Reading Reflection One: Bowling Alone

(1)What is meant by social capital?

Social capital does not have a clear definition. However, from what I understand from the reading, social capital refers to the social networks, individuals with similar values and understanding working together for a productive outcome. There are different types of social capital. Bonding social capital such as ethnic fraternal organizations, church based women’s reading groups include people with common identity such as family, friends, same ethnicity or culture. Another form of social capital is bridging social capital stretch beyond the bonding social capital and includes distant friends, colleagues and associates. The reading suggests that social capital can be a positive and a negative depending on how it’s used.

As Putnam describes it, social capital is the collection of social contacts, networks and relationships that socially benefit an individual or a group. These “benefits” may or may not be viewed as positive to all individuals or groups, in that social capital can indeed have a negative outcome. One groups success may be another’s demise. This is where social bridging comes into play. While social bonding works to unite people of similar backgrounds, beliefs, race, gender, etc., social bridging is able to have a greater effect on a community because of its ability to benefit multiple groups at once. I also think that social bonding can be very intimidating. If one is an outsider to a strong, proud, unified group, it would feel very unwelcoming and kind of scary. Social bridging is used to “bridge” that gap, and unite people who wouldn’t have done so otherwise, while simultaneously benefitting the greater community…

Putnam is arguing that the character of social capital in the past few decades has been steadily declining and with his presentation of statistics and facts, it is difficult to disagree with him. However, I also feel that my generation is one of action, change and political activism. I think that of any generation since the 1950s and 60s, we are the ones most capable of maintaining a strong commitment to civic engagement.

Putnam brings up issues that are plaguing our community especially with the level of involvement within the communities that we live in. We see that our generation has an apathetic view towards political activism, and that view is increasing.

When reading the article, I felt that I was a product of the statistic. In high school I took more of an active level in politics where I would watch the news and learn about the issues or even participate in campaigns. However in college, I have left the news behind and stopped participating in campaigns. This article kept me thinking that now as a student that we have to push for being active. For me to not become a part of the statistic, I am participating in voter registration and learning more about the issues that affect students such as fee increases.

On a side note, social capital is the basis of social networking and becoming involved in the community at whichever level such as clubs, fraternities, churches, etc. Social networking was something I looked down upon because of people just doing it to get somewhere in life, but now my views of it changed slightly. It shifted towards the fact that the more people you know makes you want to become more involved. The fact that you have a wider network allows you to learn more about the community that you are in whereas they will try to pull you in and get you involved.

There is no one definition for social capital. The term has been existent for decades, but the interpretation and meaning have changed. However, Putnam explains social capital as social networks that work together toward a common goal. He explains that reciprocity and trustworthiness are two important components, although the first more than the latter. The expectation or hope of reciprocity is present continuously. Even when we want our actions to be perceived as altruistic, there is usually an underlying motive. Maybe we do it because it makes us feel good and better about ourselves as an individual, or maybe we do something for a person hoping that they or someone else will one day return the favor. To sum it all up, people give with the expectation to be given to somewhere along the road. In the end, is that really giving? How does that affect their civic involvement when the favor is not returned?

Bowling Alone introduces social capital as the connections among individuals and social network, which creates a sense of trustworthiness and practice of reciprocation.

Social capital can come in the form of “private good” and “public good.” The example provided in the reading is the Rotary club. While they provide good to the public through their efforts to fight diseases, they are also gaining back the good as well because they have the opportunity to build personal relationships with others who may bring benefit to them in the future. I think this concept can be applied to this class. Most of us, if not all, are here to make some kind of positive difference in our community (Public Good), but at the same time because this class provides us the opportunity to build personal relationships with our fellow classmates, professor, and others in the community, we are also enjoying individual benefits of networking (Private Good).

There are two forms of social capital I would like to share. First is the bridging social capital. According to the reading, bridging social capital is inclusive with broader identities and reciprocity. It is valuable for external assets and information dispersal. Within the bridging social capital, there usually are distant acquaintances, which can help you “get ahead” by bridging the connections with others who you may be unfamiliar with. Examples are youth service groups and the civil rights movement. Second is the bonding social capital. Bonding Social capital is exclusive and can be useful for “getting by.” While bonding social capital has positive social effects through its promotion of strong in-group loyalty, it can also have negative effects because it can create antagonism towards the “outsiders,” as is the case with gangs.

3) Our reading discussed the differences between bridging and bonding social capital. From what I understand, bonding just strengthens relationships and occurs within each group. The example I thought of were cliques and groups have a certain belief. It’s good that they are bonding within themselves. However, I think that they will uphold their beliefs so much that they will not be open minded to others. Bridging social capital is networking with other groups. I believe that each group in society relies on one another for certain things for material things or support. That’s how our society works. We rely on different groups and businesses. It involves networking which is extremely important in our lives. The act of reciprocity is mentioned by Putman several times – “If you do this, then I will do this”. That’s how society is. It’s what is given and taken.

