Hi, come on in. There are plenty of virtual chairs, and even virtual floor pillows for the young and flexible. The virtual kettle is on, and we have virtual tea and virtual hot chocolate, but I’m afraid we only have virtual instant coffee. Help yourself to the virtual snacks. Hm? Oh, it’s in there. I can take your virtual coat and virtual umbrella. Make yourself virtually comfortable; it’s time for the First Ever meeting of the Tohu-Bohu Book Club. All are welcome.
Our first book is Better Together, and this week we’re talking about the Introduction, and then if that goes well, Chapter One. So, how did y’all like it?
In general, I like the emphasis on storytelling, both as a means of disseminating information about social capital, and as an aspect of social capital itself. Of course, I believe in stories; I think that the stories we share are social capital. The ‘norms of reciprocity’ really are just people acting how they think they are supposed to act, and we learn how we are supposed to act from stories. Anyway, here are some questions to start with.
Does it bug any of you that they don’t really define social capital? From the website, “Social capital refers to the collective value of all ‘social networks’ [who people know] and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other [‘norms of reciprocity’].”
The difference between bonding and bridging social capital (p. 2) is important, and I’m not sure it is as simple as they makes it seem. I’m not even sure what he means by ‘inward-looking’ and ‘outward-looking’. I think this has to do with Granovetter and weak ties. But then, is social capital about making weak ties or strong ones?
“Beginning, roughly speaking, in the late 1960s, Americans in massive numbers began to join less, trust less, give less, vote less, and shmooze less.” (p. 4) Is this connected with the Miss Manners idea about the death of politeness due to the fetishization of honesty? Do people trust less because they value truth more? Is social capital about being phony?
Background question: is the attempt to create social capital inherently self-defeating? When people were Elks (I’ll have to use that phrase again), nobody knew it was good for the country. If we’re trying like hell to make a ‘joiner’ culture, will we drive the positive aspects of the groups away, leaving ourselves with the conformism but not the reciprocities?
,
-Vardibidian.
I won’t be reading the book, but I’ll be reading the discussion. One question so far (feel free to tell me “that’s discussed in the book”): does the “late 1960s” timeframe correlate with the whole turn on, tune in, drop out thing? What about with growing lack of faith in Government? What about increasing high tech? …And did something similar happen earlier during waves of urbanization, as people left their family homes and moved to the Big City?
Cheese, I’m off the wires for a week and suddenly there’s a flood of Tohu Bohu.
V, I’m sorry, I know I was a main joiner for your book club, but I didn’t pick up the book before leaving on vacation last week. I’ll be grabbing a copy tonight and should be up to speed in no time. One oddity: you said that the book is out in trade paperback, but the couple of bookstores I was at recently said that it isn’t scheduled until September.
Under the circs, I’m glad you had fun without the book.
Oops! The paperback was in all the databases, but I didn’t look at the date. Sorry! Take your time, and if you want to bookfinder a used copy, and doesn’t come for a week, I’ll understand. The advantage of an on-line book club is that you can come on in whenever, and there’ll still be plenty of virtual chairs and virtual iced tea.
,
-V.
It bugs me that they don’t really define social capital and norms of reciprocity. Especially since I think that “norms” are a really slippery concept and vary considerably as to where you stand in the group dynamic (not to be too jargony: what I mean is that groups aren’t all homogenous and all having the same level of discourse with everyone they come in contact with. The “norm” for a religious group talking to its own members, for example, is really different than its “norm” for talking to another religion’s group, even assuming that they have come together out of mutual political/social interests. The “norm” for group members of long standing is different than for newbies. Unless I just don’t understand what a norm of reciprocity is at all, which is possible.)
So in my naive way of thinking of it, capital is what you have to spend. And if you think of it that way, then you kind of have to think of social capital as coming in all denominations–that my pennies might be water-cooler chat with my colleagues, quarters might be my church group, etc. (Re:phoniness and the death of polite society–isn’t this just a low form of social capital? Saying “have a nice day” to the store clerk isn’t even a penny but if it were a socially ingrained habit all those tenth of a pennies would add up. And doesn’t having pennies make it easier to change them into nickels?) The authors seem to recognize that social capital comes in many forms–on p. 2, they list the coffee klatch, civic org, bowling league, labor union, and Klan–but they don’t seem to really stress this idea of social capital as being something pervasive and of different levels.
