Introduction
In recent years, community development has become strongly associated with social capital. However, social capital is a broad term, and there are many definitions of the term used in social sciences today. One of the most widely accepted views on social capital was proposed by Robert Putnam (DeFilippis, 2001). This paper will review the article by James DeFilippis, which focuses on the critique of the definition of social capital offered by Robert Putnam.
Summary
The article by DeFilippis thoroughly discusses Putnam’s definition of social capital. The author considers Putnam’s view of social capital by comparing it to other sociologists’ viewpoints. The article briefly examines how social capital was viewed by Loury, Becker, Bourdieu, Coleman, and others to present readers with different ideas (DeFilippis, 2001). Putnam’s view is based on the neo-Tocquevillean view of society (DeFilippis, 2001). According to the article, Putnam’s idea of social capital went through three significant changes that affected how it is viewed today (DeFilippis, 2001). Overall, in Putnam’s view, social capital is something that communities either possess or do not possess, it equals the idea of civic society, and is viewed as inherently good (DeFilippis, 2001). After presenting the readers with the background to Putnam’s concept, the author proceeds to analyze the said concepts and both their advantages and disadvantages and provides an alternative view.
Analysis of the Article
The article is exceptionally critical of Putnam’s view on social capital. The criticism offered by the author is supported by thorough research and evidence. The author criticizes the idea of communities being able to possess social capital as he argues that communities cannot own anything (DeFilippis, 2001). A community is not an actor but an outcome of relationships within it (DeFilippis, 2001). Individuals or organizations within the community can possess social capital, and the community can profit from it. The transference of meaning in Putnam’s definition can be seen as confusing and unfounded. The author also points out that this confusion of individuals within the community and the community itself is the result of dismissing the power relationships within a community and among different communities (DeFilippis, 2001). This misunderstanding is thoroughly explained by the author and is supported by an example that shows the flaws in Putnam’s concept.
Another strong point of the article and the author’s analysis of Putnam’s concept is the discussion of its origins. It is pointed out that Putnam based his view on de Tocqueville’s view of civic society and democracy (DeFilippis, 2001). According to de Tocqueville, the American society’s proclivity to form and join in voluntary organizations is the indication of a civil and prosperous society as individuals within this society are united by common interests and goals (DeFilippis, 2001). It can be argued that de Tocqueville’s view is outdated and cannot be applied in modern society. Putnam rests on the idea that shared goals and interests promote trust and networking within a community and lead to economic growth and prosperity (DeFilippis, 2001). This view is somewhat limited as efficient networking within the community does not necessarily lead to economic growth, as illustrated by the author’s examples of networks within poor inner-city neighborhoods. The author also provides his understanding of what can be defined as social capital and how its use can be promoted in inner-city communities.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the author presents a critique of Putnam’s definition of social capital. The author supports his point of view not only with the findings of other sociologists but with his research and evidence. In addition, all aspects of Putnam’s concept are studied and analyzed. Overall, the author points out that Putnam’s view relies too much on networking and trust within communities and does not consider the power dynamics within them.
Reference
DeFilippis, J. (2001). The myth of social capital in community development. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 781-806.