[Delete] @Baden

We can aim high, but what do we load the cannon with?

How does a nation build social capital, when social capital mostly has to come FROM individuals, rather than be given TO individuals?

The Social Capital Index is composed of 7 sub-indexes: Family Unity, Family Interaction, Social Support, Community Health, Institutional Health, Collective Efficacy, and Philanthropic Health.

Why is 'coming from' opposed to 'being given to'? Those subindices all feel like things that are 'given to' individuals in a such a way that they can then 'give' them to others.

Maybe there is an implicit thing here. When you talk about things being 'given to' individuals - are you talking about stuff that is passively received? A government handout that doesn't assess the character of those to whom it hands out?

The good stuff of social capital comes from individuals in the form of their parenting, community activity, support of schools, all that. Their good contributions are given to children, neighbors, organizations, etc.

What I mean by the to and from bit, is "How do individuals who don't have much social capital get it now as adults?" It obviously isn't a cash payment or something that is in question. It's the experience of neighboring, mutual assistance with ordinary tasks, volunteering, going to meetings (and being constructive, of course), stuff like that.

Those who have not done these things may not know how. How do we teach them "how". (Obviously, you invite them to meetings, you help them shovel their walk if they can't, you invite them to block parties--blah, blah, blah. But people who don't have this kind of capital don't necessarily know what to do with what is offered them. One has to pass it on, give what one has received. That's the difficult part to teach.)

QUESTION: How does a nation build social capital, when social capital mostly has to come FROM individuals, rather than be given TO individuals? — Bitter Crank

I think losing the random element in human evolution, sciological or otherwise, is ultimately harmful.

My gut feeling, for what it's worth, tells me we should limit the Socratic principle of self-examination. The unknown may be harmful but probably not as much as omniscience (read manipulation).

[Delete] @Baden

Christian Virtue. — René Descartes

I'll consider the "virtue", but you can keep your "Christian". Blasting someone like me with Christianity is not a very good tactic. Think of how lots of people react to Jehovah's Witnesses. Even nonreligious charities that go door knocking or cold calling get a lot of short shrift. So something a little more subtle or sophisticated than a cannon blast might work better.

[Delete] @Baden

What about it? I don't do religion, but I'll consider the part about "virtue". Some people probably wouldn't even do that in reaction to the "Islamic" part, so maybe lose the religious labeling.

[Delete] @Baden

What about atheist virtue? — René Descartes

What about hard virtue, soft virtue, red-white-and-blue virtue? Virtue means virtue.

[Delete] @Baden

Absolutely right. Proves the point that one can be more virtuous from memorising all of the gospels, rather than being a philosopher, as philosophy eventually leads down to faith.

How does a nation build social capital, when social capital mostly has to come FROM individuals, rather than be given TO individuals? — Bitter Crank

Social capital can come from a sense of national belonging or unity, but I am not talking about this in a nationalistic sense as this can be abstract and broad. I am talking about this in a more traditional conservative sense where in the pre revolutionary era (before 1848) life was centred upon faith in God and the Kaiser (King). In a sense resulted together seemingly isolated villages, but led to strong communities in those villages where everyone would know each other and this would create a sense of unity, which links to the “village” idea of the discussion. In a sense the 1848 revolutions attempted to destroy this connection through a variety of ways such as liberalism and nationalism, changing the balance of power around the world, which ultimately affected the village community.

"Social capital". It sounds like trying to understand human relations in terms of money. Expect confusion. Instead, try it the other way about; how does capital become antisocial?

It helps a great deal to have grown up in this kind of environment in terms of being a contributor to the social capital later in life. — Bitter Crank

I live in a medium sized (pop. 14,000) suburban town in Massachusetts. Good schools. Good things for kids to do. Good town services. I've lived here since 1979 and I'd say I am involved in my community, although much less now than when my kids were young. There are just a few people, maybe a couple of hundred, who hold the community together. There are three or four stores and restaurants where people gather. The owners of those business tend to be heavily involved in the community. Other people run for town offices and organize community organizatons. They all seem to show up everywhere. They lead boy scout troops, coach, participate in schools, play Santa Claus at Christmas time. You see them everywhere you go.

