Re: RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Nicole et al,
As currently described, human capital and
social capital are supposed to be different concepts,
with the former representing education and skills,
whereas the latter is inherently a result of social
relationships.
One of the critiques of a lot of human capital
studies to which Mat refers amounts to saying that
in effect it is a cover for a form of ("bad") "bonding
social capital," that is an elaborate way to establish
relationships so that one will know the right people
and thus get hired in the high paying jobs, much of
that literature justifying itself on the basis of pay that
people receive who are more educated, etc.
The kinds of studies of human capital that
strike me as still standing are those that have been
made directly of productivity in the workplace that
show that there is "learning by doing." Such studies
are presumably the justification for seniority pay scales.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Nicole Seibert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, February 19, 2001 10:03 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:8282] RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>
>
>Mat,
>I have responded to your questions below with answers pertaining to human
>capital, which if I remember correctly is close to social capital according
>to economists. Barkley can correct me if I am wrong.
>-Nico
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Forstater, Mathew
>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:51 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:8062] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>
>Barkley- All very interesting. I know of Bordieu, but I admit I tried to
>start
>reading some of his stuff a few times and just couldn't get into it. Either
>I
>couldn't understand it or whatever. The big influences on me were the
French
>Marxist structuralist anthropologists like Pierre Bonte--Godelier, Rey,
>Terray
>are the names most people would know, although I had some differences with
>their
>stuff. My teacher and the person who got me to study Marx seriously and go
>into
>economics was the late Peter Rigby, who wrote Persistent Pastoralists and
>Cattle, Capitalism, and Class and some other earlier books, plus a very
>interesting slim volume at the end of his life called African Images:
Racism
>and
>the End of Anthropology. I have no problems with the ideas of reciprocity,
>other redistributive institutions, and so on. And of course the importance
>of
>social fabric, social institutions, social relationships, etc.
>
>Let's see if we can pin down what's bugging me. Some questions:
>
>1) Do the social capital theorists see individuals as "rational"?
>
>Human capitalist see individuals as rational.
>
>2) Do they view individuals (and subjectivity) as prior the social?
>
>Here I will quote from England page 51, "In neoclassical theory, whether
one
>will undertake an investment (in human capital or anything else) depends in
>part upon one's 'discount rate,' the way in which present compared to
future
>utility is valued. One's discount rate is part of one's tastes. The lower
>a person's discount rate, the more one defers gratification, and the less
>present-oriented one is." Additionally, whether an individual invests in
>self or not depends on how much they expect to get back. For example, the
>rate of return is not considered sufficient enough by some economists for
>individuals to invest in a Ph.D. As far a measuring social capital it
makes
>sense then that tastes (or subjectivity) come prior to the outcome. The
>choice to invest has already been made. I am confused however, by your
>wording of, "individuals as prior the social"?
>
>3) Is the social the outcome of individual action (as in some 'new'
>institutionalist stuff)?
>
>Does 2 answer this question?
>
>Let's start there.
>
>Mat
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:08 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:8053] Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>
>
>Mat,
> Actually among the very first users of the term
>"social capital" was a very non-formalist anthropologist,
>Pierre Bourdieu, in his _Outline of a Theory of Practice_,
>English translation, 1977, original French version, 1972.
>His usage was somewhat different from the current
>Putnam et al social communitarian usage. He thought of
>it in terms of what might be called "social debt," as in
>"they had us over for dinner, now we owe them a dinner."
>Classical anthropologists viewed this as reciproc
RE: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Mat, I have responded to your questions below with answers pertaining to human capital, which if I remember correctly is close to social capital according to economists. Barkley can correct me if I am wrong. -Nico -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Forstater, Mathew Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:8062] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital Barkley- All very interesting. I know of Bordieu, but I admit I tried to start reading some of his stuff a few times and just couldn't get into it. Either I couldn't understand it or whatever. The big influences on me were the French Marxist structuralist anthropologists like Pierre Bonte--Godelier, Rey, Terray are the names most people would know, although I had some differences with their stuff. My teacher and the person who got me to study Marx seriously and go into economics was the late Peter Rigby, who wrote Persistent Pastoralists and Cattle, Capitalism, and Class and some other earlier books, plus a very interesting slim volume at the end of his life called African Images: Racism and the End of Anthropology. I have no problems with the ideas of reciprocity, other redistributive institutions, and so on. And of course the importance of social fabric, social institutions, social relationships, etc. Let's see if we can pin down what's bugging me. Some questions: 1) Do the social capital theorists see individuals as "rational"? Human capitalist see individuals as rational. 2) Do they view individuals (and subjectivity) as prior the social? Here I will quote from England page 51, "In neoclassical theory, whether one will undertake an investment (in human capital or anything else) depends in part upon one's 'discount rate,' the way in which present compared to future utility is valued. One's discount rate is part of one's tastes. The lower a person's discount rate, the more one defers gratification, and the less present-oriented one is." Additionally, whether an individual invests in self or not depends on how much they expect to get back. For example, the rate of return is not considered sufficient enough by some economists for individuals to invest in a Ph.D. As far a measuring social capital it makes sense then that tastes (or subjectivity) come prior to the outcome. The choice to invest has already been made. I am confused however, by your wording of, "individuals as prior the social"? 3) Is the social the outcome of individual action (as in some 'new' institutionalist stuff)? Does 2 answer this question? Let's start there. Mat -Original Message- From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8053] Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital Mat, Actually among the very first users of the term "social capital" was a very non-formalist anthropologist, Pierre Bourdieu, in his _Outline of a Theory of Practice_, English translation, 1977, original French version, 1972. His usage was somewhat different from the current Putnam et al social communitarian usage. He thought of it in terms of what might be called "social debt," as in "they had us over for dinner, now we owe them a dinner." Classical anthropologists viewed this as reciprocity, and it was especially studied by the French, e.g. Marcel Mauss in his _The Gift_, who was an influence on Bourdieu. Bourdieu used it to study "primitive" societies (not his term) in which one would give gifts in order to accumulate such social capital from one's tribal compatriots. Thus, the extreme version of this was the potlatch of the Northwest American Indians who gave competing feasts in which they gave away stuff. Great social (capital?) advantage would accrue to the one who gave away the most stuff. The main strand in the US comes out of the neoconservatives and focused on social relations in cities. Putnam cites as the original usage of the term a superintendent of education in West Virginia in 1919 (forget his name). Then there were some Canadian sociologists in the 1950s, forget their usage. But, then in 1961 Jane Jacobs used it in her _The Life and Death of American Cities_ in a very current context, informal social networks that can make it easier to carry out economic activity. The main direct stream of influence, however, came from a 1977 paper by the neocon, Glenn Loury, who used it to supposedly explain black ghetto poverty. Poor urban blacks were supposedly poor because they lacked social capital. James Coleman picked it up in his 1990 _Foundations of Social Theory_ (Harvard University Press), and Putnam, who is a political scientist at Harvard, got it from there. It played a major role in his 1993 _Making Democracy Wo
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Social Capital
assessment. This is not to > say that the research > results are not sound only that we do not have > standard scientific > assurances that they are. Yet these research results > will be used in > hearings and other fora to make the claim that GM > safety assessment is > science-based. >CHeers, Ken Hanly > > - Original Message - > From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:48 AM > Subject: [PEN-L:8185] Re: Re: Re: Social Capital > > > > That is ok, the "in the begenning" clause was > meant > > anecdotaly in reference to a sid. hook > understanding > > of the matter. of course you know this is a matter > of > > definitions and it it is not easy to squeeze this > in > > one sentence, so best to skim over that in this > > context. certainly you would agree with the > concept of > > man in the reproduction of material life being > social > > ie could not exist in the physical apart from the > > forms of orgnization of society and the social > > relations attendant on it. of course analytically > you > > can separate the social from the physical aspects > but > > is this realistic, eg, is there such a thing as a > > natural stream under capitalism, i for one, am > willing > > to pay to see a stream untouched by a relationsip > > called capital/ capial consumes both man and > nature. > > forms of consciousness come to reflect this > > relationship of man's relationship with nature, > which > > under the speicifc historical condition of > capitalism > > also reflect class and class interests, so much > so, > > that natural science like nature does not escape > the > > hold of ideology. so will see now in physics for > > instance, a clerical like interpretation of the > origin > > of the universe, eg inflation theory and big bang > etc. > > many physiists talk like clerics. the extent to > which > > facts can be perverted, in this crisis age, is > higher > > than in the age of thales ( he was a refugee to > asia > > minor escaping the wrath of godkings in the near > > east). so the ether substratum of thales dims in > > relative ignorance when compared to mainstream > science > > today. > > --- Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:46 PM > > > Subject: [PEN-L:8058] Re: Social Capital > > > > > > Everything is social to begin with? What is that > > > supposed to mean.? > > > In the beginning God made the social and saw > that it > > > was good and > > > the represenation of TOTALITY. Why not Thales' > view > > > that in the beginning > > > was water the totality that became air, and > earth > > > etc > > > At least Thales view is not some intellectual > > > gobbledygook and is > > > materialist ( or may be) to boot. > > > > > > Also if everything is social how can there be a > > > social being which reflects > === message truncated === __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
