Social Capital

Bowling Alone written by Robert Putnam can be deconstructed through the means of four distinct categories which primarily serve to highlight the shortcomings of Putnam’s research. Firstly, the specific use of economic language and terminology itself constricts Putnam’s work. Secondly, the paradoxical relationship which exists between capitalism and communitarianism potentially serves as a means to debunk his entire piece. Thirdly, Putnam’s overall research study can be illustrative of the large discrepancy which can unfortunately exist between one’s intentions as opposed to the manifestation of one’s actions. Finally, the link between social capital and health as presented by Putnam serves to accentuate the weaknesses of his piece as he is quick to make numerous generalizations about the implication of social relations on health.

The potency of language is clearly reflective in Putnam’s work as he fixates on using the language of economics as a means of describing the importance of social relations. This has numerous negative consequences as Putnam objectifies social relations as a means to an end, instead of a means in itself. For instance, the word “capital” implies the desire for more of a particular “good.” In essence, relationships are identified as a quantifiable “good” undermining human interaction in a broader socio-cultural context. Hence, more social interaction is preferred as a means to more social capital instead of the desire to establish these interactions outside the context of gaining “capital.”

Furthermore, Carles Muntaner and John Lynch point out the other problematic aspect of the term “social capital” itself as it identifies social relations as independent of other forms of capital. Hence, the use of “social capital” outside the context of physical and financial capital unfortunately implies that social relationships are considered outside of financial and physical factors, a concept that is largely contradictory to the processes of the real world.

The notion of the “survival of the fittest” is intertwined very intimately with the concept of “capitalism.” Because competition is the central component of capitalism, individuals are encouraged to compete independently with each other in order to gain the most “capital.” However, the concept of communitarianism is based more on the social interactions within a group of individuals in which social relations are dependent on both parties involved and these relations are encouraged in order for the greater good of the community. Therefore, the concept of capitalism and communitarianism present a starkly different and contrasting picture of what is valued and seen as favorable in respect to each scenario. Putnam is utterly entrapped by the “power of capitalist ideology” as pointed out by Vicente Navarro as the researcher fails to address the contradictory nature of the idea of social capital itself.

The discrepancy between Putnam’s intentions and the consequences of his piece of work serves to be both unfortunate as well as puzzling. Putnam’s intends on encouraging the trend towards rekindling social ties within the context of the family and the community in North America. In order to do this, he mostly illustrates the importance of social interactions in relation to the overall wellbeing of individuals. Even though his intentions are grounded in a sincere desire to encourage social interactions, his methods of articulation and presentation of data sets are largely flawed and erroneous. Primarily, the lack of contextualization is unfathomable as Putnam does not take race, gender or ethnic relations into consideration. Secondly, Putnam has an overriding tendency to oversimplify contexts in order to suit his own assumptions. This is clearly illustrated as pointed out by Navarro in the case of laborers during the Progressive Era. Putnam urgently labels young laborers as apathetic towards the labor movement when in actuality large oppositions enforced by the US government and employers severely hindered laborers from joining unions even if they so desired. Hence, Putnam’s “depoliticization” of numerous matters is shocking as he is highly respected as a political scientist yet his work lacks knowledge based on his own personal expertise.

In addition, Putnam is quick to make “naïve epidemiological assumptions” linking health to social relations. His main flaw lies in the fact that he uses individual manifestations of disease and attempts to make implications in regards to a larger social context. Additionally, the quantitative analysis of happiness as attained by particular salary in relation to the happiness attained by marriage or education seems largely oversimplified and questionable. Even though, Putnam himself points out that the data is ambiguous he still inherently assumes that comparisons between happiness attained by marriage vs. happiness attained by a certain increase in salary can actually be related and quantifiable.

In essence, Putnam presents an intriguing concept of “social capital,” yet as the deconstruction of this term occurs, one cannot help but question its viability and sustainability in the real world. Furthermore, the construction of social capital in the backdrop of the psychosocial model hinders such a concept even more so as it fails to contextualize both race and gender which play an integral factor in social relations. Thus, the language of economics has infiltrated the way in which social relations are perceived, so much so that Putnam cannot see beyond his own quantity driven capitalistic perception.