A Comparison of Theories of Social Capital by Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman

Social capital is defined as the capacity of social institutions, such as families, churches, schools, or other community organizations to make an investment of attention and advice, support and concerned interest in other community members according to reformer L.J. Hanifan. As a dependent of the community social capital is applied to my everyday life. It helps me to obtain resources for my education such as scholarships, teaches me how to work together with my peers, becoming a positive role model to youth, and build trusting relationships with others in the community. Social capital is seen as a support group from leaders in the community.

Social Cohesion is one way that the TV show Black Mirror builds the theme of wanting to feel accepted and the fear of loneliness. In Black Mirror’s episode Nosedive Everyone’s goal is to fake it until they make it. Social class is based on social media ranking, 5 stars. The closer to 5 you are the more popular and successful you are. The closer you are to 1 no one wants to talk to you and does everything they can to avoid you. You aren’t successful. you can’t own a nice car or house. Your score determines your life and the way people treat you. For example, Lacie is one of the main characters in the episode of Black Mirror, Nosedive. To become more successful and be able to get a better house she must improve her rating. Naomi is another main character that used to be Lacie’s ‘best friend,’ when they were little. Naomi is very popular, and happens to be getting married. Lacie posts a picture on social media which sparks Naomi and Lacie’s

When introducing consumption practices in Chapter 4, Berdahl links desirous capital with higher social status; however, the definition of desirous capital changed under the socialist system. Beginning in 1952, the collectivization of agriculture forced the landowning elite from power and instituted an economic system “based on a logic of centralized planning, the aim of which was to maximize the redistributive power of the state” (115). This system gave rise to a second economy in which underground trade and gift-giving compensated for the lack of goods available from the state. In more specific terms, consumption practices — a form of economic activity — focused on hoarding rare commodities and earning access to goods. Given this economic environment, new identities and inequalities developed: “Not only was there often a strategic element in social life, but social relations themselves became an important form of capital. Connections replaced property as an indictor of social status” (122). Here Berdahl emphasizes the shift from physical capital to social capital as desirous. With the accumulation of social capital needed in the second economy, a new elite formed consisting of people such as J.R. and Barbara Becker (126-132). Returning to the argument of this paper, this shift in economic practice — which created new identities

In the essay, “The Common Life” by Scott Russell Sanders, Sanders studies the connection between the individual and society. However, this leads to the question, what is the relationship between the individual and society? Individuals and societies may be in opposition but this helps to develop both the individual and society. The decisions that an individual makes reflects on how society views him/her. The overlook of the community can be reverted back to the individual within the society. Society and individuals are a package deal.

As far back as man has been on earth, he has been driven towards building a community among his peers. Whether that is a community of hunters and gatherers who share whatever the day has brought to them within their tribe, or a larger community which within its structure lie the inner dwellings of division of labor and societal classes. Adam Smith (18th Century), John Stuart Mill (19th Century), and Karl Marx (19th Century) are of the same cloth, but in modern terms their community is referenced as a government, and they each have their own distinct opinions on the 'drive' instilled within human nature that shape their personal economic theories. I will be dissecting the views of each of these economists, in regards to the role of

Social Construction is defined by Society: the Basics as “the process by which people creatively shape reality through social

When discussing why societies are better with deep social capital, Putnam writes “dense networks of interaction probably broaden the participants' sense of self, developing the "I" into the "we” (Putnam, 1995, pp. 2-3). To me, this means that when people are not concerned with only themselves but also with others, things like peace building and community involvement occur. In terms of peace building, if social capital was dense and I had a high social capital level, when something intrigued me and drove me to advocate for peace such as ending violence, it wouldn’t be a fight that I was starting alone but instead the “we” would help fight this battle. For me, this means that if I really want to make a difference in this world, I need to be more involved and increase my social capital. By doing so, I can impact others to do the same and the chances of building peace as a community would be greater. Furthermore, the piece in the article where he ties the whole concept of social capital and its decline to bowling really hit home for me. When it is put in perspective in such a way that Putnam did to describe how even bowling has decreased in profits because people prefer now to bowl alone rather than a s a group or in a league, it really forced one to reflect upon their own involvement. (Putnam, 2010). If as a society and even myself we continue to not fully engage with others but rather masked by technology and our own life circumstances, peace will never be built. As someone who believes in social justice, I know that peace is something I want to help build and thus need to change my social capital

Compare and contrast the views of Goffman and Foucault on how social oreder is produced.

Alejandro Portes discuss the controversy surrounding the actual meaning and effects of social capital. Confusion arises due its applications to manifold topics as well as its uses on different group of people. He provided the concept by Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman which centered on the benefits of social capital on an individual or a small group. He argued that Coleman focused on the advantages yielded to individual and then expand them to the whole community with subtlety. This transition is not well-defined and thus put social capital at risk of becoming synonymous with all positive things in

This factor is often overlooked as a reason impacting voter turnout but it is important nonetheless. The term “social capital” has been subject to various definitions over time. Basically, what this term refers to is the variety of social ties between individuals, and the differing connections that arise between individuals as a result of participating in various activities and organizations. "It should be noted that membership in civic organizations has steadily declined since the late 1950s. This decline in social capital means that people participate in group activities less, trust others less, and are generally more cynical, just to name a few of the symptoms.

Imagine a double headed arrow. The arrow at the bottom, pointed down, is the individual. This individual is connected to something bigger, the upward arrow. This upward arrow explains the social system or “larger than us”. Johnson (1999) explains “We are always participating in something larger than ourselves…to understand social life and what happens to people in it, we have to understand what it is that we’re participating in and how we participate in it.” (39). To picture this, Johnson (1999) uses the analogy of a forest stating, “…a forest is simply a collection of individual trees… a collection of trees that exist in a particular relation to one another,” (39). He goes on to say that “…the key to understanding social life isn’t just the forest and it isn't just the trees. It’s the forest and the trees and how they're related to one another.” (Johnson 1999: 39). This is sociology and the rule that people are not systems and systems are not people (Johnson 1999).

Define social capital. How does Putnam understand this concept and briefly explain his argument in regards to social decapitalization?

Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber were three historical sociologists. Their views have become world renown and have shaped many ways of interpreting the social structure of many modern societies. This essay will take a glimpse into the three sociologists’ ideals and expose the similarities and differences they may have.

Tonnies discusses the concepts of Community and Society in great detail, from the differences between the two to the wills that fuel them. Perhaps the main argument in the book is the differences between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, or Community and Society. Tonnies defines Gemeinschaft as a more intimate grouping of people who rely on each other and have shared goals that places emphasis on the cohesive unit. On the other hand, Gesellschaft is the impersonal grouping mainly found in city and urban areas. Societies are made up of people more interested in personal goals and the places an emphasis on individualism. I agree to an extent that communities are more personal and intimate and can foster stronger relationships within it. Communities require people to be more dependent on each other than cities and metropolitan areas and as a result the chances for tighter bonds are higher. However, present day Society and Community are vastly different than the time it was written. With technology and travel, communities can grow all over as well as virtually and can be present in a society location.

Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim have had a great influence in the development of sociology. Marx’s “Capitalism”, Weber’s “Bureaucracy” and Durkheim’s “Division of Labour” have significantly created their own spots as major and famous sociological theories.