While I can't do justice in summarizing Ben Fine's critique of social
capital in his book Social Theory vs. Social Capital (Routledge 2001), I
provide a few quotations, not totally in context, but to give a flavor
of some of his points:


"The theory of social capital remains rooted in methodological
individualism...Its very name is highly significant, with capital taken
as economic and individualistic, only for it to be qualified by bringing
back in the social  as, by implication, the non-economic....For the
notion of social capital depends upon making capital out of the
ephemeral, or at least. The non-economic, quite apart from stripping the
economic of its social content....The failure to specify capital
properly in its social and historical context allows it to roam freely
over an number of non-economic or social characteristics....Social
capital becomes a dumping ground for synthesis across the social
sciences....Social capital is simply an oxymoron. To be otherwise, there
would have to be some sort of capital that is not social relative to
which social capital has the potential to be distinctive. As capital,
especially as embedded in capitalism, is profoundly social and
historical in content, this is not possible....Its use is an
acknowledgement that the economy is dependent upon and is affected by
the non-economic....My point is to deny the veracity of an opposition
between social and capital....The reason is that the presumption that
capital is asocial is wrong....Capital is embroiled in social relations,
social structures, in social reproduction involving social power and
conflict....Sociologists...'have begun referring to virtually every
feature of life as a form of capital.'....Any use of the term social
capital is an implicit acceptance of the stance of mainstream economics,
in which capital is first and foremost a set of social endowments....If
social capital seeks to bring the social back in to enrich the
understanding of capitalism, it does no only because it has impoverished
the understanding of capital by taking it out of its social and
historical context.

What is striking about social capital is not only the extent of its
influence, and the speed with which this has been achieved, but also its
ready acceptance as both analytical, empirical and policy
panacea....Contributions to social capital have tended to focus on civil
society and its associational forms and ethos. This has been in
isolation from, and exclusive of serious consideration of the economy,
formal politics, the role of the nation-state, the exercise of power,
and the divisions and conflicts that are endemic to capitalist
society...."





Richard Hofrichter
Senior Analyst, Health Equity
National Association of County & City Health Officials
1100 17th St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202-783-5550 x211
Fax: 202-783-1583
email: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: Social Determinants of Health [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Richard Carpiano
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 7:42 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Income or Social Capital as Social Determinants of Health

Hi Toba (and Richard),

Re: who coined the term "social capital," technically (and with all due 
respect), that's not correct... Political scientists (well, technically,

Robert Putnam) popularized it (and revamped it)... and now social 
capital (as the work of Spencer Moore and his colleague's aptly 
illustrates) is often conflated in health research with Putnam's 
(communitarian) perspective.  Alejandro Portes (1998) Ann Rev of 
Sociology piece on Social Captial provides a nice discussion on the 
evolution of the concept.  As for who coined the term, I believe Putnam 
(in Bowling Alone) credits L.J. Hannifan (sp?) a US school 
administrator, who used it back in the late 1800s/early 1900s.

Aside from any issues of assigning creative credit, though, there is a 
more important reason for bringing disciplines into this--i.e. 
disciplinary distinctions regarding the use of the term.  Social capital

as a concept in sociology has been used very differently than Putnam's 
conceptualization.  Sociologists have often applied it in trying to 
understand issues such as stratification and individual's socioeconomic 
mobility (e.g., see the work of Nan Lin, particularly his Ann Rev of 
sociology article; William Julius Wilson and Loic Wacquant; even Mario 
Luis Small) as well as network actors and economic activity (e.g., see 
Ronald Burt's work).  These are issues that pose implications for health

well beyond the mere psychosocial aspects of health inequalities (as 
social capital has regrettably often been relegated). 

Lin, Cook, and Burt's (2001) edited volume Social Capital: Theory and 
Research nicely dissects the theoretical differences between approaches 
(and the significant limitations of Putnam's approach).  As Portes 
(1998) nicely details: the roots of social capital can be traced back 
not just to Durkheim (as it is often linked--sometimes inappropriately),

but also to Marx's concept of a class for itself (versus a class within 
itself).  And let's certainly not forget Pierre Bourdieu--who applied it

in thinking about social class and power, among other issues. 

That all being said, I am in full agreement with you both that it is a 
problematic concept (particularly for public/population health) and one 
that tends to be used often uncritically as a buzzword (or conflated 
with/reduced to simply interpersonal trust). 

Best,
Rich

-- 
___________________________________
Richard M. Carpiano, PhD, MA, MPH
Assistant Professor
Department of Sociology
University of British Columbia
6303 NW Marine Drive, Room 2216
Vancouver, BC CANADA V6T 1Z1
[log in to unmask]
(P) 604.822.3845
(F) 604.822.6161
http://www.soci.ubc.ca

-------------------
Problems/Questions? Send it to Listserv owner: [log in to unmask]


To unsubscribe, send the following message in the text section -- NOT
the subject header --  to [log in to unmask]
SIGNOFF SDOH

DO NOT SEND IT BY HITTING THE REPLY BUTTON. THIS SENDS THE MESSAGE TO
THE ENTIRE LISTSERV AND STILL DOES NOT REMOVE YOU.

To subscribe to the SDOH list, send the following message to
[log in to unmask] in the text section, NOT in the subject header.
SUBSCRIBE SDOH yourfirstname yourlastname

To post a message to all 1000+ subscribers, send it to [log in to unmask]
Include in the Subject, its content, and location and date, if relevant.

For a list of SDOH members, send a request to [log in to unmask]

To receive messages only once a day, send the following message to
[log in to unmask]
SET SDOH DIGEST

To view the SDOH archives, go to:
https://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/sdoh.html

-------------------
Problems/Questions? Send it to Listserv owner: [log in to unmask]


To unsubscribe, send the following message in the text section -- NOT the subject header --  to [log in to unmask]
SIGNOFF SDOH

DO NOT SEND IT BY HITTING THE REPLY BUTTON. THIS SENDS THE MESSAGE TO THE ENTIRE LISTSERV AND STILL DOES NOT REMOVE YOU.

To subscribe to the SDOH list, send the following message to [log in to unmask] in the text section, NOT in the subject header.
SUBSCRIBE SDOH yourfirstname yourlastname

To post a message to all 1000+ subscribers, send it to [log in to unmask]
Include in the Subject, its content, and location and date, if relevant.

For a list of SDOH members, send a request to [log in to unmask]

To receive messages only once a day, send the following message to [log in to unmask]
SET SDOH DIGEST

To view the SDOH archives, go to: https://listserv.yorku.ca/archives/sdoh.html