RE: Re: Re: Social Capital
Christian, How would you measure this? Could you not account for this through other transactions? -Nico -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:8052] Re: Re: Social Capital jbr wrote: >But, how does one commidify "trust" or >"community"? Corporate "goodwill" is close to this, no? It is frequently understood to be the "good name" of a company above and beyond the book value of its combined assets. It is frequently recorded on balance sheets (and even depreciated), and accounted for in M&A transactions. Christian _ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Social Capital
Well I just object to what seemed outrageous abstract academic term slinging. I dont think it adds anything to a discussion, except to reflect the conspicuous production of signs significant only to some elite fraternity. This is not to say that abstractions and special terms cannot be useful. If I understand the passage talking about the concept of man in the reproduction of social life etc. I think I agree but I am not sure. I still find the terminology somewhat of a barrier. Is the following part at least of what you are saying? The way in which people live and continue to live is dependent on particular forms of social organisation and relations. I don't see why "material" is singled out. All life is material ultimately. Of course there is a contrast possible with the material versus thought but then thoughts, language, concepts, etc. are also dependent (to a degree at least) upon the "social". Of course, it might be possible for individual people to live as a castaway but the vast majority of people llive and no doubt always will live in social groups with certain organisational forms and relations. One of the basic errors of the "atomic" individualist approach is to abstract from these relations and posit a certain human nature...usually egoistic.. apart from these and to try to interpret all collective relationships as functions of the intereaction...eg through contract. for exampleof these individuals. What's the significance of a stream being natural? I suppose there still are some that are relatively unaltered by human activity. But being natural or unnatural as a stream has nothing to do with capitalism per se. Non-capitalist societies also altered streams and transformed nature in various ways. Of course the physical world is altered by capitalist relations of production. You say capital consumes both man and nature. Does this mean that material resources and labor power are used in capitalist production? Thats true but would surely be true in any form of production wouldnt it? "forms of consciousness come to reflect this relationship of man's relationship with nature.." A phrase such as "this relationship of man's relationship with nature" just sets my brain spinning. Is this an example of what you mean. Under capitalism natural resources such as trees, land, minerals, and water are seen as exploitable and consumable for profit. Because of this people come to think of these resources as of primarily instrumental value, and as valuable only insofar as they are exploitable by capital. This contrasts with the viewpoint of deep ecologists and others. This shows by the way that not all persons way of thinking will reflect a dominant way of thinking. While I agree that science is often ideological I dont personally see that talk of a big bang is clerical. Do you mean clerical as in religion or in some other manner? The practical appllication of science such as in testing the safety of GM seeds seems a more typical. example of where science as ideology is more evident. Just to give a dramatic example. Only one set of test data that was used by the Canadian govt. to assess the safety of GM seeds was made available to a panel of experts of the Canadian Royal Society that was assessing the process for the government since the data was regarded as proprieetary information. As the panel pointed out, a standard requirement in science in evaluation is open availability of data and confirmation by peer assessment. Although the government claims its assessments are science based, the assessments violate a basic requirement of science-based assessment. So "science" reflects ideology. OF course in research paid for by corporations results are proprietary and hence none of this science will be scientific as based upon independent critiques and assessment. This is not to say that the research results are not sound only that we do not have standard scientific assurances that they are. Yet these research results will be used in hearings and other fora to make the claim that GM safety assessment is science-based. CHeers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:48 AM Subject: [PEN-L:8185] Re: Re: Re: Social Capital > That is ok, the "in the begenning" clause was meant > anecdotaly in reference to a sid. hook understanding > of the matter. of course you know this is a matter of > definitions and it it is not easy to squeeze this in > one sentence, so best to skim over that in this > context. certainly you would agree with the concept of > man in the reproduction of material life being social > ie could not exist in the physical apart from the > forms of orgnization of society and the social > relations attendant on it. of course analytically yo
Re: Re: Re: Social Capital
That is ok, the "in the beginning" clause was meant anecdotally in reference to a Sid. Hook understanding of the matter. of course you know this is a matter of definitions and it is not easy to squeeze this in one sentence, so best to skim over that in this context. Certainly you would agree with the concept of man in the reproduction of material life being social ie could not exist in the physical apart from the forms of organization of society and the social relations attendant on it. of course analytically you can separate the social from the physical aspects but is this realistic, eg, is there such a thing as a natural stream under capitalism, i for one, am willing to pay to see a stream untouched by a relationsip called capital/ capital consumes both man and nature. Forms of consciousness come to reflect this relationship of man's relationship with nature, which under the specific historical condition of capitalism also reflect class and class interests, so much so, that natural science like nature does not escape the hold of ideology. so you will see now in physics for instance, a clerical like interpretation of the origin of the universe, eg inflation theory and big bang etc. many physicists talk like clerics. the extent to which facts can be perverted, in this crisis age, is higher than in the age of thales ( he was a refugee to Asia minor escaping the wrath of god kings in the near east). so the ether substratum of thales dims in relative ignorance when compared to mainstream science today. --- Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:46 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:8058] Re: Social Capital > > Everything is social to begin with? What is that > supposed to mean.? > In the beginning God made the social and saw that it > was good and > the represenation of TOTALITY. Why not Thales' view > that in the beginning > was water the totality that became air, and earth > etc > At least Thales view is not some intellectual > gobbledygook and is > materialist ( or may be) to boot. > > Also if everything is social how can there be a > social being which reflects > man's material relation with nature. There must at > least be nature and man > above and beyond the social or u have a circular > conception since man and > nature must also be social.. And what of the lakes, > streams, rocks, blah > blah...are they social too... > CHeers, Ken Hanly > > > Isn't everything social to begin with, so may be > > social represents the category of totality. hence, > in > > the beginning there was social being and social > > consciousness where the former reflects man's > material > > relation with nature etc.. and the latter how one > > expresses those relations. > __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Re: Re: Social Capital
That is ok, the "in the begenning" clause was meant anecdotaly in reference to a sid. hook understanding of the matter. of course you know this is a matter of definitions and it it is not easy to squeeze this in one sentence, so best to skim over that in this context. certainly you would agree with the concept of man in the reproduction of material life being social ie could not exist in the physical apart from the forms of orgnization of society and the social relations attendant on it. of course analytically you can separate the social from the physical aspects but is this realistic, eg, is there such a thing as a natural stream under capitalism, i for one, am willing to pay to see a stream untouched by a relationsip called capital/ capial consumes both man and nature. forms of consciousness come to reflect this relationship of man's relationship with nature, which under the speicifc historical condition of capitalism also reflect class and class interests, so much so, that natural science like nature does not escape the hold of ideology. so will see now in physics for instance, a clerical like interpretation of the origin of the universe, eg inflation theory and big bang etc. many physiists talk like clerics. the extent to which facts can be perverted, in this crisis age, is higher than in the age of thales ( he was a refugee to asia minor escaping the wrath of godkings in the near east). so the ether substratum of thales dims in relative ignorance when compared to mainstream science today. --- Ken Hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:46 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:8058] Re: Social Capital > > Everything is social to begin with? What is that > supposed to mean.? > In the beginning God made the social and saw that it > was good and > the represenation of TOTALITY. Why not Thales' view > that in the beginning > was water the totality that became air, and earth > etc > At least Thales view is not some intellectual > gobbledygook and is > materialist ( or may be) to boot. > > Also if everything is social how can there be a > social being which reflects > man's material relation with nature. There must at > least be nature and man > above and beyond the social or u have a circular > conception since man and > nature must also be social.. And what of the lakes, > streams, rocks, blah > blah...are they social too... > CHeers, Ken Hanly > > > Isn't everything social to begin with, so may be > > social represents the category of totality. hence, > in > > the beginning there was social being and social > > consciousness where the former reflects man's > material > > relation with nature etc.. and the latter how one > > expresses those relations. > __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Hmmm and peccatum in Latin means sinIs there a connection :)
Cheers, Ken Hanly
- Original Message -
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:55 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8116] Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
> Speaking of the evolution of terms, the word
> capital itself originally meant a head of cattle in Latin.
