Is social capital as important as financial capital? What happens when communities lose their social connections?
According to Robert Putnam, social capital brings tremendous benefits to both individuals and communities by creating networks of trust, support, and mutual cooperation. While this form of capital is harder to measure than monetary resources, it’s essential for holding society together.
Keep reading to learn how social capital influences everything from education and health to economic prosperity and democratic participation.
Robert Putnam on Social Capital
Historians and economists have long been concerned with the flow of capital—both in terms of money and investments, as well as physical resources such as land, materials, goods, and human labor that keep society running. However, there’s a third form of capital that’s not so easily measured, but is equally vital to holding communities and nations together. Researchers have dubbed this social capital—the inherent worth of interpersonal bonds, relationships, and networks. According to Robert Putnam, social capital benefits everyone on the individual and community level by weaving us into a rich tapestry of mutual trust, support, and communication.
From an economic standpoint, social capital is much more abstract than physical resources and money, which we can measure directly. For research purposes, sociologists determine the value of social capital indirectly—by measuring factors such as voter turnout, the attendance records of social organizations, and time people spend on community projects, to name a few examples. By correlating these with other indicators, such as income levels and graduation rates, scientists can measure the impact of social capital—the internal connectivity of a community—on society’s well-being as a whole.
(Shortform note: The definition of social capital used here applies to whole communities, but people also use “social capital” as a general term for the value of your personal networks, including the family ties, social circles, and professional connections you might use to advance your career, find a good mechanic, or simply move furniture to your new apartment. When you change jobs or find a new place to live, it can be said that part of starting over is replenishing your supply of individual social capital by making new friends and workplace connections.)
But there’s a problem. After peaking in the middle of the 20th century, collective social capital in the United States has steadily declined, even as other forms of capital have been rising. Putnam warns that, if the social strands binding the nation keep fraying, society could fragment into squabbling factions, breaking down social and democratic norms that we’ve long taken for granted and poisoning our mutual trust until suspicion, cynicism, and selfishness rule the day. Social capital, he argues, is vital for bringing people together across lines of class, politics, and culture. Without it, the collective social systems we rely on could dissolve.
Why We Need Social Capital
Putnam emphasizes the vital role of social capital in American life and the negative consequences of its decline. Speaking broadly, social capital enables collective action, promotes economic growth, and opens people’s eyes to cultural diversity. We’ll look at the forms social capital takes, how it works to hold society together, and its effects on collective and individual well-being.
(Shortform note: When a community’s social capital is low, “the tragedy of the commons” can occur. In Rationality, Steven Pinker defines this as a group dynamic in which each individual’s incentive is to use as many resources as they can and contribute as little back as possible. Pinker says the most effective solution to this problem is to remove individual choice through regulation. However—as we’ll see—Putnam might suggest that increasing a community’s social capital can defuse this cycle by motivating people to act for the good of the group.)
Before we begin, a note on Putnam’s research: The statistics Putnam draws upon span the entire 20th century, so their numbers don’t come from studies Putnam was able to conduct himself. Instead, he performs a meta-analysis that compiles information from numerous research studies conducted by a variety of scholars, institutions, and government agencies. He acknowledges that the polling methods used by these various sources are woefully inconsistent, but he’s tried to accommodate for their differences by comparing data from multiple sources and identifying any particular biases that may have accidentally made their way into the data.
(Shortform note: Putnam takes care to elaborate on his data collection methods because social science research can be problematic. Most studies rely heavily on polling data, which can easily be skewed by the number of respondents, who’s willing to participate, and any researcher bias that might make its way into how a study is conducted. These factors make it hard to reproduce the results of any individual study—which is required if those results are to be accepted by the larger scientific community. For this reason, Putnam draws from as many studies as possible to glean what widespread trends emerge from the preponderance of social science research.)
Do Social Connections Unite or Divide Us?
Not everyone agrees that social capital is an unquestionable good. Putnam acknowledges the most common criticism that deep social ties can homogenize groups so that they define society in terms of who’s “in” and “outside” their bubble. However, Putnam points out that social capital takes different forms that bring people together in different ways. Also, he uses data to show that having more social capital actually increases tolerance and acceptance of others.
