"Bowling Alone" Part 1 reading overivew from tvol:
Putnam says, "social capital theory is the concept that social networks have value. Just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so too social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups." - 19
He asserts that a "well-connected individual in a poorly connected society is not as productive as a well-connected individual in a well-connected society. And even a poorly connected individual may derive some of the spillover benefits from living in a well-connected community. If the crime rate in my neighborhood is lowered by neighbors keeping an eye on one another's homes, I benefit even if I personally spend most of my time on the road and never even nod to another resident on the street. Thus, social capital can thus be simultaneously a 'private good' and a 'public good'." - 20
Putnam points out that social capital does not necessarily assume good intentions--"[social capital] can be directed toward malevolent, antisocial purposes just like any other form of capital." - 22
BRIDGING vs BONDING SOCIAL CAPITAL
bridging = inclusive--civil rights movement, information diffusion, "crucial for getting ahead", sociological WD-40
bonding = exclusive--fraternal orgs, mobilizing solidarity, good for "getting by", sociological superglue
An important aspect is that the categories are not mutually exclusive--not "either/or" - 23
QUESTIONS:
1. How is the idea of generalized reciprocity similar/different from open source communities?
2. Does the theory of social capital change with the rise of digital technologies?
3. Is “counting” social capital a useful or sufficient measurement parameter? What might be some other ways to measure, and how do we incorporate new modes of networked societies?
4. Is social capital contingent on frequency of interaction?
5. How do we view and support social capital theory while not making it sound only "warm and cuddly"?
RSS Feed
Comments on Social Capital
I think generalized reciprocity and open source communities are theoretically very similar, but there are differences in the accessibility of both of these types of networks. Although I am completely on board with some of the ethical values espoused in open source communities, their openness has a number of caveats in the real world. Open source networks thrive when experienced developers are actively invested in them. Although the open source ideology(ies) can be extended beyond open source software development communities, some of the social dynamics that take place in those communities can be fairly brutal towards new-comers. RTFM, (read the fing manual), for instance, in not a particularly welcoming response. I've also been on a number of women in IT listservs where women express frustration at frequent sexist commentary and hazing-type behaviors.
On the counting tip (question 3), I think some of the studies that "measure" weak ties are taking that concept of social capital past its utility. There are trends in the way people connect, sure, but applying fancy pants scientific logic to how people relate or form relationships is, in my mind, cheapening to the concept of community-building. This kind of talk sounds a lot like the titles to the hottest business power-guide of the week. It starts to sound more like attempting to build "social manipulation" skills.
This is what bothers me about online social networks in the abstract. It can start to feel like you're accumulating Pokemon cards rather than relationships. Like building social identities reminiscent of real friendships, but not quite on par.