Not sure how this relates to how we go about establishing social capital. However it's done, you will need this type of people in order for it to work.

"Social capital" — unenlightened

Your hostility towards the term indicates poverty of the same kind.

[Delete] @Baden

It's using a monetary term to describe a non-monetary phenomenon. Just because somebody says "put your money where your mouth is" doesn't mean that he or she is referencing anything financial. Or "the money shot" doesn't mean that some guy is ejaculating dollars.

Social capital, like the term or not, is important vital to our future.

I hope we can get a worthwhile discussion going here.

It's using a monetary term to describe a non-monetary phenomenon. Just because somebody says "put your money where your mouth is" doesn't mean that he or she is referencing anything financial. Or "the money shot" doesn't mean that some guy is ejaculating dollars. — Bitter Crank

I think it was a pretty good point that unenlightened made, too, in that it indicates how much this type of thinking has infiltrated our approach to problems, or, more specifically, to finding possible solutions to those problems. Said in the form of a question, What if the increasing dominance of that calculative/monetary way of thinking is the primary source of the growing social problem?

On the surface it does seem like an innocuous use of language, but it may actually reveal something deeper about way we relate to others, to ourselves, and to our world more generally in our (post)modern consumer culture. We see things as exploitable "resources" (e.g., human resources, information resources, natural resources) to be used as efficiently as possible, while other forms of non-calculative, non-instrumental ways of relating to others, and the the world more generally, are driven out. Examples abound. We want to maximize our possibilities as consumers, etc.

On a related note, I also think the fast-paced nature of life in the modern world - with a highly mobile workforce matching the needs of a complex, technologically-advanced global economy - has likely contributed a great deal to the loss of social capital. Commercial interests seem to reign supreme and the guiding values of these interests (speed, efficiency, productivity) have supplanted much less productive but more family, religious, and communally-based ones.

I live in nice, small (just over 10,000 people), community-oriented town despite it being located less than 15 miles from downtown LA. There are no stop lights, we have an all-volunteer fire department, and zero corporate stores or restaurants. Last night we voted on whether or not to keep the local library open, and the proponents pitched their defense almost entirely in economic terms, i.e., numerous studies have (apparently) shown that libraries (indirectly) make positive contributions to a city's economic development, etc.

Way down on the list of reasons to approve a new tax there was mention of things like libraries being "important community spaces where people can connect with books, with other people..." and whatnot, but it's clearly a sign of the times that damn near everything is subordinated to larger economic considerations. Education, healthcare, etc., etc., all have to be defended in these terms. I understand the importance of economic development and prudent spending, but I'm also of the antiquated opinion that we may have it backwards, and that the economy should be seen as a means to non-economic ends rather than the other way around. I'd even say a means to "higher" ends guided by a superior set of non-calculative values. I don't think we need to tie this hypothetical shift in values or alternative modes of thinking in with traditional religious values, either.

Apologies for sounding preachy here, and this is admittedly (and obviously) a pretty speculative approach, but understanding that underlying ontological framework - as articulated in the way we use language - may at the very least open up new ways of thinking about issues like this one. That's where the main battle is going to be waged imo - identifying and addressing the primary cause of the various symptoms - if we're ever going to reverse the current trend of a continued loss of "social capital."

we have an all-volunteer fire department, — Erik

My understanding of the term is that a volunteer fire service counts as social capital, whereas a paid fire service does not. This seems like an arbitrary moral distinction that makes paid work necessarily more 'selfish', and less 'social'. A society that institutes social care as an integral part of the economy has less social capital than one that relies on volunteers; a government funded and organised universal health system has less social capital than a pay as you go system with a bit of voluntary assistance for the poor.

The Social Capital Project is a multi-year research effort that will investigate the evolving nature, quality, and importance of our associational life. “Associational life” is our shorthand for the web of social relationships through which we pursue joint endeavors—namely, our families, our communities, our workplaces, and our religious congregations. These institutions are critical to forming our character and capacities, providing us with meaning and purpose, and for addressing the many challenges we face.