> A pecus was just one cow, from which we get the
> word pecuniary, also Latin. I understand that the word
> fee is from faihu, Old German for a head of cattle.
> Barkley Rosser
> -Original Message-
> From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:31 PM
> Subject: [PEN-L:8111] RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>
>
> >It reminds me of the evolution of the word "rent" in the 'discipline'.
Now
> >everything is "capital", and everyone gets ('seeks') "rents".
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:07 PM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: [PEN-L:8110] Re: RE: Social Capital
> >
> >
> > Of course there is yet another annoying idea
> >floating around that indeed all factors of production
> >are just sub-species of capital, at least those that
> >are not just immediately used up in production.
> >The point is that their future returns can be capitalized
> >into a present value, even if like labor in a non-slave
> >society, they cannot be bought and sold as an asset.
> >This would certainly apply to land.
> > However, if somebody asks me for a source
> >where I have seen this stated, I am afraid I don't remember.
> >Barkley Rosser
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:26 PM
> >Subject: [PEN-L:8105] RE: Social Capital
> >
> >
> >>Let me see if I can think this through. (Maggie, it is just like Ross
> >Thomson's
> >>class our first semester at the New School. Tell me if I have remembered
> >right).
> >>
> >>Let's think about the circuits of capital. M-C-M' can be broken down to
> >be:
> >>
> >> -LP
> >>M - C -MP (machines, tools,...P...C' - M'
> >> natural resources)
> >>
> >>where M' = M + deltaM and M' > M (assuming realization at a profit)
> >>
> >>and C' > C that is, the value of the commodities produced is greater
than
> >the
> >>value of the commodities purchased with the money capital initially.
> >>
> >>( M = money capital; C = commodities; LP is labor power; MP = means of
> >>production; P is the production process)
> >>
> >>C is capital-value in the commodity form. P is the production process,
> but
> >the
> >>combination of labor power and means of production in the production
> >process is
> >>also called the productive form of capital, or P. Also, C is made up of
> >constant
> >>capital and variable capital, the former which is means of production,
the
> >>latter which is labor power. Consumption of the constant and variable
> >capital
> >>results in the expanded value through its combination in the production
> >process.
> >>The new or surplus-value (s-v) is the difference between the value of
the
> >>commodity labor power and the value produced by that labor power; labor
> >power
> >>produces a value greater than its own value (which is equal to the value
> of
> >the
> >>means of subsistence). The circuit therefore requires a specific social
> >form of
> >>production, in which some, capitalists, own the means of production, and
> >others,
> >>workers, possess only their own labor power. Thus workers are compelled
to
> >sell
> >>their labor power to capitalists ("double freedom" requirement). This
> >specific
> >>social relation (capitalist: worker) is a pre-condition of the capital
> >circuit,
> >>and is itself reproduced by the process of the circuit.
> >>
> >>Now all this would seem to suggest that labor power is capital, it is a
> >>form--one of the forms--that capital takes, when it is in its commodity
> >form, C,
> >>and its productive form, P. In addition, it is variable capital,
> therefore
> >>capable o
RE: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
although i participate in pen-l, i am also on another email list of which i am the only member. at first i didn't feel that comfortable with it, but the conversation is generally congenial and flaming has been kept to a minimum (although i can get snippy at times). at one time i considered subbing under different names, but i felt that would be a bit devious. the traffic is fairly low as well, not like over at lbo, which fills up your mailbox until you get messages that your memory is being all used up! plus no automatic messages from Doug Henwood if I happen to send 4 posts in one 24 hour period. no sir! (although, thinking about it, I could probably get Doug's permission and have an auto-response from him--kind of like Carl Castle doing the message on your answering machine!)
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Well, of course, as regards the Ik, ceteris was not
paribus, apparently, whatever the accuracy of Trumbull's
accounts. In the original version I read, in fact the reported
breakdown of social relations occurred endogenously as
a response to a severe famine that led to the allegedly
ultra-selfish behavior of the tribal members. So, extreme
as they might be/were, they are not specifically a good
example.
However, the argument remains. If you had two
tribes similar in most background economic characteristics
such as climate and technology, etc., who differed greatly
on the levels of trust, reciprocity, etc., would you not expect
the more well internally integrated one to be better off in
terms of material standard of living, probably?
Of course some of the examples in the literature from
more modern economies beg some of the problems that
are raised about the whole concept, especially as regards
"good" (aka "bridging") versus "bad" (aka "bonding")
"social capital." Thus, James Coleman provided a
transactions cost example in the form of Hasidic Jewish
diamond merchants who trust each other with vast sums
in the form of diamonds on the basis of a handshake after
a quick verbal negotiation in Yiddish. Business is done
more easily and quickly than if long negotiations with paper
contracts and scads of lawyers are involved. But, there
trust is strictly limited to a narrow ingroup,"bonding s.c." and
maybe correlated with broader social problems if they have
conflicts with other groups, e.g. African Americans in Brooklyn.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 2:07 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8141] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>I was not that impressed with the QJE article. Also, the Ik story relies
>on Colin Trumbull, who was creative, but he made some of the stuff up just
>to tell a story.
>
>On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:30:36PM -0500, J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. wrote:
>> Mat,
>> OK, I'll play. Let us posit two ("primitive") societies
>> with no physical capital stock and no market capitalism
>> as we know it. However, let one have strong interpersonal
>> relations, established reciprocity channels, and lots of
>> interpersonal trust. Let the other be the Ik of Uganda, a
>> society arguably of nearly zero "social capital." Families
>> would abandon children at an early age; nobody trusts
>> anybody or helps anybody.
>> I have little doubt that both material production and the
>> general standard of living and quality of life will be substantially
>> higher in the first than in the second, ceteris paribus on such
>> things as climate, soil quality, etc.
>> BTW, a reference on growth rates and measures of
>> social capital is
>> S. Knack and P. Keefer, "Does social capital have an economic
>> payoff? A cross-country investigation," Quarterly Journal of
>> Economics, 1997, 112(4), 1251-1288.
>> The authors are political scientists. Interestingly they do
>> not support the Putnam argument that membership in civic
>> organizations is what matters. However, they do find strong
>> positive correlations between growth rates in OECD countries
>> (in multiple regressions) and "trust" levels as measured by
>> surveys and also measured levels of general "civic conduct."
>>With regard to Putnam, who likes bowling leagues,
>> bridge clubs, choral societies, and the like, I once heard him
>> give a talk in which he declared that there is a better than 90%
>> correlation between the level of memberships in choral societies
>> in the 1870s in Italian provinces and the economic growth rates
>> of those provinces in the 1980s. Whoop-de-doo!
>> Barkley Rosser
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 11:18 AM
>> Subject: [PEN-L:8131] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>>
>>
>> >Formalist anthropologists like Schneider often note this derivation in
>> >arguing that cattle are 'wealth' in pastoralist communities like the
>> Maasai.
>> >However, the only term in Maasai language that could be legitimately
(and
>> >even then only roughly) translated as 'wealthy person,' *olkarsis*,
>> >indicates a person with several children who need not have many cattle,
>> >while the word *oltetia* denotes one with many cattle but no children,
in
>> >Maasai society a person of little
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Jim, Actually in his most recent book Putnam devotes some time to responding to some of the original critics of his article called "Bowling Alone" that came out in 1995 and caused a stir and led to him blathering with the Clintons at Camp David before he started blathering with the Bush speechwriters and fbi'ers more recently. One of their criticisms (he lamented and laments declining membership in orgs, e.g. we bowl more, but bowl alone, not in leagues) was that he was not allowing for the growth of new groups such as environmental lobbying groups and the rise of internet discussion lists, chat rooms, etc. He allows as how there might be some social capital in such activities, but nevertheless downplays it. For him, if it is not face to face, it is not worth much. Thus, the enviro lobbyists have an office in Washington, but nobody knows anybody. We are all sitting here talking to each other but not going to lunch (or bowling) with our immediate colleagues. Of course the flip side is that many of us might not have met or gotten to know each other if it were not for these lists. So there, Bob Putnam! Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 1:54 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8139] Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital >At 01:30 PM 2/15/01 -0500, you wrote: >>With regard to Putnam, who likes bowling leagues, >>bridge clubs, choral societies, and the like, I once heard him >>give a talk in which he declared that there is a better than 90% >>correlation between the level of memberships in choral societies >>in the 1870s in Italian provinces and the economic growth rates >>of those provinces in the 1980s. Whoop-de-doo! > >so this means that by participating in pen-l, we're contributing to >economic growth (perhaps in a small way)? > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > >
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
At 01:30 PM 2/15/01 -0500, you wrote: >With regard to Putnam, who likes bowling leagues, >bridge clubs, choral societies, and the like, I once heard him >give a talk in which he declared that there is a better than 90% >correlation between the level of memberships in choral societies >in the 1870s in Italian provinces and the economic growth rates >of those provinces in the 1980s. Whoop-de-doo! so this means that by participating in pen-l, we're contributing to economic growth (perhaps in a small way)? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Mat,
OK, I'll play. Let us posit two ("primitive") societies
with no physical capital stock and no market capitalism
as we know it. However, let one have strong interpersonal
relations, established reciprocity channels, and lots of
interpersonal trust. Let the other be the Ik of Uganda, a
society arguably of nearly zero "social capital." Families
would abandon children at an early age; nobody trusts
anybody or helps anybody.
