Social Capital and Environment Essay ⋆ Environment Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This Social Capital and Environment Essay example is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic, please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

Though the concept has myriad slightly divergent definitions, social capital generally refers to the various investments and advantages obtained for individuals and groups through collective organization, action, and networking. Social capital is produced by collective community interactions. These networks are created at different scales from community and civic activity to the interaction at the family and friends. Like other forms of capital, social capital also has value. When people act together with shared objectives for their common good, both individual and collective benefits are achieved.

As a concept, social capital draws attention to the significance of social and symbolic resources in the maintenance and prosperity of communities and organizations. Though the processes involved are often disputed among social scientists, the concept has been widely adopted by national governments, international organizations and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Similar to concepts like sustainability, or globalization, the term social capital has become an elastic concept that lends itself to many issues and interest groups. Prudence should therefore be exercised in finding its application in research or guiding the formulation of social and environmental policy.

Although it is a relatively new term in the lexicon of social scientists, the ideas underlying the concept of social capital have established roots in social theory. Reference to the significance of associational life and relationships has long been studied by philosophers, sociologists and economists. Dispersed through the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, Alfred Marshall and George Simmel are frequent discussions on anomie, social networks, trust, and civic society.

Recent interest in social capital, however, can be almost exclusively related to the success of Robert Putnam’s texts Making Democracy Work (1993) and Bowling Alone (2000), which are among the most highly cited works in contemporary social science. By offering a coherent explanation of social transformation and an effective model of political intervention particularly in terms of social policy, Putnam’s work has become paradigmatic in terms of shaping a framework around which many social problems are investigated. Putnam argues that a decline in voter turnout, church going, membership in trade unions and political parties, and lower participation in voluntary organizations lead inevitably to social problems like poor education achievement, higher unemployment, crime, and even poor health. Growing individualism-created by the decline of community living-and increases in commuting, the proliferation of gated communities, urban deprivation, television, and the increased participation of women in the paid labor force have all variously been blamed for this phenomenon. Putman’s communitarian construction stresses societal rather than individual benefits through social networks, norms, trust, and obligation that facilitate cooperation for mutual benefit. On the basis of this assumption, he argues that societies with high levels of trust and interpersonal networks experience more positive economic, political, and social development.

A less commonly used “critical” construction is derived from the works of the social theorist Pierre Bourdieu. It links social resources to networks of acquaintance and recognition. For Bourdieu, social capital emerges from other types of capital: social, cultural, and particularly economic, and is legitimized, realized, and essentially transformed into a resource that individuals and groups can use to achieve goals. So, for Bourdieu, it reinforces the prestige and power of certain individuals and groups over others. Social capital can also be exclusive and isolating to “others” through barriers to entry, whether these be financial or cultural. The critical approach does not assume that wealth produces greater social capital. Indeed, for example, in the wealthy a lack of social cohesion may be evident, thereby reducing levels of social capital.

Commentators have also reflected on who is excluded from the benefits of social capital. For example, shared identity and social cohesion undoubtedly supports collective action and member well-being. They also may exclude those, however, without the shared norms and identities and even put pressure on group members to conform; and hence can threaten the more vulnerable segments of marginalized communities. On a related note, understandings of groups, from both without and within, can reinforce their social hierarchies and positions in society. Hence, dominant groups-and especially their gatekeepers-continue to get more resources, power, and influence. For Bourdieu, individuals with high levels of economic and cultural capital are the people who want to know and benefit from being known.

For environmental issues and problems, social capital has become a conceptual tool for understanding how collective action or cooperation occurs for managing resources, especially common pool resources vulnerable to over-exploitation through individual behaviors. As Common Property Theorists have observed, many community-based systems exist around the world for the coordination of individual behaviors in support of mutual benefit, despite the pessimistic predictions laid out in the “Tragedy of the Commons” scenario. For example, systems of traditional forest, fisheries, or pasture management help maintain the productivity of resources by restraining over-exploitative or chaotic uses by individuals. The investments required to coordinate these activities, however, can be significant; social capital is understood, therefore, as essential for sustainable resource use, and its disintegration under conditions of political or economic change has been used as an explanation for land and water degradation.

Bibliography:

P. Bourdieu, Distinction: a Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste (Routledge, 1979);
P. Bourdieu, “The Forms of Capital,” in G. Richardson, ed., Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (Greenwood Press, 1986);
D. Putman, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy (Princeton University Press, 1993);
D. Putman, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon and Schuster, 2000).