The authors also divide into this “bonding” vs. “bridging” kind but it seems to me that even bonds are strong and weak (and what kind of bridge seems right–a rope to get you across in a time of need or a great big 4-lane truss bridge?) I also feel like they disparage (without saying it) bonding capital as being easier and necessarily more internal to a group; they clearly value bridging capital as this idea of reaching out. But I wish they would actually say: bonding capital makes the process of building bridging capital easier, that you have to have both to make the bridge last(and as I’m 1 chapter in, it becomes clearer to me that you actually have to have both and that the authors do actually recognize this but are sloppy about saying it). I wish too that they’d thought about Malcom Gladwell’s book in discussing these ideas–it’d be interesting to figure out where mavens or connectors do the work in creating social capital.
Some of the sloppiness comes from preaching to the choir. They aren’t out to convince me that it’s a good thing to develop “social” “capital”. I think what I wanted in the introduction was more of a serious (and footnoted) discussion of the theoretical models of social capital creation (which they then would back up with their case study/stories).
The “capital” metaphor is a tricky one. Social capital is not only made up of different denominations (like pennies and quarters) is it? Is it built of different currencies — dollars and pounds — whose exchange rate may vary? Or is it built out of different commodities — cash, cut gems, agricultural futures, whose exchange depends on a variety of circumstances?
And is capital what you have to spend, or what you have that gives you clout when you walk into a room? How is social capital accumulated, spent?
I should read the book, I guess, but I wonder what the metaphor itself says about the state of society, that a diligent student of it would consider a fiduciary metaphor as useful way of talking about how it works. . . .
AUTHOR: Chris
COMMENT ID: 3245
DATE: 08/13/2004 16:11:14
OK. Got the book, read the introduction. Now I can speak from informed ignorance . . .
So, how did y’all like it?
The prose style is occasionally annoying as these academics try to figure out how to address a general audience, and the definitional problems V. addresses are serious. That said, I found that they did more things right than they did wrong, and I expect to find the book interesting. To go back to the definitional problem, I have to say I think calling what they are talking about “capital” is simply wrong. A strong, resilient, supportive set of relations among a group of people of some size or other is not capital because it can’t be moved or saved. It’s more like land. It’s a quality that’s there in the landscape of the lives of people living in a place. That landscape can be tended well, its soil enriched, elegant structures built upon it, or it can be neglected, or it can be abused. It’s a “commons,” not capital. I think the idea they are talking about is important, but I think the established term they are using to talk about it is misleading, and may contribute to some of the inconsistencies and confusions in their thought.
In general, I like the emphasis on storytelling, both as a means of disseminating information about social capital, and as an aspect of social capital itself. Of course, I believe in stories; I think that the stories we share are social capital.
I like the emphasis on story-telling also, both as a means of creating social capital and as a means of studying social capital. When they write, “We believe that stories, with their specificity and ability to express the complex realities of particular people and places and their possibly unique ability to express thought and feeling simultaneously, are the appropriate medium for capturing a sense of how social-capital creation works in real life,” the humanist scholar in me cheers wildly. This concern with specificity and uniqueness and complex realities is exactly what ‘social science’ writing typically lacks, as it isolates elements of human interactions for quantitative analysis. People need to recognize that knowledge of the sort they are describing here, the knowledge gained from sharing stories, is terribly important. The prejudices in favor of science and scientific thinking tend to obscure this point.
The difference between bonding and bridging social capital (p. 2) is important, and I’m not sure it is as simple as they makes it seem. I’m not even sure what he means by ‘inward-looking’ and ‘outward-looking’. I think this has to do with Granovetter and weak ties. But then, is social capital about making weak ties or strong ones?