Just a thought: When it comes to volunteering, people act upon such deeds with no cost. They don’t really expect anything material back, only appreciation from those that they are helping. I think karma plays a part- “what goes around comes around”. So in the future, if they themselves are in need, they will receive help too.

With the definition that social capital varies in meanings, I found it interesting that it’s really about the networks in the world. The differences in social capital can be seen both positively and negatively. Seeing that social capital can mean the whole community or just a small group, it is agreeable to stay that each group has a specific goal in mind. That is one major similarity in all social capital throughout time. Yes, it can be a gang or even just a community service club in a local high school. But it is true that they do have a certain ideal to follow and support. It is the likelihood for them to “network” in order to promote their belief or even just receive reciprocity. I also see that social capital does change in time and destination. The norms and social communities have changed due to the ideals and morals of time. Take, for example, the time when your parents were our age and our time now. It is most likely that people back then were more “neighborly.” This meaning that it was more important in their time to be more respectful to others than now. Today, we are living in a western world, which demands for individuality. Also, comparing the United States to a smaller and less developed country in the world, the lifestyle of the individual is different. The lifestyle in the smaller country is more a community than the United States since people are generally there for each other. The United States has developed into such an array of different communities. This necessarily is not a bad thing. It is just the term of “networking” and “social capital” have a different meaning in different countries throughout time.

The difference between bonding and bridging social capitals is that bonding is driven by the self interest of that group, while bridging allows groups to work together and broaden their social pool. A quote that really got my attention was when Putnam said “A society of many virtuous but isolated individuals is not necessarily rich in social capital”(19). I completely agree with this statement because it does not matter if you have a college degree and have all the potential in the world unless you have a network of people who are willing to help you get your foot in the door with a real job that will make use of that degree. The fact of the matter is that many social networks are exclusive such as those for sororities and fraternities, which means that the people who are able to pay to be in such a group are the only ones that reap the benefits. This leaves a disadvantage to those who do not have the opportunity to become part of a network because they went to a smaller school or simply were unaware. In “Of Fish and Water” by Brown, which is a reading for my education class, addresses the disadvantage that inner city students face because many are not informed about their options after high school and those who are thinking about college are encourage to go to Cal States and are told “it doesn’t matter what school you go to” but the reality is that it does matter. College is the time to meet people and make connections, someone that went to a Cal State is simply not going to have the same resources as someone who attend and socialized at Harvard.

Social capital is essentially the collective value of all social networks and tendencies for these social networks to do things for each other. Social capital in general is what builds civic engagement within a community and furthermore it can broadly be considered a measure of society’s communal health. Thinking about the small “societies” or neighborhoods which I have grown up in, it is very interesting to contrast the different amount of social capital between wealthy and less wealthy cities. I was fortunate enough to be raised in a small “suburbia” town in northern California where most people happened to be wealthy. I believe wealth is strongly correlated to social capital and civic engagement because the fact that certain people are wealthy, they are able to have more time on their hands to do what they please. When this occurs I believe there is a natural inclination in humans to have the desire to go out in the community and help out in some way, whether it is volunteering at the community service district or coaching a kids’ baseball team.
Furthermore, I strongly agree with Putnam’s claim that growing distrust in the government is a legitimate reason for decline in civic engagement within the community. Since the 1960s our government has been filled with scandals, lies and more lies. Without trust in the government, citizens feel as if they are on their own and that they live in a “everyone for themselves” type of atmosphere.

Social capital is defined by Putnam as the overall level of involvement that social networks possess towards helping one another. At its most basic form, the level of engagement in a community, whether in elections, fundraising events, or political protests, is directly related to its total social capital. In his essay, Bowling Alone, Putnam describes how social capital in the United States has declined in the past century. He attributes the numerous political scandals and resulting decline in governmental trust as a significant influencer. I believe that people have simply lost sight of the value of being an active member of society. As a student, years of the repeated budget cuts to our school system has made me doubt that any effort on my part would do any good. Massive protests and strikes occur, but in the end, the result is the same. We can shout all we want, but if no one listens, who wants to continue fighting?

Social capital is crucial to the success of any society. Especially, in our modern age of Facebook and computers, we should have fewer barriers to communicating with one another to work towards common goals.

