"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"?