What is it about governments (and companies?) that excludes them? It seems to me that they have exempted themselves from all social obligations, and that use of the notion of social capital legitimises this. 'It's terribly important that we are kind to each other and cooperate, but this is not the business of business or government.' What? Really?

My understanding of the term is that a volunteer fire service counts as social capital, whereas a paid fire service does not. This seems like an arbitrary moral distinction that makes paid work necessarily more 'selfish', and less 'social'. A society that institutes social care as an integral part of the economy has less social capital than one that relies on volunteers; a government funded and organised universal health system has less social capital than a pay as you go system with a bit of voluntary assistance for the poor. — unenlightened

My purpose in bringing this up was simply to show that the town I live in has a relatively high level of social capital. I guess the distinction between volunteer and paid work would come down to motivation: are you driven by making money or a genuine care for the community? The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, of course, and you make a good point about that, as well as other things. There are a lot of wealthy people around here (not me) - many of whom have been the beneficiaries of the accumulated family wealth of previous generations - so they can afford to be virtuous in that way.

What is it about governments (and companies?) that excludes them? It seems to me that they have exempted themselves from all social obligations, and that use of the notion of social capital legitimises this. 'It's terribly important that we are kind to each other and cooperate, but this is not the business of business or government.' What? Really? — unenlightened

That's a good point, but it seems like a big part of the guiding narrative for those of us who live in the US - as opposed to the UK and almost everywhere else in the world it seems - is an overall suspicion of government (think separation of powers, federalism, etc.) and a corresponding emphasis on the importance of non-political or sub-(national)political things like individual responsibility, private charity, local politics, etc. We're not bound together so much by race or a shared history/culture or other such things, but instead by a commitment to abstract ideals grounded in notions of individual natural rights, with the primary purpose of government being to protect these rights.

There have been various waves of progressivism in the US over the past 100+ years which have taken a more positive approach to government (and a more hostile stance towards businesses lacking a sense of social responsibility), including the more prominent role it could and should play in bettering citizens' lives - e.g. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, and Obama - but there's always been significant resistance to these "activist" and purportedly unconstitutional endeavors. This antagonism continues to play itself out now, obviously, in a number of ways.

Anyhow, I'm not saying that I agree with the sentiment that's skeptical of what it considers to be government overreach - nor in my disagreement do I dismiss it as completely absurd - but it is there (or rather here) and has been pointed out by European interpreters of our country from the time of its inception up to today, such as Tocqueville in his Democracy in America (great book!) back to the 1830's, I believe. The idea persists among a large segment of the American population, and may help (in part) explain BC's setting up the social/political juxtaposition.

Your hostility towards the term indicates poverty of the same kind. — Bitter Crank

I can understand why the term would be used. It's a way to "monetize" social and cultural values so they can fit into standard economic understandings. I have no problem with that. I can also understand Unenlightened's skepticism. At the company I worked at for 28 years, I saw the company's relationship with workers go from personnel, to employee relations, to human resources, to human capital as the company got bigger and went public and we more and more became cogs in the machine.

Apologies for sounding preachy here, and this is admittedly (and obviously) a pretty speculative approach, but understanding that underlying ontological framework - as articulated in the way we use language - may at the very least open up new ways of thinking about issues like this one. — Erik

I find myself imagining @Bitter Crank's frustration at your and @unenlightened's unwillingness to discuss the issue he has raised and turning it into a discussion about language. You know what he's trying to talk about. Talk about it.

Sorry for putting words in your mouth, BC.

I find myself imagining Bitter Crank's frustration at your and @unenlightened's unwillingness to discuss the issue he has raised and turning it into a discussion about language. You know what he's trying to talk about. Talk about it. — T Clark

It's a frustrating habit of philosophers to question the question, and problematise the terms of debate. But this is not mere political correctness. If I may make it personal for an illustration, I have at one time signed on as unemployed and worked for a charity without pay, and at another been employed by another charity. The former seems to count as a contribution to social capital, and the latter not. Frankly, it's bollocks. I do what I need to to live, and I do what I can to help. Why insist that they be separate?

