← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 18546 | Posts: 3 | Started: 2005-06-06
2005-06-06 09:08 | User Profile
I ran across this website dedicated to the concept of social capital. I've just perused it so far, but it looks like it has a lot of interesting stuff.
[URL=http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/]SOCIAL CAPITAL GATEWAY[/URL]
This website also contains a set of interesting links to other social capital websites [URL=http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/eng-websitessocialcapital.htm]HERE[/URL].
It also has a great recommended reading list. Perhaps the most popular book on the subject is Robert Putnam's [URL=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743203046/bowlingaloneco00/002-9204677-8558466?creative=125581&camp=2321&link_code=as1]Bowling Alone[/URL].
I looks like I have a lot of reading to do.
2005-06-06 19:25 | User Profile
Walt, Looks like a good site. They define social capital thusly -- 'Social capital is generally referred to as the set of trust, institutions, social norms, social networks, and organizations that shape the interactions of actors within a society and are an asset for the individual and collective production of well-being.' The trick with social capital is quantifying it, since economics has a hard time recognizing anything that cannot be quantified as real. Evaluating the things that comprise social capital inevitably involves making value judgements, which involves invoking a code of morality. Therefore, insofar as a society lacks a common moral code, it will be unable to make decisions about social capital that are accepted by the entire society. Thus, a nation really must have a common religion (of one type or another) to define moral normalcy before it can agree on what that normalcy is worth, and on what damage is being done to it.
2005-06-06 19:46 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Walt, Looks like a good site. They define social capital thusly -- 'Social capital is generally referred to as the set of trust, institutions, social norms, social networks, and organizations that shape the interactions of actors within a society and are an asset for the individual and collective production of well-being.' The trick with social capital is quantifying it, since economics has a hard time recognizing anything that cannot be quantified as real. Evaluating the things that comprise social capital inevitably involves making value judgements, which involves invoking a code of morality. Therefore, insofar as a society lacks a common moral code, it will be unable to make decisions about social capital that are accepted by the entire society. Thus, a nation really must have a common religion (of one type or another) to define moral normalcy before it can agree on what that normalcy is worth, and on what damage is being done to it.[/QUOTE]
Well put.
I would add that there seem to be articles there critical of multiculturalism based on its destruction of social capital. People naturally want to bond with their racial kin - this is just our evolved natures at work. And just as naturally we want to withhold help from racial strangers.
There also appears to be a few brave attempts to quantify SC.
So much reading, so little time.