I have little doubt that both material production and the
general standard of living and quality of life will be substantially
higher in the first than in the second, ceteris paribus on such
things as climate, soil quality, etc.
BTW, a reference on growth rates and measures of
social capital is
S. Knack and P. Keefer, "Does social capital have an economic
payoff? A cross-country investigation," Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 1997, 112(4), 1251-1288.
The authors are political scientists. Interestingly they do
not support the Putnam argument that membership in civic
organizations is what matters. However, they do find strong
positive correlations between growth rates in OECD countries
(in multiple regressions) and "trust" levels as measured by
surveys and also measured levels of general "civic conduct."
With regard to Putnam, who likes bowling leagues,
bridge clubs, choral societies, and the like, I once heard him
give a talk in which he declared that there is a better than 90%
correlation between the level of memberships in choral societies
in the 1870s in Italian provinces and the economic growth rates
of those provinces in the 1980s. Whoop-de-doo!
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, February 15, 2001 11:18 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:8131] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>Formalist anthropologists like Schneider often note this derivation in
>arguing that cattle are 'wealth' in pastoralist communities like the
Maasai.
>However, the only term in Maasai language that could be legitimately (and
>even then only roughly) translated as 'wealthy person,' *olkarsis*,
>indicates a person with several children who need not have many cattle,
>while the word *oltetia* denotes one with many cattle but no children, in
>Maasai society a person of little influence and social standing. Note also
>there is no private property, nor 'ownership' in the sense of exclusive
>rights of any kind. Exchange never entails definitive alienation of a gift.
>There are a number of kinds of 'institutionalized sharing' however.
>
>We now see another contradiction, as we are faced with a situation in which
>there would be society's with 'social capital' but no other kind of
capital.
>Again, what is the usefulness of the term here?
>
>
>-Original Message-----
>From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:55 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:8116] Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>
>
> Speaking of the evolution of terms, the word
>capital itself originally meant a head of cattle in Latin.
>A pecus was just one cow, from which we get the
>word pecuniary, also Latin. I understand that the word
>fee is from faihu, Old German for a head of cattle.
>Barkley Rosser
>-Original Message-
>From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:31 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:8111] RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>
>
>>It reminds me of the evolution of the word "rent" in the 'discipline'.
Now
>>everything is "capital", and everyone gets ('seeks') "rents".
>>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:07 PM
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: [PEN-L:8110] Re: RE: Social Capital
>>
>>
>> Of course there is yet another annoying idea
>>floating around that indeed all factors of production
>>are just sub-species of capital, at least those that
>>are not just immediately used up in production.
>>The point is that their future returns can be capitalized
>>into a present value, even if like labor in a non-slave
>>society, they cannot be bought and sold as an asset.
>>This would certainly apply to land.
>> However, if somebody asks me for a source
>>where I have seen this stated, I am afraid I don't remember.
>>Barkley Rosser
>>-Original Message-
>>From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Formalist anthropologists like Schneider often note this derivation in
arguing that cattle are 'wealth' in pastoralist communities like the Maasai.
However, the only term in Maasai language that could be legitimately (and
even then only roughly) translated as 'wealthy person,' *olkarsis*,
indicates a person with several children who need not have many cattle,
while the word *oltetia* denotes one with many cattle but no children, in
Maasai society a person of little influence and social standing. Note also
there is no private property, nor 'ownership' in the sense of exclusive
rights of any kind. Exchange never entails definitive alienation of a gift.
There are a number of kinds of 'institutionalized sharing' however.
We now see another contradiction, as we are faced with a situation in which
there would be society's with 'social capital' but no other kind of capital.
Again, what is the usefulness of the term here?
-Original Message-
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:8116] Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Speaking of the evolution of terms, the word
capital itself originally meant a head of cattle in Latin.
A pecus was just one cow, from which we get the
word pecuniary, also Latin. I understand that the word
fee is from faihu, Old German for a head of cattle.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:31 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8111] RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>It reminds me of the evolution of the word "rent" in the 'discipline'. Now
>everything is "capital", and everyone gets ('seeks') "rents".
>
>-Original Message-
>From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:07 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:8110] Re: RE: Social Capital
>
>
> Of course there is yet another annoying idea
>floating around that indeed all factors of production
>are just sub-species of capital, at least those that
>are not just immediately used up in production.
>The point is that their future returns can be capitalized
>into a present value, even if like labor in a non-slave
>society, they cannot be bought and sold as an asset.
>This would certainly apply to land.
> However, if somebody asks me for a source
>where I have seen this stated, I am afraid I don't remember.
>Barkley Rosser
>-Original Message-
>From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:26 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:8105] RE: Social Capital
>
>
>>Let me see if I can think this through. (Maggie, it is just like Ross
>Thomson's
>>class our first semester at the New School. Tell me if I have remembered
>right).
>>
>>Let's think about the circuits of capital. M-C-M' can be broken down to
>be:
>>
>> -LP
>>M - C -MP (machines, tools,...P...C' - M'
>> natural resources)
>>
>>where M' = M + deltaM and M' > M (assuming realization at a profit)
>>
>>and C' > C that is, the value of the commodities produced is greater than
>the
>>value of the commodities purchased with the money capital initially.
>>
>>( M = money capital; C = commodities; LP is labor power; MP = means of
>>production; P is the production process)
>>
>>C is capital-value in the commodity form. P is the production process,
but
>the
>>combination of labor power and means of production in the production
>process is
>>also called the productive form of capital, or P. Also, C is made up of
>constant
>>capital and variable capital, the former which is means of production, the
>>latter which is labor power. Consumption of the constant and variable
>capital
>>results in the expanded value through its combination in the production
>process.
>>The new or surplus-value (s-v) is the difference between the value of the
>>commodity labor power and the value produced by that labor power; labor
>power
>>produces a value greater than its own value (which is equal to the value
of
>the
>>means of subsistence). The circuit therefore requires a specific social
>form of
>>production, in which some, capitalists, own the means of production, and
>others,
>>workers, possess only their own labor power. Thus workers are compelled to
>sell
>>their labor power to capitalists ("double freedom" requirement). This
>specific
>>social relation (capita
Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Speaking of the evolution of terms, the word
capital itself originally meant a head of cattle in Latin.
A pecus was just one cow, from which we get the
word pecuniary, also Latin. I understand that the word
fee is from faihu, Old German for a head of cattle.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 5:31 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8111] RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
>It reminds me of the evolution of the word "rent" in the 'discipline'. Now
>everything is "capital", and everyone gets ('seeks') "rents".
>
>-Original Message-
>From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:07 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:8110] Re: RE: Social Capital
>
>
> Of course there is yet another annoying idea
>floating around that indeed all factors of production
>are just sub-species of capital, at least those that
>are not just immediately used up in production.
>The point is that their future returns can be capitalized
>into a present value, even if like labor in a non-slave
>society, they cannot be bought and sold as an asset.
>This would certainly apply to land.
> However, if somebody asks me for a source
>where I have seen this stated, I am afraid I don't remember.
>Barkley Rosser
>-Original Message-
>From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:26 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:8105] RE: Social Capital
>
>
>>Let me see if I can think this through. (Maggie, it is just like Ross
>Thomson's
>>class our first semester at the New School. Tell me if I have remembered
>right).
>>
>>Let's think about the circuits of capital. M-C-M' can be broken down to
>be:
>>
>> -LP
>>M - C -MP (machines, tools,...P...C' - M'
>> natural resources)
>>
>>where M' = M + deltaM and M' > M (assuming realization at a profit)
>>
>>and C' > C that is, the value of the commodities produced is greater than
>the
>>value of the commodities purchased with the money capital initially.