Putnam identifies two types of social capital—that which unites us and that which connects us. Uniting social capital (which Putnam calls “bonding”) brings people together around a common interest, belief, or cultural background, the way your local chamber of commerce unites business owners in a particular region. On the other hand, connecting social capital (which Putnam calls “bridging”) brings people with different backgrounds together, such as a public school that’s open to students from every part of the community. Many organizations combine both forms of social capital, such as a science fiction convention that unites people around their enjoyment of the genre while connecting them across lines of ethnicity and income.
Us Against Them
It’s a common stereotype that strong social cohesion leads to bland conformity, such as in the clichéd “white picket fence America” portrayed in many classic sitcoms. Putnam admits the underlying problem—social connections can feel strongest when defined in opposition to an “outsider” group, as when supporters of one football team unite against the fans of their biggest rival. While this particular example is usually benign, the social cohesion of a dominant class has been used to ill effect against marginalized groups throughout recorded history. As if to confirm this, social acceptance of minority groups grew in the US during the very same period that our close social connections began to fall apart.
Nevertheless, Putnam strongly refutes the idea that social cohesion and social tolerance are mutually exclusive. In his research, he discovered that people who are more involved in their communities are also more accepting of interpersonal differences. Likewise, because of the link between social capital and economic growth (which we’re about to cover), increased social connections in communities often runs in parallel with greater economic equality. According to Putnam, the negative perception that social cohesion leads to “us versus them” thinking arises when the two types of capital—connecting and uniting—come in opposition with each other, such as when a group bases its whole identity on hatred of another group of people.
Social Capital as Society’s Glue
On a macro level, Putnam writes that social capital is needed for society to function smoothly, both in politics and economics. In terms of governing, representative democracy works only if people participate, which they’re far more likely to do if they feel kinship with each other. When people organize locally, it helps their voices be heard and their needs to be addressed by those in power. Political involvement brings other benefits too—when people unite, they have to learn to work together, resolve their differences, and develop leadership skills. Social capital doesn’t just speak to power—it lifts up and nurtures the next generation of leaders.
Putnam also argues that social capital gives communities an economic boost by greasing the wheels of financial capital. The underlying mechanism is mutual cooperation based on the trust that if you help someone, one day you’ll be repaid in kind. When this communal trust is strong, people tend to patronize local businesses, wider social networks help people gain employment, and entrepreneurs can secure local funding. Putnam suggests that the trust brought about by social capital mitigates common economic speedbumps, from extending credit to businesses in need to knowing which service providers are the most reliable.
However, when the amount of social capital in a community decreases, so too does its reserve of neighborly trust. Putnam writes that, in the US, social trust has been falling since the 1960s, with each new generation growing up less trusting than the one before it. As a result, we’ve had to rely on the legislature and the courts to enforce the fairness we once expected our neighbors to engage in willingly. As we’ve grown apart from each other, we’ve replaced the hand of friendship with the gavel of government.
Social Capital and a Happy Life
As suggested in the example above, social capital strongly influences the quality of life for both children and adults. For instance, Putnam’s research demonstrates that, even without deliberate efforts to improve education, regions with high social capital have the highest rates of educational achievement. Specifically, high levels of adult volunteerism, organizational membership, and voter turnout all correspond to lower school dropout rates, higher test scores, and fewer childhood behavioral problems. Putnam attributes these communities’ successes to more parent-teacher cooperation in addressing the needs of both students and their schools, as well as more social opportunities for children themselves to learn, mature, and grow.
Social Capital and Health
As we move into adulthood, the richness of our social life is strongly correlated to our overall health. Putnam cites a great many studies showing that the stronger someone’s social network is, the lower their risks of cancer, heart disease, and other forms of illness. Part of this he attributes to the documented differences in how your mind and body react to feelings of community as opposed to isolation. However, another factor to consider is that people with strong social support networks have more resources to draw on in times of illness and distress. Friends and family can provide financial resources, emotional support, and practical caregiving, while communities with high social capital are more likely to organize better health care overall.
It almost goes without saying that social capital corresponds to better mental health and overall contentment. The breadth of psychological research confirms that strong social ties help to negate or reduce feelings of depression and loneliness, while increasing people’s self-esteem. Putnam goes on further to say that when people in studies rate their feelings of happiness, taking part in community groups and activities has the same statistical positive impact as does graduating from college or getting a major raise. Of course, with social capital in the US diminishing, so too have Americans consistently reported lower levels of well-being.
