سرمایه گذاری و پرورش سرمایه اجتماعی : به سوی یک علم کلی نئو سرمایه ؟
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|4108||2008||20 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : The Journal of Socio-Economics, Volume 37, Issue 4, August 2008, Pages 1495–1514
Bourdieu's [Bourdieu, P., 1986. The Forms of Capital. In: Richardson, J.G. (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press, New York, pp. 241–258] seminal definition of social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources” is reflected in older definitions, as well as in many current within sociology, e.g. [Portes, A., 2000. The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum 15 (1), 1–12] and organization [Adler, P., Kwon, S.-W., 2002. Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Journal 27 (1), 17–40]. The definition is interesting, because it directs a dual focus on social capital as both immediately and potentially productive resources, i.e., assets that can be immediately capitalized by individuals as well as ‘cultivated’ for future use. We argue that to further operationalize this concept we must distinguish between actual/potential social capital, within a neo-capital framework that unifies the existing ‘plethora’ of capitals.
Bourdieu's seminal definition of social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network” (Bourdieu, 1986, pp. 248–249) builds both on older definitions of social capital1 (e.g. Hanifan, 1916 and Hannertz, 1969), and is reflected in many current definitions within sociology (e.g. Portes, 1998 and Portes, 2000) and organizational theory (see Adler and Kwon, 2002 for a review). In contrast to traditional macro economic definitions (e.g. Hanifan, 1916 and Hannertz, 1969), this micro level oriented definition brings focus onto social capital as possibly consisting of a sum of actual and potential resources for the individual.2 Distinguishing between the two types of social capital (actual/potential) contributes to opening up a range of new possibilities within current social capital research, including the important question of a clear linkage between the individual actor at the micro level and groups and populations at meso and macro levels. It is often argued that social capital does not belong to the single individual in that it exists between people (Lesser, 2000), but it is arguably individuals who create and subsequently profit from social capital. Therefore, as Bourdieu indicated, we cannot simply let out the individual actor in our eager to measure how groups, or whole nations for that sake, profit from a social capital. In other words, the social capital of a single person is concrete and possibly measurable, whereas social capital that presumably belongs to groups or whole nations often appear as mere abstractions when the micro-sociological level is cut out (cf. Portes, 2000). In the literature, it is generally agreed upon that individuals as well as groups can obtain future gains, which more or less directly derive from their personal networks, that is, their social history in the form of concrete, personal relationships. Moreover, today it appears evident, also among many economists, that social and economic dimensions of networking can only be separated in a highly artificial way. Thus, the concept of social capital seems to be born with skepticism towards reductionist economic ‘laws of nature’. This distinction has been thoroughly discussed by Granovetter (1985), who specifically challenges over- and under-socialized theories of human action. Nevertheless, in the following we argue that the Bourdieusian ‘potentiality’ argument has been underestimated in current social capital literature. This is due to lack of attention to, and systematically distinguishing between, the two types of social capital. This relates to more fundamental questions, such as: What is capital, and how is it used? And which forms of capital exist? Understanding the difference between actual and potential social capital frames the question differently: How does social capital work as both an end in itself and a means to reach other ends? Thus, the purpose of this paper is two-fold. First, to define the two types of social capital within a neo-capital theory framework. That is, types which differ in crucial ways, in that the first one can be seen as the outcome of immediate socioeconomic practice; while the other reflects more complex, long-term strategies characterized by a structural unpredictability that challenges actors’ capability of cultivating social networks within a ‘cultural game’. Such sociologically oriented findings have wider implications for the social capital agenda, by pointing out two main areas for future research – actually capitalized and potential social capital – urging social capital researchers to apply both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Second, our aim is to further develop a neo-capital theory, which critically evaluates and links the traditional forms of capital with a still growing number of more or less exotic forms of capital in contemporary literature, ranging from digital to religious, social, cultural and organizational capital. We argue that such reorientation leads to a new socioeconomics operating with both visible and invisible forms of capital at the same level in the analysis, thus bridging the gap between economic and socio-cultural studies. In Sections 2.1 and 2.2 we summarize the critique of homo oeconomicus, which seems to have led to the concept of social capital in the first place. Furthermore, we explore ‘capital’ and ‘social capital’ definitions within classical and neo-capital theory. In Section 2.3 we review problems within contemporary social capital research. In Section 3 we argue that these problems can partially be resolved by implementing the actual/potential distinction in future research. This within a broader neo-capital research agenda, termed Bourdieuconomics, and drawing on a capital test model, PIPES—in order to unify the existing ‘plethora of capitals’ (Baron and Hannan, 1994, p. 1122) within one, neo-capital theoretical framework. Finally, in Section 4 we apply this theoretical approach to a Danish case.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
First, in line with Bourdieu's (1977) original micro level oriented definition we argued that social capital consists of a sum of actual and potential resources for the individual. Here, actual social capital should be seen as the outcome of immediate capitalization of network resources. In contrast, potential social capital reflects long-term strategies, involving ‘cultivation’ of networks in complex cultural settings. We stressed that it is in fact the individual who accrues social and economic benefits from networking. Second, we stressed that the individual actor strategically seeks to incalculate future capitalizations of networks. Such calculation is implicit in Bourdieu's (1977) early advocacy of an epistemological return ‘from rules to strategies’. This implies recognition of actors’ real strategies as characterized by structural unpredictability, in contrast to economists’ economic rules of human behavior, which presupposes predictable and thus computable outcomes. Deeply rooted in important historical critiques of homo oeconomicus, our Bourdieu-inspired reframing of the social capital agenda takes into consideration the main critiques of social capital: problems with definition, causality, measurement, lack of a definition of a negative type of social capital, as well as distinguishing between micro and macro levels. Second, maintaining that human strategies are reasonable (raissonables) rather than rational or cultural, as suggested by Bourdieu, involves an invitation to all social scientists to contribute to a truly cross-disciplinary neo-capital science. In a more fundamental way, our contribution here consisted in outlining a neo-capital theory that evaluates and links the traditional forms of capital with a contemporary ‘plethora of capitals’ (Woolcock, 1998, p. 155). We argued that such reorientation in the long run might lead to a new socioeconomics operating with both visible and invisible forms of capital at the same level in the analysis, thus bridging the gap between economic and socio-cultural studies. To honor Bourdieu, we termed this new science Bourdieuconomics. This lead to an outline of a concrete tool for a Bourdieuconomics—namely a capital test model, PIPES, based on an actual/potential resource perspective. The purpose was to unite classical and neo-capital theories by defining ‘capital’ as Productive, Interchangeable, Prospective, Embedded and Strategic. Finally, within the PIPES framework, we described empirically the interchangeability of actual/potential social capital in a Scandinavian case. A key finding here was that actors in this private organization (a bank) in fact do make their social investment decisions out from what we here termed actual/potential social capital strategies. However, lack of access to key persons within the organization, as well as a general lack of information about how best to capitalize social networks seemed to be a barrier for single careers. Most probably, such barriers also lowered organizational and economic performance in general. In this way, our case suggests that a Bourdieusian inspired actual/potential definition can help us overcome some of the social capital ‘childhood diseases’, because it opens for quantitative and qualitative measurement of various types of social capital at micro and meso levels. The concept of social capital appears fascinating, promising and problematic. It is our conviction that learning from Bourdieu's seminal ideas – implying distinction between actual/potential resources and operating with tangible/less tangible forms of capital – can help resolve some of the problems involved and thus enhance future exploitation of this concept.