>>
>>( M = money capital; C = commodities; LP is labor power; MP = means of
>>production; P is the production process)
>>
>>C is capital-value in the commodity form. P is the production process,
but
>the
>>combination of labor power and means of production in the production
>process is
>>also called the productive form of capital, or P. Also, C is made up of
>constant
>>capital and variable capital, the former which is means of production, the
>>latter which is labor power. Consumption of the constant and variable
>capital
>>results in the expanded value through its combination in the production
>process.
>>The new or surplus-value (s-v) is the difference between the value of the
>>commodity labor power and the value produced by that labor power; labor
>power
>>produces a value greater than its own value (which is equal to the value
of
>the
>>means of subsistence). The circuit therefore requires a specific social
>form of
>>production, in which some, capitalists, own the means of production, and
>others,
>>workers, possess only their own labor power. Thus workers are compelled to
>sell
>>their labor power to capitalists ("double freedom" requirement). This
>specific
>>social relation (capitalist: worker) is a pre-condition of the capital
>circuit,
>>and is itself reproduced by the process of the circuit.
>>
>>Now all this would seem to suggest that labor power is capital, it is a
>>form--one of the forms--that capital takes, when it is in its commodity
>form, C,
>>and its productive form, P. In addition, it is variable capital,
therefore
>>capable of self-expansion.
>>
>>But I think there are still some problems to be worked out here. My
>hesitation
>>about calling labor power "capital" is I think rooted in two broad areas
of
>>concern. One is the distinctiveness of labor power as a commodity. The
>other is
>>the distinctiveness of "capital goods," especially 'machine tools.' This
>would
>>take a long time to go into detail. Maybe I can summarize it later if
>anyone's
>>interested.
>>
>>But when I start to think about this, what becomes pretty clear is that
the
>idea
>>of 'social capital' would have been ripped to absolute shreds by Marx.
>Imagine
>>the venom he would spew, based on our
RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
It reminds me of the evolution of the word "rent" in the 'discipline'. Now
everything is "capital", and everyone gets ('seeks') "rents".
-Original Message-
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:8110] Re: RE: Social Capital
Of course there is yet another annoying idea
floating around that indeed all factors of production
are just sub-species of capital, at least those that
are not just immediately used up in production.
The point is that their future returns can be capitalized
into a present value, even if like labor in a non-slave
society, they cannot be bought and sold as an asset.
This would certainly apply to land.
However, if somebody asks me for a source
where I have seen this stated, I am afraid I don't remember.
Barkley Rosser
-Original Message-
From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 4:26 PM
Subject: [PEN-L:8105] RE: Social Capital
>Let me see if I can think this through. (Maggie, it is just like Ross
Thomson's
>class our first semester at the New School. Tell me if I have remembered
right).
>
>Let's think about the circuits of capital. M-C-M' can be broken down to
be:
>
> -LP
>M - C -MP (machines, tools,...P...C' - M'
> natural resources)
>
>where M' = M + deltaM and M' > M (assuming realization at a profit)
>
>and C' > C that is, the value of the commodities produced is greater than
the
>value of the commodities purchased with the money capital initially.
>
>( M = money capital; C = commodities; LP is labor power; MP = means of
>production; P is the production process)
>
>C is capital-value in the commodity form. P is the production process, but
the
>combination of labor power and means of production in the production
process is
>also called the productive form of capital, or P. Also, C is made up of
constant
>capital and variable capital, the former which is means of production, the
>latter which is labor power. Consumption of the constant and variable
capital
>results in the expanded value through its combination in the production
process.
>The new or surplus-value (s-v) is the difference between the value of the
>commodity labor power and the value produced by that labor power; labor
power
>produces a value greater than its own value (which is equal to the value of
the
>means of subsistence). The circuit therefore requires a specific social
form of
>production, in which some, capitalists, own the means of production, and
others,
>workers, possess only their own labor power. Thus workers are compelled to
sell
>their labor power to capitalists ("double freedom" requirement). This
specific
>social relation (capitalist: worker) is a pre-condition of the capital
circuit,
>and is itself reproduced by the process of the circuit.
>
>Now all this would seem to suggest that labor power is capital, it is a
>form--one of the forms--that capital takes, when it is in its commodity
form, C,
>and its productive form, P. In addition, it is variable capital, therefore
>capable of self-expansion.
>
>But I think there are still some problems to be worked out here. My
hesitation
>about calling labor power "capital" is I think rooted in two broad areas of
>concern. One is the distinctiveness of labor power as a commodity. The
other is
>the distinctiveness of "capital goods," especially 'machine tools.' This
would
>take a long time to go into detail. Maybe I can summarize it later if
anyone's
>interested.
>
>But when I start to think about this, what becomes pretty clear is that the
idea
>of 'social capital' would have been ripped to absolute shreds by Marx.
Imagine
>the venom he would spew, based on our familiarity with the way he dealt
with
>things like Senior's Last Hour and Malthus's population theory, etc. The
other
>thing that comes to mind is that if they ever let me teach micro again (I
was
>absolutely not allowed to teach micro at Gettysburg in no uncertain terms!
They
>did let me teach it at Bard. I haven't here at UMKC yet), this is what I am
>going to teach. What's the best thing to use, still Sweezy's Theory of
>Capitalist Development, or the old basic guides to Marx by Foley (too
advanced),
>B. Fine, L. Harris, Mandel? Then use some of the Hartman and Folbre
materials
>that brings in patriarchy into it?
>
>Mat
>
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2001 12:46 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:8089] Social Capital
>
>
>Let me hasten to say that I agree with you. I got a bit caught up in trying
to
>think out the terminological puzzle you posed, but I think maybe your main
point
>was the issue of the confusion that specifically "social capital" as a term
and
>concept poses for cogent analysis of capital.
>
>I think that Marx ( and Marxists) might want to give the negative
connotation
>that you are comm
Re: RE: Re: Re: Social Capital
Mat, But, if my recommending you to be published occurs in response to your having previously recommended that I be published, then this may be the payoff of a social reciprocity relation, certainly a cashing in of social capital in the Bourdieu sense, if not in the Loury/Coleman/Putnam sense. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 6:35 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8064] RE: Re: Re: Social Capital >couldn't this all lead to some reductio absurdisms. food is necessary to live. >if i'm dead i can't work. so food is capital! i ride my bike to work. it's >capital! someone turned on the radio at work and i heard a good song and started >whistling and working faster. it's capital! barkley recommended to an editor to >publish one of my articles. barkley's capital! > >of course, social relationships are important, social institutions are >important. and whoever said that, more or less, "social capital" is >repetitive--all capital is social--has a good point. > > >-Original Message- >From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:04 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:8060] Re: Re: Social Capital > > > Well, of course in a very crude sense, what >yuppies call "networking" may well be simply a >matter of accumulating social capital. Certainly >to the extent that such networking leads not only >to "contacts," but to mutual backscratching and >quid pro quos. The latter certainly look like social >capital in the Bourdieu reciprocity sense. >Barkley Rosser >-Original Message- >From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:47 PM >Subject: [PEN-L:8058] Re: Social Capital > > >>Isn't everything social to begin with, so may be >>social represents the category of totality. hence, in >>the beginning there was social being and social >>consciousness where the former reflects man's material >>relation with nature etc.. and the latter how one >>expresses those relations. My immediate understanding >>of social capital is not business like, ie that the >>more people one knows the more social capital one >>acquires. my understanding of it is the sum total >>society's accumulated wealth (namely commodities) but >>also including the social cost of the reproduction of >>the labour force, which generally includes the >>non-re-numerated domestic economy. Human capital >>represents a bastardization of the latter concept in >>the sense that it commodifies certain human qualities >>that are a product of the re-numerated market and >>cheapens the rest of the social cost associated with >>the formation of the labour force. i have heard some >>argue for a pay rate associated with birthing labour >>time, is this not human capital. so to end, everything >>is social and so is capital which is in the process of >>self differentiation in particular aspects of itself >>under capitalism, ie organic constant variable. if one >>says otherwise and gave life to things and allowed >>things to dictate the development of man then, i do >>not want to sound repetitive here, then to use the f >>word "fetishism" places primacy on the development of >>the means of production outside a specific social >>relation. that cannot be .. well certainly in Marxism. >>--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>wrote: >>> CB:Not so much disagreeing with Barkley ( since this >>> is a something of a "social "free association >>> discussion ), but in Marx's sense, aren't all >>> capitals commodities ? Labor power is a commodity. >>> >>> Investing in labor power by going to college is a >>> form of training in Marx's scheme. Trained labor >>> adds more value per time to the commodity than >>> untrained labor >>> >>> >>> To Mat : >>> >>> On Jim's comment about Marxian terminology, money >>> capital is required to >>> purchase labor-power. So that portion of capital is >>> variable capital, but labor >>> power itself is not capital. Yes? >>> >>> CB: Labor power is a commodity in Marx's scheme , >>> does that make it conceptually "capitalizable", or a >>> necessary factor in the capital relation ? >>> >>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 02:33PM >>>
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Jim, So, you prefer "salience" to "social capital"? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 10:05 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8073] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital >At 08:45 PM 02/13/2001 -0500, you wrote: >>Mat, >> Actually we may be about to see a bunch >>of economists trying to pigeonhole this idea >>into more standard contexts. Expect game >>theory (evolution of cooperation). Expect >>minimizing transactions costs in new institutional >>contexts. I have no doubt the Ph.D. theses are >>cranking as we speak now, to be modified by >>their committees to fit orthodoxy. The publications >>have just begun to spew out. >> > >for what it's worth, this stuff about "social capital" (along with >communitarianism) appears in my recent article in POLITICS & SOCIETY (which >appears at my web-site -- at http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/hlr.html ), >though I am highly critical of it and I don't use the hated phrase "social >capital." It's a formal model, by the way, though a lot of the gnarly parts >appear only in my on-line appendix. > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine > >
Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
At 02:07 PM 2/13/01 -0600, you wrote:
>I should make clear, if my earlier post did not, that my problem is with the
>word "capital." Capital is very important to the study of capitalism (duh) and
>we can't just go throwing it around all over.