It's a frustrating habit of philosophers to question the question, and problematise the terms of debate. But this is not mere political correctness. If I may make it personal for an illustration, I have at one time signed on as unemployed and worked for a charity without pay, and at another been employed by another charity. The former seems to count as a contribution to social capital, and the latter not. Frankly, it's bollocks. I do what I need to to live, and I do what I can to help. Why insist that they be separate? — unenlightened

I don't doubt the value of what you're saying, I just don't think it's what BC started the discussion for. I won't continue with this since I'm basically doing the same thing I accuse you of doing, i.e. distracting from the subject of the OP.

In that regard, I don't really know what to do to increase social capital, or whatever you want to call it. All I can think of is personal action. I've been reasonably conscientious with that in my life. As I mentioned before, people who contribute much more than I ever have form the foundation of our communities.

Maybe that's why I'm a liberal, the desire to use social institutions to make things better for people. On the other side, a lot of authentic conservatives see the therapeutic/entitlement society as leading to the breakdown of community. I'm a fan of Christopher Lasch, although I haven't read any for a long time. Maybe it's time to reread. He wrote a lot about this sort of thing.

The curious thing about 'social capital' is that its apparent decline comes about during a time of its increased significance. I suspect it was birthed stillborn from the get-go. I think Un is right to be suspicious about the idea, which, in effect and regardless of intention, is just another way to enmesh humans in a utilitarian grid of an increasingly adminstered world. The very idea of social capital plays right into a strategy of increased psychic pressure and debilitation: not only your bills, family, food, and employment do you have to worry about, but so too your 'social capital'. It's another chapter in the fragmentation of the human psyche.

The very idea of social capital plays right into a strategy of increased psychic pressure and debilitation: not only your bills, family, food, and employment do you have to worry about, but so too your 'social capital'. It's another chapter in the fragmentation of the human psyche. — StreetlightX

So, you, Unenlightened, and Erik don't like "social capital." What's the right word for what BC is talking about? Social values? Civic virtue? Community spirit? Quality of life? Or do you really have no idea what he is trying to get at?

But wouldn't the problem be that the more social capital a community has, the less it will be needed to be distributed? And, wouldn't it be more likely that the more social capital I have, the more likely that I will live in a community where most possess social capital.

I live in the suburbs where the lawns are well manicured, unemployment is very low, education is high, families are intact, most are financially independent, and crime is low. There is much fat of the land I suppose, but not that many really need it. It would also be unusual for me not to migrate to a community that was pretty well functioning, as opposed to subjecting myself to a more struggling community.

And here's another problem: Communities support pales in comparison to family support, meaning the community, while well intentioned, will never get those less fortunate ones to the level of those who were graced by good circumstances. So, sure, being near good families is going to make things a bit better for those in bad families, but the real solution is to make good families.

Those who have not done these things may not know how. How do we teach them "how". (Obviously, you invite them to meetings, you help them shovel their walk if they can't, you invite them to block parties--blah, blah, blah. But people who don't have this kind of capital don't necessarily know what to do with what is offered them. One has to pass it on, give what one has received. That's the difficult part to teach.) — Bitter Crank

Is it really a matter of teaching someone to get involved? Some people are just joiners, they get involved, they enjoy the social element of it all. I'm in my local Kiwanis, for example, but it's hard to call me the backbone of my community because I enjoy talking to the local bankers over a free sammich every other Tuesday and hearing some speaker tell me about goings on at the local children's hospital. My real contribution is that I raised a couple of kids who did well in school and local law enforcement doesn't know their names (and the Chief is in Kiwanis too, another added benefit should things go awry). Sure I pay my taxes, I cut my lawn after getting my warning from the HOA (and I'm the President there as well, so there's that perk should things go awry), and I sometime help plant trees down at the local plant the trees thing. All those details just make me a guy who likes to occupy his time in clubs and whatever, but I really harbor no illusions that my little contributions here and there do a tremendous amount. But, if my kids were hellions, that'd be another matter.