Coleman’s conceptualisation of Social Capital

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.

From a methodological point o f view, Bourdieu is a conflict theorist whilst Coleman is a consensus functionalist. Social Capital does not benefit individuals who have invested in it in Coleman’s view. Rather, it benefits every individual who is part o f that structure. For instance, social norms and sanctions that are enforced in the community sometimes work for the good o f any member o f that social structure. Thence, Coleman took the functional approach to understanding Social Capital. For him, Social Capital is inherently functional, and Social Capital is whatever allows people or institutions to act (DeFilippis: 2001: 784).

Coleman views Social Capital as having a positive effect on the creation o f human capital for generations. To him, both Social Capital in family and community plays indispensable roles in the creation o f human capital. Thus, he successfully established the interconnection between micro and macro sociological phenomena within which he extended his analysis beyond the family to bigger social institutions (such as church and school). Coleman (1988: 109) gave an example as to how family facilitates the creation o f human capital. He notes that the family background provides the most needed capital for improved performance although it depends on the family’s economic and social status. It provides forms o f capital like study materials and financial resources to the family members so that they achieve their individual goals. This only happens when Social Capital is not missing. Moreover, “ Social Capital that has value for young persons’ development does not reside solely within the family” (Coleman, 1988: 113). Thus, family ties and community social organisations function as some kind o f insurance, raising the actors’ sense of obligation to uphold their part of the deal while the others can trust in the fulfilment o f the commitment. Schaeffer-McDaniel (2004: 155-156) notes that Coleman recognised two components o f Social Capital namely relational constructs and providing resources to others through relationships with individuals.

According to Coleman (1988) Social Capital in one community may not be available in another. He clearly highlights this when he gave an example o f a nuclear family o f eight members o f the family that consisted o f six children and parents who moved from suburban Detroit to Jerusalem. The mother o f that family explained that the greater freedom her young children had in Jerusalem was the main reason why she had moved (Coleman 1988: 99). The woman felt safe in letting her eight year old take her six year old sibling across town to school on the city bus. The mother felt that her children were safe in playing without supervision in the city park as compared to where she lived before (Suburban Detroit). Thus, the normative structures o f some communities ensure that “unattended children will be looked after by the

adults in the vicinity” (Coleman 1988:100). People in certain communities feel for each other and treat others the way they treat themselves and in such places, a child belongs biologically to the two parents, but socially belongs to the community. However, Coleman (1988: 100) also notes that “there was no such normative structure that exists in most metropolitan areas o f the United States” . Hence, Social Capital differs from community to community, in Coleman’s view.

Coleman (1988:113) asserts that migration to new communities reduces Social Capital. For instance, he gives evidence that families who often move to new cities have less Social Capital because the parents are unable to establish the networks with other parents that allow them to share information about their children, such as the Social Capital available to parents of students at religious schools. This, he argues, affects the performance o f students. Furthermore, (Coleman 1988: 116-17) asserts that “the decision to move from a community so that the father, for example, can take a better job may be entirely correct from the point o f view o f that family.

But because Social Capital consists o f relations among persons, other persons may experience extensive losses by the severance o f those relations, a severance over which they had no control” . Thus, to Coleman (1988), migration from one city to the other reduces the chances of an individual to have an easy access to social resources and this reduces Social Capital.

In Coleman’s (1988) view, Social Capital is for both economic and non-economic benefits. I derive this from examples provided by Coleman (1988: 98).An example o f this is the trust between Jewish diamond merchants in New York City, who often share family ties and religious affiliations. This is essentially a closed community where if one defects, one loses community or religious ties. Other examples include a student activist group in South Korea that organised themselves from study circles which regrouped youngsters coming from the same high school or town, or the greater sense o f reassurance and security that a mother o f six children felt in Jerusalem given “the normative structure ensuring that unattended children will be looked after by adults in the vicinity as well as that o f the Khan El Khalili market o f Cairo where boundaries between merchants are difficult for an outsider to discover as well as the system o f bringing the customer to a friend’s shop. To Coleman (1988), the whole market is infused with relations. Social Capital works for improved economic and non-economic outcomes as shown by Coleman’s examples in the above. It is also clear that Social Capital exists in different forms and provides both economic and non-economic benefits.

Coleman (1988) situates his understanding o f Social Capital in two theoretical traditions. These are: the functionalist theory (from Sociology) and the rational theory (from an Economics point o f view). He tried not to destroy these two but to balance the dichotomy. In accordance with functionalist perspective, Coleman asserts that social action is conditioned by social structure.