Assassinating Bourdieu would be the quickest end. I suspect he is behind
the profusion ("social capital" included).
Ben
RE: Re: Re: Social Capital
> - Original Message - > From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:46 PM > Subject: [PEN-L:8058] Re: Social Capital > > Everything is social to begin with? What is that supposed to mean.? > In the beginning God made the social and saw that it was good and > the represenation of TOTALITY. Why not Thales' view that in the beginning > was water the totality that became air, and earth etc > At least Thales view is not some intellectual gobbledygook and is > materialist ( or may be) to boot. > > Also if everything is social how can there be a social being which reflects > man's material relation with nature. There must at least be nature and man > above and beyond the social or u have a circular conception since man and > nature must also be social.. And what of the lakes, streams, rocks, blah > blah...are they social too... > CHeers, Ken Hanly * Kinda like Whitehead's society of occasions in nested hierarchies? :-) Ian
Re: Re: Re: Re: Social Capital
Michael Perelman wrote: > > Once you leave the realm of Adam Smith's beaver and deer, everything gets > fuzzy. I mentioned goodwill as another example. While a piece of > software used as capital may resemble a machine more than Mickey Mouse, on > the accountant's books such distinctions can disappear. Which is one of the reasons (as Jim observed in citing Ollman) to keep the focus on _relations_, not _thingsa_. The latter focus, which degenerates into various forms of positivism & vulgar idealism (empiricism) is both fuzzy & has little grip on living human activity. Carrol
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
At 08:45 PM 02/13/2001 -0500, you wrote: >Mat, > Actually we may be about to see a bunch >of economists trying to pigeonhole this idea >into more standard contexts. Expect game >theory (evolution of cooperation). Expect >minimizing transactions costs in new institutional >contexts. I have no doubt the Ph.D. theses are >cranking as we speak now, to be modified by >their committees to fit orthodoxy. The publications >have just begun to spew out. > for what it's worth, this stuff about "social capital" (along with communitarianism) appears in my recent article in POLITICS & SOCIETY (which appears at my web-site -- at http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/hlr.html ), though I am highly critical of it and I don't use the hated phrase "social capital." It's a formal model, by the way, though a lot of the gnarly parts appear only in my on-line appendix. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: Re: Re: Social Capital
Has anybody noticed that "faith-based initiatives" have the initials FBI? Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Michael Pugliese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8:13 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8068] Re: Re: Social Capital >http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/Bush.html > > >--- - > > >For an opportunity to discuss the article, go to our eCircles site. > >The Washington Post >February 1, 2001, Thursday, Final Edition >SECTION A; Pg. A01 >http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10634-2001Jan31.html > >Needed: Catchword For Bush Ideology; 'Communitarianism' Finds Favor >Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writer > >It's been difficult to pin an ideological tail on the nascent Bush White >House. One day the president is called a staunch conservative for nominating >John D. Ashcroft to run the Justice Department and acting to restrict U.S. >funding to overseas groups that support abortions. The next he's labeled a >bleeding heart for helping prisoners' children and promoting literacy >programs. > >The problem, some Bush advisers and friends say, is that conventional >political definitions do not adequately explain what the president is trying >to do. His actions have less to do with the left vs. right, they say, than >with his embrace of many of the ideas contained in the movement known as >"communitarianism," which places the importance of society ahead of the >unfettered rights of the individual. > >"This is the ultimate Third Way," said Don Eberly, an adviser in the Bush >White House, using a favorite phrase of President Bill Clinton, who also >sought, largely unsuccessfully, to redefine the debate with an alternative >to the liberal-conservative conflict. "The debate in this town the last >eight years was how to forge a compromise on the role of the state and the >market. This is a new way to rethink social policy: a major reigniting of >interest in the social sector." > >"Communitarianism," or "civil society" thinking (the two have similar >meanings) has many interpretations, but at its center is a notion that years >of celebrating individual freedom have weakened the bonds of community and >that the rights of the individual must be balanced against the interests of >society as a whole. Inherent in the philosophy is a return to values and >morality, which, the school of thought believes, can best be fostered by >community organizations. "We need to connect with one another. We've got to >move a little more in the direction of community in the balance between >community and the individual," said Robert D. Putnam of Harvard University, >a leading communitarian thinker. > >Many of Bush's early proposals fit this approach. This week, Bush moved to >make it easier for the government to fund religious groups that cater to the >poor and disadvantaged. He also gave a boost to AmeriCorps, the national >service program that sends volunteers to help community initiatives. Last >week, Bush rolled out an education plan that gave localities more authority >over their schools. A week earlier, he spoke of the need for character >education in schools. Even his tax plan, due next week, has what are touted >as community-building elements: a new charitable tax credit, a charitable >deduction for those who don't itemize, and a reduction of the marriage >penalty. > >Bush's inaugural address, said George Washington University professor Amitai >Etzioni, a communitarian thinker, "was a communitarian text," full of words >like "civility," "responsibility" and "community." That's no accident: >Bush's advisers consulted on the speech with Putnam. At the same time, Bush >has recruited some of the leading thinkers of the "civil society," or >"communitarian," movements to his White House: former Indianapolis mayor >Stephen Goldsmith, University of Pennsylvania professor John DiIulio, >fatherhood advocate Eberly, speechwriters Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner. >Even Lawrence B. Lindsey, long before becoming Bush's economics adviser, was >a Federal Reserve governor who explored ways to lure capital to rebuild poor >urban communities. > >"It all hangs together," said Goldsmith, this week assigned by Bush to help >lead AmeriCorps and the new community-building effort. Might the civil >society or communitarian label be the element that ties Bush's polices >together? "I don't think it's reading too much into it," Goldsmith said. >"This is the president, this is what animates him." > >Some of Bush's ideas are objectionable to civil liberties advocates and >strict constitutionalists on the left and the right, but they have broad >support in both parties. Exhibit A was the appearance Tuesday of Sen. Joseph >I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) at a Bush event touting his "faith-based" efforts. >"The new president has some promising instincts and there are some promising >examples," said William Galston, a communitarian thi
RE: Re: Re: Social Capital
> Well, of course in a very crude sense, what > yuppies call "networking" may well be simply a > matter of accumulating social capital. Certainly > to the extent that such networking leads not only > to "contacts," but to mutual backscratching and > quid pro quos. The latter certainly look like social > capital in the Bourdieu reciprocity sense. > Barkley Rosser Networking is crony capitalism, period. There's a saying amongst young college graduates who find themselves working shit jobs in big cities despite flawless resumes; "it's not what you know, it's who you know". I've heard this from the mouth of Harvard grads. who were fed up with "waiting their turn" because of the talent glut of those who weren't socially hyper savvy in school. Ian
Re: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Mat, Actually we may be about to see a bunch of economists trying to pigeonhole this idea into more standard contexts. Expect game theory (evolution of cooperation). Expect minimizing transactions costs in new institutional contexts. I have no doubt the Ph.D. theses are cranking as we speak now, to be modified by their committees to fit orthodoxy. The publications have just begun to spew out. Indeed, this was part of Durlauf's criticism of Putnam's book. The concept is poorly specified in terms of standard economics models. