Winter, 2000 26)
• Despite their differences, all three consider
  that social capital consists of personal
  connections and interpersonal interaction,
  together with the shared sets of values that are
  associated with these contacts. (Field, 2003
  13)
• Lin (2001 6) groups Bourdieu, Coleman Putnam
  under the broad heading of neocapitalist theories
  social structure no longer based on
  antagonistic struggle, now one of layered or
  stratified negotiation
• Burt (2001 32) argues all 3 think that creates a
  competitive advantage
• links micro, meso macro

10
Lots of differences

• normative/neutral (dark side)
• more government/less government (aka self
  reliance/welfare)
• bridging/bonding or holes/closed
• means/ends or object/effect distinction
• universal/contextual
• too vague/too narrow
• epiphenomenal/conscious investment
• inheres in individuals/social relations
• what to measure how to measure if to measure

11
Fundamental problems

• individual motivation
• rational choice theory/game theory underpins much
  implicitly (but not all Cox Caldwell, Baron,
  Field, Schuller, Fevre, Falk Ballati etc)
• methodological individualism
• in ontology methodology
• derived from the abstract rational actor fully
  formed out of nothing with preferences
  instrumentally pursued
• but also from some interpretative accounts that
  reduce structure to negotiated meaning

12
Social-network theory social capital an
extreme example

• Lin (2001 6) Social capital refers to
  Investment in social relations with expected
  returnsIndividuals engage in interactions and
  networking in order to produce profits.
• Social capital embedded resources in social
  networks mobilised for purposive action enhances
  outcomes of actions in 4 ways
• facilitates flow of information
• social ties exert influence on agents
• certify social credentials
• reinforce identity recognition
• inheres in networks not individuals networks
  aggregations of individual interactions
• counterposes (trendy) collective aggregate (p.9)

13
Burt structural holes

• social capital is a metaphor about advantage.
  Society can be viewed as a market in which people
  exchange all variety of goods and ideas in
  pursuit of their interests. (Burt, 2001 31)
• a complement to human capital
• structural holes give access to unique
  information therefore competitive advantage
  needs closure to realise advantage

14
Coleman rational choice theory the basic
premise, rest window dressing

• explicit aim import the economists principle
  of rational action for use in the analysis of
  social systems proper, including but not limited
  to economic systems Coleman (1988 97 my
  emphasis this the colonisation process)
• he argues cant have a pastiche need a coherent
  framework import elements of the other
• begin with a theory of rational action each
  actor has control over resources interests,
  social capital a resourceactor has goals
  independently arrived at, acts independently, is
  wholly self-interested
• methodological individualism used to build the
  social from the aggregation of the individual

15
Winter recaststhe problem of sociology

• acknowledges individual/collective debates
  debates about motivation, but still makes narrow
  assumptions
• addresses old new debates
• assess extent to which individual actions are
  guided by social norms of trust reciprocity (p.
  19)
• solving dilemmas of collective action based on
  individual pursuit of self-interest
• socialised view of human action draws from
  classical sociology the question How is social
  order possible if each individual is maximising
  his or her own self interest?
• Narrow parameters based on individualist
  assumptions

16
Bourdieu the rational actor historically
specific, not universal

• instrumental rationalism ethnocentric
  universalisation of historically specific
  conception of human motivation
• All the capacities and dispositions it liberally
  grants to its abstract actor-the art of
  estimating and taking chances, the ability to
  anticipate through a kind of practical induction,
  the capacity to bet on the possible against the
  probable for a measured risk, the propensity to
  invest, access to economic information, etc.
  can only be acquired under definite social and
  economic conditions. (Bourdieu, 1992 124)

17
Market behavioursapplied to all aspects of life

• in place of collective structured conflicting
  interests, information flows transaction costs
• more benign theories 3rd way based on view that
  communicative competence must underpin economy (
  therefore society) requires egalitarianism not
  hierarchy (Szreter 2000 Maskell 2000) not
  poore, nasty brutish short
• but non-market behaviours imported ( recast) to
  account for imperfect markets which are then
  generalised to all of life
• eg. social-network theory sounds relational, but
  isnt

18
The social becomesattributes of the individual

• identified as features of individuals or
  individual exchanges, then abstracted
  generalised
• Yet, from social capital having been one type of
  capital within Bourdieus work, it has become
  universalised across all non-economic aspects.
  The same step has allowed its social, historical,
  and cultural content to be set aside. (Fine,
  200163)
• socially shaped preferences internalised as
  relatively stable preferences
• study of preferences pursuit of preferences,
  not socially structured social relations (Archer
  2000)
• can add subtract individualised preferences
  actions, not generative social relations
• then add compare one population to another

19
Methodological implications

• the social the aggregation of the individual
• atomistic conception of reality
• successionist explanations seek correlations
  not causal mechanisms
• depicts observation as fragmented into simple,
  unproblematic, indivisible readings. (Sayer
  1992 195)
• additive models holding variables constant
  much social capital research in this vein (Putnam
  can account for about 75 of decline added it
  up!)