With regard to the rational theory (an Economics based view) Coleman (1988: 95) observes that goals are determined by utility maximising pursuit o f his/her self- interest. Thus, to Coleman (1988: 7) “the choice o f interacting and networking depends on individual actors’

cost and benefit evaluation” . Individuals are calculative to such an extent that they do not just over-invest before they assess the pros and cons o f investing in the social unit. This is also similar to what Bourdieu (source) says.

Coleman (1988: 102-104) highlights five types o f social relations that function as a resource for individuals namely obligations, expectations and trustworthiness o f structures, information channels and norms and effective sanctions. In this study, some o f these social relations are perceived as dimensions o f Social Capital. Obligation and expectation denotes that in social relationships there are those who give or do something and those who are liable. For instance,

“A does something for B and trusts that B will reciprocate in the future. This establishes an expectation in A and an obligation on the part o f B. This obligation can be conceived as a credit slip held by A for performance by B” (Coleman, 1988: 102). Accordingly, there is need for a strong stock o f mutual obligation within society. “When there is a weaker stock o f mutual obligations within the society, Social Capital is more likely to be eroded” (Porder, 2011: 343).

Porder (2011: 102) further notes that “people always do things for each other” . In order for this to succeed, people need to develop higher degrees o f trustworthiness among themselves.

Moreover Coleman (1988) regards information as the basis for providing action. He postulates that “a person who is not greatly interested in current events but who is interested in being informed about important developments, can save time for reading a newspaper by depending on spouse or friends who pay attention to such matters” (Coleman 1988: 104). Thus, information is supportive and beneficial to individuals in the community. In the study o f natural disasters, people may enhance their resilience through implementing what they hear from those who probably have attended workshops, listened to the radio, read newspapers and are able to search on the internet. Communication is absolutely an indispensable ingredient o f any relief effort. Broadcasting crucial information about unsafe areas, survivor resources, and important health and public safety issues can help prevent further outbreaks o f disease and post-disaster

traumas. Information is also important in providing early warning systems before the disaster strikes so that people can adopt strategies that help them prevent their lives being endangered.

Coleman categorises norms and effective sanctions as important components o f Social Capital although the two have both positive and negative effects. Effective norms prohibit deviant behaviours that may also jeopardize the lives o f many in the community. For instance,

“effective norms that inhibit crime make it possible to walk freely outside at night in a city and enable old persons to leave their houses without fear for their safety” (Coleman 1988: S100).

Putting norms in the social structure permits individuals to relinquish their selfishness and act in a way that may benefit the majority. This actually compels individuals to behave and act for the public good. However, norms can constrain others. Thus, Coleman (1988: 105) acknowledges that “the rejection of deviant behaviour can, therefore, reduce the capacity of innovation.”

Coleman (1988) considers closure as a precondition o f the functionality o f Social Capital.

Closure connotes “networks in which everyone is connected such that no one can escape the notice o f others or a dense network connecting people” (Burt, 2000: 8). Closure facilitates several forms o f Social Capital including information channels, obligations and expectations.

W hen people are not close to each other, it is very difficult to link with them or to pass information through the word o f mouth. At the same time, it is difficult to build trust with people to whom one is not close to. In fact, Coleman (1988) puts much emphasis on the importance o f dense networks that allow everyone to be closely connected to others and avoid being considered as a “broker” who will always face difficulties in accessing assistance from others in the event that a disaster falls upon the community.

Coleman (1998) undertakes to demonstrate the difference between Social Capital and other forms o f capital (human, economic and physical) as well as to show how these can work together in certain circumstances. He also explains the difference between physical and human capital. Coleman (1998: 100) further notes that “Human capital is created by changes in the persons that bring about skills and capabilities that make them able to act in new ways” . Thus, human capital is inside people’s heads and Social Capital inheres in the structure o f their social interactions. Conversely, physical capital is tangible and is embodied in tools, machines, infrastructure and other productive equipment. Thus, Social Capital is viewed as a public good from which every individual benefits. In this regard, human as well as physical capital becomes

private goods. Property rights make it possible for the person to invest in physical capital and to capture the benefits it produces and the motive to invest in this case is not depressed. In addition, human capital (the kind that is produced in schools) is also a private good since the person who invests in time and resources in building up this capital reaps its benefits in the form o f a high paying job and the pleasure o f greater understanding o f the surrounding world.

Economic capital is construed as existing in the form o f money (bank accounts).