Social capital

The term social capital has been in use since the 1920s but has been much more widely referenced since Prof Robert Putnam’s work, in particular his book Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community (2000). Putnam’s ‘lean and mean’ definition is simply “social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness.” (Putnam, 2007)

Social capital is associated with “people's sense of community, their sense of belonging to a neighbourhood, caring about the people who live there, and believing that people who live there care about them” (Portney and Berry 2001 quoted in Letki, 2008). Positive attitudes towards and beliefs about one’s neighbours contribute to cohesion within the local community, and thus to residents’ willingness to participate in local affairs and to cooperate in everyday matters. As a result, life in communities with high levels of social capital – so called “civic communities” – is good.

A number of governments have begun to see the value of promoting social capital as a means of developing harmony and collaboration in communities and perhaps reducing costs associated with crime and disorder and social welfare.

An important distinction in discussions of social capital is that between bonding and bridging capital.

“Bonding social capital refers to the relations within homogeneous groups. These are the strong ties that connect family members, neighbours, and close friends and colleagues. Bonding relationships act as the primary means for the transfer of social norms to family members and friends. Bonding social capital is important for establishing and favouring norms that define appropriate social behaviour, generating mutual aid, and protecting the vulnerable.” (Cave, 2007, p1)

However, whilst bonding social capital can help to build community support systems, it can be exclusive and create resistance to outsiders. From the point of view of ICD, more interest has  been shown, therefore, in a specific type of social capital:

“By contrast, bridging social capital looks at heterogeneous relations, ones that exist between groups; these are the weak ties, including formal or informal social interactions that link people and communities of different ethnic, occupational and socio-economic backgrounds.” (ibid)

Thus, notions of social capital would seem to be important in assessing and understanding intercultural dialogue. The literature points to the importance for integration of bridging social capital (that is, of social networks characterised by trusting and reciprocal relations) between individuals and groups of different backgrounds. In Putnam’s words, bridging social capital requires that we “transcend our social and political identities to connect with people unlike ourselves.” (Putnam 2000).  Bridging social capital has also been understood in different ways. For example, it tends to be known as ‘cross-cultural’ relations in community cohesion policies, or is simply  referred to as ‘interaction’ between  people of different backgrounds.

Similarly, the term ‘interculturalism’ is used to promote relationships within and between different cultural groups and has been contrasted  with ‘multiculturalism’ which has been seen by some as a policy of separateness. The various policies which promote ‘bridging’ activities are supported by the academic concept of Contact Theory (127.52KB) where research has demonstrated a positive impact on  the attitudes of individuals and groups towards others as a result of interaction.