Social capital has spread widely as a term to describe community strength....or something. But what is it... and is it much more than think-tank jargon? Stephen Downes has doubts. In his excellent daily newsletter be cites a useful compilation about social capital, and writes:
"There seems to be this desire on the part of some to reduce every sort of good to some sort of 'capital' - human capital, knowledge capital, and now, social capital. Social capital is, according to one definition, "the degree to which a community or society collaborates and cooperates (through such mechanisms as networks, shared trust, norms and values) to achieve mutual benefits." According to another, "Over time, social capital builds what may be termed as social infrastructure." Bleah. Terms like social capital should be banned. Let's call it what it is: popularity, connections, relationships, friends. Terms like 'social capital' blur such distinctions in the process of commodifying something more subtle, more valuable, than crass material benefit."
The compilation, cited by Luigi Canali De Rossi, Robin Good, is here.
Ben Fine wrote a paper* a couple of years ago called 'The f**k you up, those social capitalists' - a short fierce philippic in which he argued that the term is 'definitionally elusive' and ought to collapse under the weight of its own inconsistencies. This was just one of a number of recent broadsides against the term (or is it against the concept?) and I just wonder if its days are numbered. The logic is that the things it stands for (especially the importance of social networks) have always been with us, the problems seem to lie in the interpretation and political dilution or distortion.
*(published in Antipode, 34, 2002, p796-799)
And is that the Steve Downes I met in DC back in 99?
Posted by: Kevin | May 15, 2004 at 09:59 PM