1. Spiritual wealth. Grace in the Christian world. Good karma, perhaps in the Buddhist and Hindu worlds. Don't know the words in other religions.
From the social capital in religious organizations: churches, monasteries, the Amish ....
2. Psychological wealth. Happiness in the sense of a feeling of satisfaction (admitting that there may be more than one such kind of feeling).
Good friends. Hobbyist clubs. MMRPGs.
3. Ethical wealth. Virtue. Living as one ought. Related to grace, but not the same.
From organizations that support ethical behavior and attitudes. Organized religion. Charitable organizations. Educational institutions. Families.
4. Material wealth. Money in the bank. Big houses. Many cars. Cuban cigars.
From networks of trust that grease the wheels of business. New York diamond dealers.
5. Power. Having influence over others, through persuasion or through sanctions.
From political systems that support the accumulation of power. Democracy for some, tyranny for others.
6. Physiological wealth. Being healthy and in good shape.
From social supports for maintaining health. Single-payer health care systems, health clubs.
7. Aristotelian wealth (thanks to Peter). Living up to one's potential, whatever that is. Fulfilling one's destiny.
From being part of any network that supports one in one's goals. Employers, professional organizations, etc.
8. Love.
From social networks that promote the bonds of affection. Families and sororities, to name two.
This post started out as a comment on Peter's earlier post "What Kind of Social Capital." I converted it to a post in its own right because I thought it could stand on its own.
Still, Peter's question, "What kind of capital?" (social or otherwise) has everything to do with what kind of wealth that capital is meant to create. Peter suggests that we are interested in capital with a certain fungibility, capital whose possessor "feels fully empowered to 'be themselves,' [sic]," in other words, capital that could be used to create whatever form of wealth we choose, and, indeed, to help us discover the kinds of wealth that suit us. Some forms of capital, social and otherwise, may come close to this sort of fungibility. Financial capital, for example, can be used to create all sorts of wealth. Nonetheless, we need to consider the limits on each form of social capital. The Buddha, for example, discovered early on that his family was not a source of capital for the kind of ethical and spiritual wealth that he sought. The Beatle's admonition that "Money can't buy you love," warns us against trying to use financial capital to create love. And, I am not the first to point out that bonding capital is not well suited to creating virtue. As much as I appreciate Peter's ambitions, when we think about communities that empower us to be ourselves, we need to give careful consideration to what those selves might or might not be.
The thought must have occurred to you by now, Henry, that maybe this group isn't for you? If so (I'm wondering), then why do you persist? I feel like I'm in a running sparring match with you, and I can't for the life of me figure out what it's really about. If you think it really "is your thing," then why the continuing negative leitmotif: "Gee, folks, this social capital thing is far more complicated and difficult than you seem to think it is, and you really ought to reconsider what you're trying to do here." Maybe that's not what you're saying, but I can't help but feel that that IS what you're trying to say. Do you see yourself on a mission to save us from our selves? Or me from myself?
ReplyDeleteYour last two sentences here are both as cryptic and portentous as they could be! Besides not knowing who else besides you has pointed out that "bonding capital is not well-suited to creating virtue," I myself have not a clue what this might actually mean (aside from sounding, on the surface of it, self-contradictory). Why would anyone think that bonding social capital would be well-suited to "creating" virtue? The flip of this is what should be of concern: Without virtue, there could BE no bonding social capital. Bonding social capital would RELY on virtue as one of its necessary pre-conditions. Bonding social capital will be possible in a community in proportion TO the possession of virtue among its members (I would say). What kind of "selves" we should worry about giving "careful consideration to," I can only wonder. Should we worry that deeply buried sociopathic demons will be unleashed if too much actualization of potentialities gets going?
On Point 1. Yes, the thought has occurred to me, and still occurs to me that this group isn't for me. But I'm nowhere near to reaching that conclusion as I don't know all that much about the group.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read, social capital is complicated and difficult. However, I think it's vitally important. Besides, more often than not I'm attracted to complication and difficulty. My posts are not intended to be be negative. Rather, they are my attempts to work through some of the complications and difficulties. As you have mentioned, this is a study group. I'm just trying to study. I'm not on a mission to save anyone, not the group, not you, not even myself.
If I were suggesting that we "reconsider," it's definitely not with the thought of abandoning the effort, but rather with a view to doing the best we can with it.
Point 2. My apologies for the obscure comment about virtue. I was talking about a particular kind of virtue. What I had in mind was that view of virtue that holds it to be a selfless concern for the human condition. Individuals embodying this concept include the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, and MLK, Mathatma Ghandi, and Albert Schwietzer. These individuals seem to possess a kind of wealth distinct from all others, and one that draws heavily on bridging capital.
There are, as you rightfully note, other forms of virtue, such as loyalty, that are bound up with bonding capital.
I have to confess that the notion of sociopathic demons never occurred to me. I was simply suggesting that the kinds of communities that we build will shape the space of possibilities for self-actualization that are open to us. The life of Gautama Buddha presents a good example. He moved from one community to another until he finally found, or rather invented, that special community of compassionate teachers through which he fulfilled his destiny. It's hard to imagine that the Young Republicans or a Cistercian monastery would have offered the Buddha the same possibilities.
In sum, even though my membership in this group is, to date, marginal, I'm nowhere near jumping ship. If my musings appear to be negative, it may be because I'm missing some sort of tacit understanding that y'all share concerning what the group is all about. But having someone who questions basic, tacit assumptions is not always a bad thing. I'm not at all interested in sabotaging the group. Quite to the opposite, I have an abiding interest in its success.
Thanks, Henry! I think we're beginning to clear the air of some misunderstandings. I think that, as we move forward, it will be helpful to focus more on identifying what is wanted by the various members of this group--what they would expect to get out of and put into a community as they envision it--and less on the theoretical aspects of the academic discussion of social capital. For instance, I think it is too early to focus on the distinction between bonding social capital and bridging social capital, and try to decide the shape of future "bridging" endeavors (when we still don't know what we want to make for others to bridge from and to).
ReplyDelete