Social capital madam? What kind would you like?

Western societies face a crisis of difference, of learning to live with the Other. Do we need one-size-fits-all social capital, or culturally-flexible social capital?

If like me you read Putnam's Bowling alone some years ago and were never quite happy about it's patriotic chummy motherhood all-things-wise-and-wonderful tone, but never got round to analysing why - here's what we need to clarify our thinking: Diverse communities: the problem with social capital, by Barbara Arneil, published last year.

There are so many important points in this book that I would encourage even those who will find its bone-dry style and slight repetitiveness a bit off-putting, to stick with it.

Essentially Arneil challenges the concept of a homogeneous civic culture which suffuses Putnam's thesis, and she does so in a scholarly and systematic manner. As she says at the outset:

Putnam uses many different kinds of data to prove, empirically, that social capital is in decline while simultaneously making the normative argument that this pattern of decline is a bad thing.

She clarifies what you would expect, which is that from the point of view of certain social groups, over the past several generations, the weakening of the normative centre has been accompanied by a strengthening of rights and an invaluable broad raising of awareness of diversity. Which is a good thing. (I recall a conversation with Steve Downs in Washington DC some years ago when he lamented the fact that the 'European' concept of social exclusion had no currency in the USA: if only, I thought as I read this book).

The golden age of social capital in the USA was of course a period of cruel and sometimes devastating exclusion for many: as with the close-knit communities of pre-war England, it arose under dubious social conditions which we should be relieved to have overcome. Social capital within marginalised groups (Arneil tracks the development of minority ethnic groupings and women) has undoubtedly flourished since then and been exploited. If the model of a cohesive society which Putnam calls for is for a moment thought to be desirable, we must recognise that, as Arneil puts it, a robust civic culture ‘can also represent a powerfully constraining, disciplining or exclusionary force for those groups of people who deviate from the given norms, along religious, ethnic, cultural or gendered lines.’

In the end, Arneil's message (albeit transmitted in a somewhat subdued style, which partly explains why it took me so long to blog this) is more positive than Putnam's because she places genuine social value on the recognition and strengthening of minorities; and she refuses to accept that a white masculine christian capitalist definition of the good society is necessarily what we should all be striving for. Her prose won't have you purring with delight but the thoroughness of her approach will stand us all in good stead for a long time, I think.

Comments

[Hana Loftus]

I am definitely one of those people who felt uncomfortable with the Bowling Alone thesis but didn't find the time to write down why - so thanks for bringing this to my attention!

I also think that one of the important freedoms of (especially urban) society is the freedom to opt out of 'social capital' - to reinvent oneself, to have no-one keeping tabs on you, to be anonymous. How that is reconciled with a functioning social infrastructure is, for me, one of the really interesting questions in all of this.

[Michael Wood-Lewis]

Seems that people flee the smothering small town where everybody knows your business and keeps you in line. Yet, complete anonymity in a big city or soulless suburb isn't a great option either. Balance.

Perhaps small towns where parochial, narrow, prejudice views don't dominate. And cities and suburbs where people actually know each other and engage in civil, meaningful and constructive relationships.

We're aiming at those last two options with http://frontporchforum.com

[KD]

I think this might be a bit harsh on Putnam (he's Jewish, for a start!). He's opened the social capital discussion to people other than theorists.

From my limited understanding of Putnam (and without having read Arneil other than the quotes here), I gather he is quite aware (talks about it all the time) of the downside of social capital, including the disciplining and exclusion of those who deviate from the norms. Equally, Putnam is aware that the 'golden age' wasn't golden for everyone.

Arneil seems to be taking issue with Putnam's view that participation outside of/between groups in society (and the trust that comes out of it) makes a cohesive society. I'd be interested to see what Arneil makes of the value of trust in diverse local areas. This is Putnam's current research and worry -- that diverse (partic. linguistically diverse) communities are the least trusting, and that politicians should not pretend otherwise, but rather concentrate their efforts on it.

Anyway, interesting post thanks Kevin and I'll check out Arneil's book.

[Kevin Harris]

thanks KD, yes I've heard Putnam on that theme a couple times the last few years. But I'm never comfortable with the strong association of s.c. with trust (although David Halpern defends it persuasively in his book, http://neighbourhoods.typepad.com/neighbourhoods/2005/01/halpern_on_soci_1.html). I'm quite interested in the tension between the anti-diversity social capital argument, and research which shows that people who have more diverse social networks show clear health benefits.

It's curious that your comment sent me back to a post I'd made about Better together - http://neighbourhoods.typepad.com/neighbourhoods/2004/02/better_together.html - back in Feb 04, where I find slightly to my surprise that I had anticipated Arneil's approach. Just the book's sub-title, "Restoring the American Community," gives a lot away.
k