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 6:25 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8063] Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital >Mat, > On the grounds of the questions you ask, I >think you would not be unhappy with (most) of >the social capital theorists. They are not >enamored of rational individuals. They tend >not to play up the primacy of individuals in >either input or output terms. But then, it must >be kept in mind that a great deal of the theorizing >in this area is being done by sociologists and >political scientists rather than economists. The >economists doing it are more likely to fall into >the sins that you wish to expunge. >Barkley Rosser >-Original Message- >From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:52 PM >Subject: [PEN-L:8062] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital > > >>Barkley- All very interesting. I know of Bordieu, but I admit I tried to >start >>reading some of his stuff a few times and just couldn't get into it. Either >I >>couldn't understand it or whatever. The big influences on me were the >French >>Marxist structuralist anthropologists like Pierre Bonte--Godelier, Rey, >Terray >>are the names most people would know, although I had some differences with >their >>stuff. My teacher and the person who got me to study Marx seriously and go >into >>economics was the late Peter Rigby, who wrote Persistent Pastoralists and >>Cattle, Capitalism, and Class and some other earlier books, plus a very >>interesting slim volume at the end of his life called African Images: >Racism and >>the End of Anthropology. I have no problems with the ideas of reciprocity, >>other redistributive institutions, and so on. And of course the importance >of >>social fabric, social institutions, social relationships, etc. >> >>Let's see if we can pin down what's bugging me. Some questions: >> >>1) Do the social capital theorists see individuals as "rational"? >> >>2) Do they view individuals (and subjectivity) as prior the social? >> >>3) Is the social the outcome of individual action (as in some 'new' >>institutionalist stuff)? >> >>Let's start there. >> >>Mat >> >> >>-Original Message- >>From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:08 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: [PEN-L:8053] Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital >> >> >>Mat, >> Actually among the very first users of the term >>"social capital" was a very non-formalist anthropologist, >>Pierre Bourdieu, in his _Outline of a Theory of Practice_, >>English translation, 1977, original French version, 1972. >>His usage was somewhat different from the current >>Putnam et al social communitarian usage. He thought of >>it in terms of what might be called "social debt," as in >>"they had us over for dinner, now we owe them a dinner." >>Classical anthropologists viewed this as reciprocity, and >>it was especially studied by the French, e.g. Marcel Mauss >>in his _The Gift_, who was an influence on Bourdieu. >> Bourdieu used it to study "primitive" societies (not his >>term) in which one would give gifts in order to accumulate >>such social capital from one's tribal compatriots. Thus, the >>extreme version of this was the potlatch of the Northwest >>American Indians who gave competing feasts in which they >>gave away stuff. Great social (capital?) advantage would >>accrue to the one who gave away the most stuff. >> The main strand in the US comes out of the neoconservatives >>and focused on social relations in cities. Putnam cites as the >>original usage of the term a superintendent of education in >>West Virginia in 1919 (forget his name). Then there were some >>Canadian sociologists in the 1950s, forget
RE: Re: Re: Social Capital
couldn't this all lead to some reductio absurdisms. food is necessary to live. if i'm dead i can't work. so food is capital! i ride my bike to work. it's capital! someone turned on the radio at work and i heard a good song and started whistling and working faster. it's capital! barkley recommended to an editor to publish one of my articles. barkley's capital! of course, social relationships are important, social institutions are important. and whoever said that, more or less, "social capital" is repetitive--all capital is social--has a good point. -Original Message- From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8060] Re: Re: Social Capital Well, of course in a very crude sense, what yuppies call "networking" may well be simply a matter of accumulating social capital. Certainly to the extent that such networking leads not only to "contacts," but to mutual backscratching and quid pro quos. The latter certainly look like social capital in the Bourdieu reciprocity sense. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: ALI KADRI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:47 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8058] Re: Social Capital >Isn't everything social to begin with, so may be >social represents the category of totality. hence, in >the beginning there was social being and social >consciousness where the former reflects man's material >relation with nature etc.. and the latter how one >expresses those relations. My immediate understanding >of social capital is not business like, ie that the >more people one knows the more social capital one >acquires. my understanding of it is the sum total >society's accumulated wealth (namely commodities) but >also including the social cost of the reproduction of >the labour force, which generally includes the >non-re-numerated domestic economy. Human capital >represents a bastardization of the latter concept in >the sense that it commodifies certain human qualities >that are a product of the re-numerated market and >cheapens the rest of the social cost associated with >the formation of the labour force. i have heard some >argue for a pay rate associated with birthing labour >time, is this not human capital. so to end, everything >is social and so is capital which is in the process of >self differentiation in particular aspects of itself >under capitalism, ie organic constant variable. if one >says otherwise and gave life to things and allowed >things to dictate the development of man then, i do >not want to sound repetitive here, then to use the f >word "fetishism" places primacy on the development of >the means of production outside a specific social >relation. that cannot be .. well certainly in Marxism. >--- Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >> CB:Not so much disagreeing with Barkley ( since this >> is a something of a "social "free association >> discussion ), but in Marx's sense, aren't all >> capitals commodities ? Labor power is a commodity. >> >> Investing in labor power by going to college is a >> form of training in Marx's scheme. Trained labor >> adds more value per time to the commodity than >> untrained labor >> >> >> To Mat : >> >> On Jim's comment about Marxian terminology, money >> capital is required to >> purchase labor-power. So that portion of capital is >> variable capital, but labor >> power itself is not capital. Yes? >> >> CB: Labor power is a commodity in Marx's scheme , >> does that make it conceptually "capitalizable", or a >> necessary factor in the capital relation ? >> >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 02:33PM >>> >> Actually, one of the conceptual problems with >> social capital as compared with human capital >> is that there is no commodification of it. One can >> borrow money to go to college, thus "investing" >> (in both time and money) in one's human capital >> (potential). And in slavery, there is outright >> human >> capital in the buying and selling of human beings, >> although masters tend to limit their investment in >> the human capital of their slaves for fear that they >> will either escape or revolt. >>But, how does one commidify "trust" or >> "community"? >> Barkley Rosser >> -Original Message- >> From: Charles Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 1:44 PM >> Subject: [PEN-L:8034] Social Capital >> >> >> > >> > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/13/01 01:01PM >>> >> >At 10:20 AM 2/13/01 -0600, you wrote: >> >> have a problem with the term "social capital." >> First, in economics they >> are >> >>already using the term "human capital" for labor >> power, with rational >> >>individuals "investing" to seek maximum return >> over time, etc. Lester >> Thurow >> >>actually pointed out some of the problems with >> this years ago, but in any >> >>case, >> >>now we have "natural c
Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Mat, On the grounds of the questions you ask, I think you would not be unhappy with (most) of the social capital theorists. They are not enamored of rational individuals. They tend not to play up the primacy of individuals in either input or output terms. But then, it must be kept in mind that a great deal of the theorizing in this area is being done by sociologists and political scientists rather than economists. The economists doing it are more likely to fall into the sins that you wish to expunge. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 5:52 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8062] RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital >Barkley- All very interesting. I know of Bordieu, but I admit I tried to start >reading some of his stuff a few times and just couldn't get into it. Either I >couldn't understand it or whatever. The big influences on me were the French >Marxist structuralist anthropologists like Pierre Bonte--Godelier, Rey, Terray >are the names most people would know, although I had some differences with their >stuff. My teacher and the person who got me to study Marx seriously and go into >economics was the late Peter Rigby, who wrote Persistent Pastoralists and >Cattle, Capitalism, and Class and some other earlier books, plus a very >interesting slim volume at the end of his life called African Images: Racism and >the End of Anthropology. I have no problems with the ideas of reciprocity, >other redistributive institutions, and so on. And of course the importance of >social fabric, social institutions, social relationships, etc. > >Let's see if we can pin down what's bugging me. Some questions: > >1) Do the social capital theorists see individuals as "rational"? > >2) Do they view individuals (and subjectivity) as prior the social? > >3) Is the social the outcome of individual action (as in some 'new' >institutionalist stuff)? > >Let's start there. > >Mat > > >-Original Message- >From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:08 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [PEN-L:8053] Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital > > >Mat, > Actually among the very first users of the term >"social capital" was a very non-formalist anthropologist, >Pierre Bourdieu, in his _Outline of a Theory of Practice_, >English translation, 1977, original French version, 1972. >His usage was somewhat different from the current >Putnam et al social communitarian usage. He thought of >it in terms of what might be called "social debt," as in >"they had us over for dinner, now we owe them a dinner." >Classical anthropologists viewed this as reciprocity, and >it was especially studied by the French, e.g. Marcel Mauss >in his _The Gift_, who was an influence on Bourdieu. > Bourdieu used it