Here’s how I see it: there are problems with this distinction; I suspect that they have generated it in order to get around more serious problems with “social capital” itself. If what we are talking about is building strong relationships among people who associate as part of some group or other, then a) every relationship will be unique in some respects but b) all strong, good relationships will be similar in many respects. Whether they are “bonding” or “bridging” relationships doesn’t matter. It’s easier to start a strong relationship when two people have a lot in common than when they don’t, so it’s easier to “bond” than to “bridge,” but that’s just a matter of where the relationship starts. If people who are very different in a lot of the ways we usually think of as being different (in class, race, education, political orientation) are put in a position in which they are going to interact a lot, they may well build some bridges. Our society is segregated along these lines, and the insane work structure of our society leaves less time for socializing than we need, so it’s not surprising that bridging isn’t happening much.
More to say, but that’s enough for now.
Much to say, and I want to keep on this to get ourselves something of a frame for talking about the actual chapters.
First of all, Jed, I do think that the events of the late sixties and early seventies (the President misleading the country about the cause of war, the assassinations, the exposure of a different President’s attempt to rig an election, the counter-culture thing, and most importantly for Mr. Putnam the installation of television sets in most households, along with all the other stuff) feed into the decrease in joining, trusting, giving, voting, and schmoozing. On the other hand, the decrease in joining, trusting, giving, voting, and schmoozing feeds in to some of those events as well. Well, at least to the way the culture incorporated the events.
I think Fran and Chris are right that capital is not a metaphor that bears a lot of stretching. I don’t particularly blame Mssrs. Putnam and Feldstein for that, as they didn’t invent the term. On the other hand, they feed into the problem by (a) accepting the term, and (2) allowing it to remain a mishmash of happy thoughts. On first glance, I like calling it a commons better than capital. Social capital can’t be invested, and in fact there’s very little way to predict what grows from it. Maybe nothing. Still, that metaphor, too, will show wear and tear pretty quickly. The important thing, I think, will be to keep in mind as we go that we are talking about is the social networks and the norms of reciprocity that they incorporate, and then the benefit to society that may (or may not) naturally grow from those. Joining, trusting, giving, voting, schmoozing.
I do think that, on the whole, there is a difference between bonding and bridging social networks. That is, there are networks that include mostly people who already have bonds with each other, and others that bridge those other networks. What I don’t know is if the bonds between people are commonly stronger (in any sense) within one kind of network or another. I’m afraid when I try to get my head around this, I think of Swarthmore (and other college-like places are, I’m sure, pretty similar; I certainly don’t mean to exclude non-Swatfolk here).
In my day (1987-1991), there was substantial overlap in SWIL, the Drama people, and the Folk Dance gang. For those people who were in all three, their bonds were reinforced by the different but similar norms of those three groups; entry into any one of those social networks was made easier by being part of another of them. And then there’s the simple time factor, where people in all three groups spent a lot of time together. It was great, and some of those people are still very close. As it happens, I was in two of those social networks, and also a third, the APDA group. APDA didn’t overlap much with the other groups (perhaps four other SWILfolk that I recall in my time, only one of whom I can remember being part of the Drama or Folkdance social networks). Further, in addition to the twenty or so Debaters at Swat, we were part of the APDA social network of a few hundred college students at a variety of member colleges, with its own norms.
At the time, I would have said that my relationships with the APDA gang were as strong as those with SWILfolk; a list of ten best friends would have included some Debaters from other schools whom I saw nearly every weekend. Fifteen years later, I am in touch with a dozen or more SWILfolk but no Debaters. In fact, of the people involved in both the SWIL and Drama networks, I am still in touch with—what—two thirds? That seems like some pretty strong ties. Or, perhaps, simply different social norms. APDAns didn’t, in my day at least, hang with dinosaurs, and SWILfolk did. Anyway, it’s pretty complicated. I can’t quite figure out where the social capital was, or where the joining, the trusting, the giving, the voting, and the schmoozing fit in, but they were definitely different sorts of networks, and different norms, and they may well have been different sorts of bonds.