Social capital is defined as a reservoir of networking branches amongst many individuals and colleagues. This pool can be looked upon during times of need & provide tools for a variety of fields including work, academics, and personal fulfillment. American history has a funny tendency to have ups and downs. This, i believe, has a crucial impact on our views of the social capital we and others hold, and what we get out of it. American civil society is run by our government and the economy- whether we realize it or not. These two governing agents in our daily lives fluctuate between periods highs and lows due to policies, regulations, and overall the general structuring of the American Political system. People might recognize that social capital is lower than ever before, but this is the exact thought earlier generations probably conjured up before things took a turn for the better. It is a far too complex issue to determine why our social capital has dwindled, or why civic virtue might be down. There is a cornucopia of external factors which have to be considered, economics, politics, culture, norms, international issues, etc. What i believe we should focus on is simply doing good in any little way you can. Not simply to make yourself feel good, but for the satisfaction of “doing something, without expecting anything in return.”

It is interesting that the author started chapter three with de Tocqueville and continues to detail how throughout the rest of the chapter that organizations in the US have increased so dramatically but membership in these organizations are not nearly as high as they were even 30 years ago. De Tocqueville’s most popular quote concerning democracy is, “the people get the government they deserve.” On the same token, the people get the same social atmosphere that they deserve. Interest in civic engagement has clearly declined over the last 50 years, which is also analgous to the decline in political involvement over the last 50 years. If we look back to the Kennedy and Johnson administration when social involvement was at its highest, we had one of the best systems when it came to reaching out to our community and helping those in need. To correct this and bring our generation ‘back to basics,’ we need to work on building a social atmosphere where service is not only admired, it should be a duty that the younger generation feels the need to complete. We should be the ones getting out there and making a comittment towards change rather than giving into apathy and passively living in a community

In his book, Bowling Alone, Putnam says that a society is more efficient when there is general reciprocity much like the efficiency of money over bartering. Putnam argues that not having to balance every transaction makes for a quick and more efficient society. Do you agree or disagree with his argument?

I think Putnam raises a valid point that if one does not have to analyze every transaction for an equal trade-off, then a more efficient exchange system would be created. HOWEVER, I disagree that this system would be the best system for reciprocity. A barter system allows people to get to know one another. It allows the buyer and seller to know that he can trust or rely on the person that he will trade with. This system allows for community members who are willing to contribute to the overall well being of the community to prosper and brands those who are individualistic, selfish, or untrustworthy. It could be argued that the same type of relationship could be carried out with money. Yet, using money doesn’t require people to spend much time getting to know one another and new-comers into the community will not be alerted as quickly about certain unreliable exchange persons.
In areas where there is extreme poverty, communities are strong and barter is a very efficient and useful method. In communities of extreme poverty one cannot survive without the community. Community involvement becomes somewhat mandatory. I think Putnam did not spend a significant amount of time incorporating this into his argument or he could have explained why his choice to omit that information was irrelevant.

The text poses the question of whether there is a possible relationship between political involvement through voting and community engagement. Both trends have been decreasing and I feel that there is a possible connection, as I believe both activities would require a particularly similar attitude towards social involvement. While these trends continue towards a downward slope, political organizations have gained increasing involvement. Seemingly, such organizations are supporting their own political goals by creating a larger gap between the bipartisan system. Citizens not involved in politics won’t be exposed to the pertinent discussions of the country. Not knowing the problems our country face would produce less socially active citizens.

1. what is meant by Social Capital?

– social capital is a loose term used in Sociology referring to the connections and links between social networks. as in every aspect of “capital” there is some sort of “pull” that is involved, as well as a form of “push”. Because every social contact has that pull and push, a social capital has a push and pull upon other networks and other social capitals. in the world of economics and stock brokering, supply and demand is a sort of social capital as it pulls and pushes other capitals.

(3) What is the difference between bridging/bonding social capital?

“Bridging” and “bonding” are two different ways of categorizing social capital. “Bridging” describes a group of people who come together despite great diversity and sociological differences. For example, at UCI, an excample of a briding group might be the Communication Club, which invites people of all different backgrounds to come together and teach each other their languages. Another example is UNICEF, which brings together people from many backgrounds with the common goal of supporting children worldwide. In contrast, “bonding” describes a group of people who come together sharing many similarities. These people often form groups because of social needs to be around people who are like them. At UCI, an example of a bonding group is the Campus Crusade for Christ. Their group primarily exists to bring Christians together. Another example of a bonding group is the Atheist, Agnostic, & Rationalist group, which exists to provide a social space for non-religious people on campus. Both bridging and bonding groups can have many positive externalities, but according to Putnam, bonding groups are likely to have the most negative ones. He writes that because they create “strong in-group loyalty”, they may also create “strong out-group antagonism”. Examples of this can be seen at UCI every day, where religious and political ties within bonding groups create antagonism towards those with other viewpoints.