20
Cant explain causation

• reduces social structures relations to
  socio-psychological states
• eg. Onyx Bullen (2000 116-117) government
  institutions not found to be related to factors
  they measure
• defined social capital as propensities views
  inherent in individuals, measured that way,
  found the enabling conditions excluded
  self-fulfilling prophecy
• The pattern of correlations suggests that social
  capital is about more immediate and personal
  connections between people and events, rather
  than the more distant and formal relationship
  with government institutions and policy.
  Correlations doesnt allow causation

21
Substitutes the things of logic for the logic
of things

• Bourdieu (1992 123) citing Marx of Hegel
• So just as commodity fetishism defines how real
  production relationships appear as relations
  between things, so the individualistic
  conceptions of human and social capital obscure
  the nature of social relations through which
  learning takes place and through which society
  impinges upon individuals experiences of life.
  (Fine Green, 2000 87)
• statistical patterns give us a starting point but
  is not a way of accounting for or explaining
  proportions of variance. (Carter New, 2004 9)
• social relations in open systems with co-acting
  mechanisms task to identify generative
  mechanisms open systems because peopled

22
Critical realism an alternative

• draw on Archers work Bourdieus student
• distinguishes between people parts
• relational groups have causal properties
  irreducible to individuals (eg a choir, social
  class etc)
• society consists of as systems of human
  relations among social positions (Archer, 1995
  106).
• temporal dimension important degrees of freedom
  relative autonomy of social structures

23
Relationshipbetween people parts

• Structures are described as generative
  mechanisms, because when their casual powers are
  realised they work to make something happen. But
  the effects of structures are mediated by agency
  in social life, nothing happens without the
  activation of the causal powers of people.
  Crucial among these is the power to decide.
  (Carter New, 2004 14)
• differently resourced subjects making
  constrained choices amongst the range of
  opportunities provided (Pawson Tilley, 1997
  46)

24
Analytical dualism emergence

• explores the interplay between people parts
  agency/structure
• emergence of social cultural structures which
  shape (but not determine) future agents
• relative autonomy of individual social here
  Archer differs from Bourdieu

25
Bourdieus theory of fields

• different fields structured by different
  compositions of capitals structures, roles
  positions, gives rise to habitus
• Such notions as habitus, field, and capital can
  be defined, but only within the theoretical
  system they constitute, not in isolation.
  (Bourdieu, 1992 96)
• fields emerge historically, and are sites of
  struggles determined by structure relative
  positions
• A capital does not exist and function except in
  relation to a field. (p. 101)
• Every field constitutes a potentially open space
  of play whose boundaries are dynamic border which
  are the stake of struggles within the field
  itself. (p. 104)

26
Studying a field need to

• analyse the field vis-à-vis the field of power
• map positions of actors institutions competing
  for legitimate form of specific authority
• analyse habitus of agents (104-105)
• different from social-network analysis
• structure of field determines links In network
  analysis, the study of these underlying
  structures has been sacrificed to the analysis of
  particular linkages (between agents or
  institutions) and flows (of information,
  resources, services, etc.) through which they
  become visible no doubt uncovering the
  structure requires that one put to work a
  relational mode of thinking that is more
  difficult to translate into quantitative and
  formalized data (p11.)

27
Bourdieus notion of interest

• To be interested is to accord a given social
  game that what happens in it matters, that its
  stakes are importantand worth pursuing
• This is to say that the concept of interest, as
  I construe it, is totally different from the
  transhistorical and universal interest of
  utilitarian theory. p. 116

28
Need a differenttheory of interests

• one that is socially contextually located
• what is crucial to our decision-making are our
  ultimate concerns, namely that to which we are
  emotionally drawn, as modified by our knowledge
  about them. (Archer 2000 54)
• our ultimate concerns not always (or at least not
  limited to) instrumental rationalism
• different notion of rationalism acting in
  accord with the nature of the object
• Fevres notion of identity theory of motivation

29
Requires different methodological approach

• Modelling reality using quantitative methods is
  an important part of any scientific practice.
  Such modelling must employ methods which in some
  way correspond to, represent, the reality being
  modelled. That means that the methods must take
  account of the nonlinearity which characterizes
  the social world and its inter-relationships with
  the natural, of the character of the multi-level
  and inter-penetrating complex open systems of the
  social and natural world, and of the significance
  of all the micro, meso and macro levels of social
  structure and social interaction. (Byrne, 2004
  63)

30
What works for whomunder what circumstances

• What this points to is the need for a careful
  look at subject and contextual differences in
  terms of who succeeds and who fails within any
  programme
• The causal power of an initiative lies in the
  underlying mechanism (M), names the resources
  (material, cognitive or emotional) it provides
  that are expected to influence the subjects
  actions. (Pawson, 2004 31)
• need to bring back context power relations
  not abstracted variables
• look for what is different why this help to
  get away from the deficit assumptions in much of
  the literature