Bourdieu (1930-2002) and his conceptualisation of Social Capital

Bourdieu explicitly conceptualised Social Capital in a sociological manner that was at variance with Loury (1977) who viewed it within an economic dimension. He acknowledged the existence o f social inequalities in social relations or in groups and from my point o f view, Bourdieu took a M arxist approach in his Social Capital conceptualisation. According to Carpiano (2006: 167), “Bourdieu developed the concept o f Social Capital as he was thinking about the manner in which social class and other forms of inequality are socially reproduced” .

Bourdieu (1985: 248) defined Social Capital as “the aggregate o f the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession o f a durable network o f more or less institutionalized relationships o f mutual acquaintance or recognition” . Bourdieu’s treatment o f the concept, in particular, was “instrumental, going as far as noting that people intentionally built their

relations for the benefits that they would bring later” (Portes 2000: 2). According to Bourdieu (1986: 13), “the volume o f Social Capital possessed by a given agent thus depends on the size o f the network o f connections he can effectively mobilise and on the volume o f capital (economic, cultural and symbolic) possessed in his own right by each o f those to whom he is connected” . Thus, if one does not contribute or help people (his/her colleagues) s/he will also not get help from them. The more you help, the more you increase your connections and this translates to a larger gain in the future because one will have lots o f connections.

Bourdieu (1986: 249) also postulates that “ Social Capital is collectively owned and generated”

and Portes (1998: 3-4) interpreted this, as “resources that are jointly owned by associates” . This means that resources that are obtained from Social Capital are not owned by one individual but by all those who sacrifice to be part o f the group by investing in the group. Bourdieu (1986:

249) further noted that, “the volume o f Social Capital possessed by a given agent depends on the size o f the network that he can effectively mobilise and the amount and types o f capital (economic, symbolic and cultural) possessed by each of those to whom a person is related”

(Hence, quantity o f Social Capital per person is determined by the size o f the network that the individual is aligned to). This compels one to consider “Bourdieu’s social theory not only as the existence o f community social networks but also that o f the resources (potential or actual) possessed by the network” (Carpiano 2006: 167). The resources that are available in the social network matter most in Bourdieu’s view o f Social Capital.

According to Porder (2011:347), Bourdieu’s Social Capital “is acquired and available only to those who provide efforts” . This means that Bourdieu’s understanding o f Social Capital requires the application o f effort if the individual is to enjoy the benefits. If an individual sits and relaxes in the institution, the chances o f accessing the resources will be limited. The individuals in a group are required to apply effort and invest in the group and this is different from Coleman’s (1988) understanding o f Social Capital. Coleman (1998) is o f the view that Social Capital is “given and accessible to all actors who are in the network without condition”

(Porder, 2011: 348). Portes (1998: 3) concurs with this view and highlights that “Bourdieu’s treatment o f the concept o f Social Capital is instrumental, focusing on the benefits accruing to individuals by virtue o f participation in groups and on the deliberate construction o f sociability for the purpose o f creating this group.” Thus individuals in the group are required to participate and invest.

Furthermore, in Bourdieu’s (1986) view “actors gain a direct access to economic resources (subsidized loans, protected markets and investment tips) through Social Capital” (Portes 1998:

4). He is o f the view that Social Capital has spill-over effects on the actors since “actors increase their cultural capital through contacts with experts or alternatively, they can affiliate with institutions that confer valued credentials” (Portes, 1998: 4). This means that in Bourdieu’s’

view, there are three different forms o f capital that exist in social structures and each o f them operates in a different arena. As a result, Social Capital that encompasses interconnectedness, networks, obligations and expectations, is transferable to economic capital. Tzanakis (2013: 3) adds that “Bourdieu sees clear profit as being the main reason that actors engage in and maintain links in a network. That profit is not necessarily economic, but according to Bourdieu, it can be reducible to economic profit” . Social profit that is obtained by actors is determined by their contributions and is, therefore, unequal and is differentiated. “This differential distribution o f potential and control is a central notion in Bourdieu’s theories o f social reproduction and social space” Tzanakis (2013: 3). Thus, according to Bourdieu (1986), individuals only access benefits from the groups which they have joined.

Other scholars o f Social Capital (Coleman, 1988 and Putnam, 2000), for example, view Social Capital as a network o f social connections. Bourdieu uses it to explain the bitter realities o f the concept. In his view, it is not what you know that matters but it is who you know in the system.

This exacerbates inequalities in the society since it encourages the interactions o f people who are economically on the same level. As a result, top paying jobs are taken by those who go to expensive and exclusive schools whilst those who go to substandard schools will find it a challenge to get a job even though they would have passed with distinctions. Thus, Bourdieu’s version o f Social Capital suggests explanations o f the ways in which those at the top o f a hierarchy remain in those positions by adopting strategies that keep the marginalised at the bottom.

In this case study, the searcher wants to understand how Social Capital enhances the resilience o f Muzarabani residents to natural disasters such as floods and droughts. According to Bourdieu, the wealthier and more powerful groups purposely cultivate and manipulate Social Capital for their own benefit to the detriment o f poorer people. The most vulnerable groups are comprised o f the poorest people who may not be able to actively participate in mitigating the ravages o f natural disasters. This may mean that such people are, at the end o f the day, excluded by those who are more active and less vulnerable. The most vulnerable groups are sometimes

incapacitated to contribute to the community constantly because they sometimes lack resources and time and this renders them more vulnerable. Thus, Bourdieu’s Social Capital helps me understand why the most vulnerable groups are excluded. In communities where floods and droughts are common, people help each other socially and economically (supporting each other in times o f bereavement, lending each other money and/or giving each other food and clothes).

The most vulnerable groups, however, usually have no material means to enable them to participate in this way and are, therefore, generally excluded.