Recent interest in the term
social capital has its origins in the writings of Pierre Bourdieu (Schuller, Baron & Field, 2000). Bourdieu’s term ‘
social capital’ was best articulated in his chapter ‘Forms of
capital’ in 1983 (op. cit.), having remained often elusive and marginal in other works (op. cit.). The concept was defined as: “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” (Bourdieu cited Portes, 1998, p. 3). Bourdieu’s
social capital focuses on the benefits accrued by individuals through participation in groups, including the purposive construction of sociability for
social capital advantages (Portes, 1998). Actors, through
social capital, can also gain access to economic
capital (loans, markets) and cultural
capital (through experts or others with cultural
capital). James Coleman is also associated with the concept of ‘
social capital’, and is best known for using the term in educational contexts (Schuller, Baron & Field, 2000). He also defines it in terms of a set of resources which facilitate the actions of actors. The resources comprise of entities which have as part of them some elements of
social structures, but the resources facilitate acting within the structure. Coleman sees
social relations as providing
social capital resources through creating information channels, establishing obligations and
social norms (op. cit). Robert Putnam’s work on
social capital is currently the most cited across a range of disciplines and fields (op. cit). In Bowling Alone, a book that charted the decline in community organisations and civic engagement in the US, Putnam suggested that the core of
social capital theory was that
social networks have a value, with
social contacts affecting group and individual productivity (Putnam, 2000). Putnam talks of norms of generalised reciprocity—that you do someone a favour and expect that someone else will do something for you later on. Schuller, Baron and Field (2000) also point out Putnam’s definition of
social capital as involving aspects of
social life—trust, norms and networks—which help people pursue joint objectives and act more effectively together. Putnam (2000) suggests computer mediated communication (CMC) can support dense, large and fluid groups across the boundaries of geography and organisations, and allow for networks based on shared interests instead of just shared space. He talks of CMC increasing people’s ‘intellectual
capital’ as information is capable of being shared at virtually zero cost. But he also argues that a lack of
social cues means that computer-based groups are generally worse at trust and reciprocity and may indulge in ‘flaming’ and disinhibited behaviour.
Learn more in:
Applying Bourdieu to eBay's Success and Socio-Technical Design