I agree with Fran that this book should more obviously address The Tipping Point, and not just because that point has been part of this Tohu Bohu. I think that when we are talking about social networks and how they work, the idea of connectors, particularly, needs to be addressed, and they don’t really do it.
One more thing: I’d like to keep talking about this introduction, as we make our way through the book. It’s another thing that this virtual club can exploit—we can keep having last week’s meeting while next week’s is going. So feel free to keep chatting here; I’ll keep checking it and adding, as I think of things.
,
-Vardibidian.
On the “bonding vs. bridging” thing: can anyone give an example of a social network that is truly a bridging network — one that exists to give people who perceive themselves as different in background and different in interest to join, trust, give, vote, schmooze? If I can see an example, I’d be willing to accept that there is a difference.
In the absence of an example, I would re-assert the point that social networks exist by identifying and building upon at least one shared interest or commonality. Several people want to try bowling, or several people like science fiction, or several people agree that the local school needs improving, or several people think the neighborhood would be better if the neighbors talked more. The bridging vs. bonding distinction only makes sense to me as a description of how far apart (aside from whatever one shared interest connects them) the people are who come together in the network.
Re the roots of the decline in social networks in the U.S.: I’d say that decline became marked in the 1960s, but I think the seeds of the decline were sown in the 1950s. That’s when television took off, when the Cold War and McCarthyism taught people to distrust their neighbors and to cast their political opponents as enemies of America. That’s when the civil rights movement began to upset race-based social networks. Feminism’s upset of certain gender-based social networks would follow. It strikes me, on the other hand, that some of the decline in social networks is attributable not to a greater stress on equality in American society. And that’s a good thing, but in consequence of exclusive clubs being opened up, their networking strength has been diminished, and the powerful conduct their business even further out of public view. Part of the challenge for those interested in strengthening social networks is to build them without (or with less) of the strong glues of shared race, class, or gender and the appeal of exclusivity that accompanies it.
In my last post, I suggested that family bonds and bonds of childhood friendship are important contributors to the strength of social networks, but this morning as I think things through I’m struck by the importance of some less savory contributors.
My copy of the book has been on its way via media mail since last Tuesday, so I still have not read the introduction. However, two quick notes:
1) ‘Social capital’ being an unfortunate phrase, I would suggest that ‘social commons’ is a replacement that heads in the wrong direction entirely. Unless Putnam et. al. are reinterpreting the phrase from the usage I’ve seen before, social capital is capital in the sense of aggregated power, not in the sense of a material resource.
2) The difference between a bonding network and a bridging network would lie (I expect — salt this with my aforementioned lack of the book) in the degree of interconnectedness of that network.
A terrific example of a bridging network was the Thursday Board Games at the Pub Night that a friend organized for a while. About a quarter of the time, there would be introductions to be made, as someone new got dragged along by a friend. Even among the regulars, most of us (except the central Connector) never saw each other except at the game night, and though we enjoy each others’ company a lot in that context, we didn’t really have a connection independent of that context.
As it turned out, TBGatP metamorphosed into a bonding network. Several of the core members wanted to start a weekly roleplaying game, and others of us weren’t quite ready to commit to an every-week responsibility. The RPG strengthened the independent connections between the players (bonding), but it no longer brought together people who would not otherwise have met (bridging).
It’s difficult, frustratingly so, to look at the JTVGS effects of networks. I would say that public schools are bridging networks, and that the army is, in times of draft. Other cases may well be better described along a spectrum: I have little in common with others in it, but of course we are all Jews who want to attend services.
As Dan points out, there is (or ought to be) a connection to weak ties theory, which isn’t so much about the differences between people but the interconnection. That is, I don’t know anybody in my shul in any other context, nor do I know anybody outside my shul who (as far as I know) knows anybody in my shul. In contrast, for instance, many of the Gentle Readers of this Tohu Bohu know each other outside of this context. Not all, though. It’s a spectrum thing.
My union, also, was as much a bridging as a bonding network, but it was unusual for a union in that.
      ,
-V.