SOCIAL CAPITAL

Social Capital



Social Capital

Introduction

Government and public organizations seek to high and sustainable economic growth, but they also expressed concern about the impact of human activity on the natural and social environment. Of particular concern is the fact that due to the new forms of inequality and poverty arising from the growth of technical progress, and in a broader sense - the quality of life and health of children, older people, individuals and groups are facing economic and social challenges (Gauntlett, 2011, 125-147).

The idea underlying the concept of social capital is not new, but the concept as such is very recent. The current socio-economic situation in the world, for all cross-country differences and diversity reveals a number of problems and tasks which is on the agenda is extremely serious. Weber (1971) had developed the theoretical foundations of the concept in his studies of social inequality in his work Economy and Society published in 1914. According to Weber, the man has three types of resources available to improve their living conditions, economic resources, political resources and symbolic resources (social relations). According to the author, every social relationship is a behavior that involves multiple individuals and distinguished from others by its shape and its goals (Ottebjer, 2005, 1-28).

Discussion

According to Weber, the form of this behavior may vary, but every social relationship is such that individuals act socially with each other to achieve goals. Until the late 1970s, the theory of social capital has remained in an embryonic state. This concept is not used in the theoretical analysis and is less subject to empirical research. It began to attract the attention of sociologists and economists in the early 1980s with the work of Bourdieu (1980) and, later, those Americans Coleman (1988, 1990) and Putnam (1995).

Bourdieu is a structuralist critic. In fact, he adheres to a certain extent, the theories of structuralism, according to which the social world there are structures independent of the consciousness of the individual and by his will which specifically define the behavior of the social actor. Bourdieu likes to define their own theoretical position as “constructivist structuralism” in his view, individuals can build social phenomena through their thinking and their actions, but this construction is always in an inescapable structure that can never be removed (Gauntlett, 2011, 125-147). In this regard, to explain the relationship that binds the individual to the structure, Bourdieu uses a rather effective: as grammar influences but does not determine our language, so the structure influences but does not determine our actions. Under this conception of the structure, the French philosopher can to criticize classical structuralism, which takes the structure as distinct and decisive. In particular, Bourdieu attacks Talcott Parsons and his “structuralist functionalist”, accusing him of not recognizing that contingency that escapes the structure that characterizes our actions (Ottebjer, 2005, 1-28). In particular, according to our author, social actors are not automatons that conform to the roles that society imposes. On the contrary, they enjoy a certain freedom to act, are creative and unpredictable, ...