(Person) Percentage - Sabanci University Research Database

The Asian Media & Mass Communication Conference 2010 Osaka, Japan
Sociologist James Coleman’s work differs dramatically to Bourdieu in the way they see the
establishment of social connections. For Bourdieu, social capital is underpinned by
economics that is highlight socially and historically contextual. Coleman sees social capital
as rational choice, analytically fixed as the capacity to deal with public goods or market
imperfections (Fine 2001). Coleman defines social capital as:
“a particular kind of resource available to an actor. Social capital is defined by its
function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of entities with two elements in
common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate
certain actions of actors within the structure. Social capital inheres in the structure of
the relations between actors and among other actors” (Coleman 1988, p. 98)
Unlike Bourdieu, who considers social capital as a conscious investment strategy which
requires ‘endless effort at the institutional level’, Coleman sees social capital as a ‘largely
unintentional’ process ((Field, Schuller & Baron 2000, p. 7), as individuals are more
concerned with advancing their own interests. Both, however, see social capital as a means to
increasing an individual’s resources (Winter 2000,). Coleman contended social capital exists
in three major forms: Obligations, expectations and trustworthiness of structures; Information
channels; Norms and effective sanctions. Like Bourdieu, he argues there are certain social
structures that facilitate social capital, importantly the idea of ‘closed’ or dense social
networks, where everyone is connected such that no one can escape the notice of others (Burt
2001, p. 37). and that these dense relationships emphasise that the ‘strength of these ties make
possible transactions in which trustworthiness is taken for granted and trade can occur with
ease’(Coleman 1988, p. 17).
BROADCAST MEDIA ‘ERODING’ SOCIAL CAPITAL
Putnam builds on the work of Coleman in that, he considers social capital a ‘public good”
like clean air and safe streets, which is often under provided by private agents. (Putnam, R
1993) Whereas Coleman and Bourdieu focus on the benefits first and foremost to the
individual, Putnam prefers to focus on the benefits to the collective, although all scholars in
this field concede that social capital can be of value to both individuals and groups, private
and public interests(Lin, Burt & Cook 2001). He argues social capital is strongly connected to
civic engagement after his studies in some regions of Italy found those who trusted one
another and were more active in community organisations were more likely to vote and
engage in civic affairs (Putnam, RD, Leonardi & Nanetti 1993)
Like Coleman, Putnam defines social capital as “connections among individuals – social
networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them”(Putnam,
Robert 2000, p. 19) Putnam expands on Coleman’s idea of strong ties, by outlining two forms
of social capital: bridging (or inclusive) social capital which he argues provides the
sociological “WD-40” by connecting people across a range of diverse social, cultural and
economic backgrounds such as the civil rights movement and youth service groups and
bonding (or exclusive) social capital which reinforce exclusive identities and homogenous
groups such as country clubs or church-based women’s reading groups. Putnam argues
‘bridging’ social capital is linked most neatly to information diffusion.
Putnam declared that social capital in the US had declined towards the end of the 20 th century
largely, or coincidently, because people were watching more TV, watching it more
habitually, more pervasively and watching programs that were associated with civic
disengagement (such as entertainment as opposed to news (Putnam, Robert 2000, p. 246).
But he considered the newspaper poles apart from television and entertainment in the way it
426