to study "primitive" societies (not his >term) in which one would give gifts in order to accumulate >such social capital from one's tribal compatriots. Thus, the >extreme version of this was the potlatch of the Northwest >American Indians who gave competing feasts in which they >gave away stuff. Great social (capital?) advantage would >accrue to the one who gave away the most stuff. > The main strand in the US comes out of the neoconservatives >and focused on social relations in cities. Putnam cites as the >original usage of the term a superintendent of education in >West Virginia in 1919 (forget his name). Then there were some >Canadian sociologists in the 1950s, forget their usage. But, >then in 1961 Jane Jacobs used it in her _The Life and Death >of American Cities_ in a very current context, informal social >networks that can make it easier to carry out economic activity. > The main direct stream of influence, however, came from a >1977 paper by the neocon, Glenn Loury, who used it to supposedly >explain black ghetto poverty. Poor urban blacks were supposedly >poor because they lacked social capital. James Coleman picked >it up in his 1990 _Foundations of Social Theory_ (Harvard >University Press), and Putnam, who is a political scientist at >Harvard, got it from there. It played a major role in his 1993 >_Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy_ >(Princeton University Press), which was a major smash hit. >In a nutshell, Northern Italy is doing much better than Southern >Italy because it has a lot more social capital. >Barkley Rosser >-Original Message- >From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:08 PM >Subject:
RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Barkley- All very interesting. I know of Bordieu, but I admit I tried to start reading some of his stuff a few times and just couldn't get into it. Either I couldn't understand it or whatever. The big influences on me were the French Marxist structuralist anthropologists like Pierre Bonte--Godelier, Rey, Terray are the names most people would know, although I had some differences with their stuff. My teacher and the person who got me to study Marx seriously and go into economics was the late Peter Rigby, who wrote Persistent Pastoralists and Cattle, Capitalism, and Class and some other earlier books, plus a very interesting slim volume at the end of his life called African Images: Racism and the End of Anthropology. I have no problems with the ideas of reciprocity, other redistributive institutions, and so on. And of course the importance of social fabric, social institutions, social relationships, etc. Let's see if we can pin down what's bugging me. Some questions: 1) Do the social capital theorists see individuals as "rational"? 2) Do they view individuals (and subjectivity) as prior the social? 3) Is the social the outcome of individual action (as in some 'new' institutionalist stuff)? Let's start there. Mat -Original Message- From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8053] Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital Mat, Actually among the very first users of the term "social capital" was a very non-formalist anthropologist, Pierre Bourdieu, in his _Outline of a Theory of Practice_, English translation, 1977, original French version, 1972. His usage was somewhat different from the current Putnam et al social communitarian usage. He thought of it in terms of what might be called "social debt," as in "they had us over for dinner, now we owe them a dinner." Classical anthropologists viewed this as reciprocity, and it was especially studied by the French, e.g. Marcel Mauss in his _The Gift_, who was an influence on Bourdieu. Bourdieu used it to study "primitive" societies (not his term) in which one would give gifts in order to accumulate such social capital from one's tribal compatriots. Thus, the extreme version of this was the potlatch of the Northwest American Indians who gave competing feasts in which they gave away stuff. Great social (capital?) advantage would accrue to the one who gave away the most stuff. The main strand in the US comes out of the neoconservatives and focused on social relations in cities. Putnam cites as the original usage of the term a superintendent of education in West Virginia in 1919 (forget his name). Then there were some Canadian sociologists in the 1950s, forget their usage. But, then in 1961 Jane Jacobs used it in her _The Life and Death of American Cities_ in a very current context, informal social networks that can make it easier to carry out economic activity. The main direct stream of influence, however, came from a 1977 paper by the neocon, Glenn Loury, who used it to supposedly explain black ghetto poverty. Poor urban blacks were supposedly poor because they lacked social capital. James Coleman picked it up in his 1990 _Foundations of Social Theory_ (Harvard University Press), and Putnam, who is a political scientist at Harvard, got it from there. It played a major role in his 1993 _Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy_ (Princeton University Press), which was a major smash hit. In a nutshell, Northern Italy is doing much better than Southern Italy because it has a lot more social capital. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:08 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8040] RE: Re: RE: Social Capital >I should make clear, if my earlier post did not, that my problem is with the >word "capital." Capital is very important to the study of capitalism (duh) and >we can't just go throwing it around all over. It also is repulsive to see >capital=good, which is implied in a lot of this stuff. There is also the problem >of using all these "analogies" like "investing", etc. This is what formalist >anthropology started doing (e.g., my personal favorite to hate, Harold K. >Schneider), so it is a very short step to all activity through time and space >described by Principles of Neoclassical Microeconomics. When you compare that >development to the efforts to develop a non-deterministic Marxian framework, it >is the neoclassicals who end up being the real economic determinists. > >On Jim's comment about Marxian terminology, money capital is required to >purchase labor-power. So that portion of capital is variable capital, but labor >power itself is not capital. Yes? > >
Re: RE: Re: Social Capital
Mat wrote:
>labor power is a commodity. that is different than labor power being
>capital. a commodity is anything bought and sold in a market. the money
>used to purchase labor power is part of the total capital. but labor power
>is not capital. right?
labor-power _becomes_ part of capital ("variable capital") under
capitalism. In fact, if one views "capital" that produces profit, then for
Marx, variable capital might be seen as the only _true_ capital, since only
the exploitation of labor produces profit (surplus-value).
in a different message, Mat wrote:
>capital goods are commodities but not all commodities are capital.
right. see above.
>also, all capital goods are reproducible means of production, but not all
>reproducible means of production are capital goods. a reproducible means
>of production only becomes capital when it is used to produce commodities,
>that is, when it is used to produce goods for sale in a market. that is
>(one of the reasons) why I object to tools used by hunter-gathering
>peoples being called capital.
I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time quibbling about
definitions, but to be consistent with Marx it may be that reproducible
means of production only become capital when they are used not only to
produce commodities but to help extract surplus-value from labor-power. I
don't know if Marx was totally consistent here or not.
BTW, I think I understand "social capital," though I don't like the term at
all and won't use it without scare quotes. The idea is that a community
infrastructure of values and trust is needed (for stability, growth,
capital accumulation). If we consider infrastructure (roads, etc.) to be
"capital" even though they are not commodities, we can consider values and
trust to be so, too. This fits, BTW, with the so-called "new" growth
theory, which emphasizes the role of external economies in promoting
economic growth.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
Mat, Actually among the very first users of the term "social capital" was a very non-formalist anthropologist, Pierre Bourdieu, in his _Outline of a Theory of Practice_, English translation, 1977, original French version, 1972. His usage was somewhat different from the current Putnam et al social communitarian usage. He thought of it in terms of what might be called "social debt," as in "they had us over for dinner, now we owe them a dinner." Classical anthropologists viewed this as reciprocity, and it was especially studied by the French, e.g. Marcel Mauss in his _The Gift_, who was an influence on Bourdieu. Bourdieu used it to study "primitive" societies (not his term) in which one would give gifts in order to accumulate such social capital from one's tribal compatriots. Thus, the extreme version of this was the potlatch of the Northwest American Indians who gave competing feasts in which they gave away stuff. Great social (capital?) advantage would accrue to the one who gave away the most stuff. The main strand in the US comes out of the neoconservatives and focused on social relations in cities. Putnam cites as the original usage of the term a superintendent of education in West Virginia in 1919 (forget his name). Then there were some Canadian sociologists in the 1950s, forget their usage. But, then in 1961 Jane Jacobs used it in her _The Life and Death of American Cities_ in a very current context, informal social networks that can make it easier to carry out economic activity. The main direct stream of influence, however, came from a 1977 paper by the neocon, Glenn Loury, who used it to supposedly explain black ghetto poverty. Poor urban blacks were supposedly poor because they lacked social capital. James Coleman picked it up in his 1990 _Foundations of Social Theory_ (Harvard University Press), and Putnam, who is a political scientist at Harvard, got it from there. It played a major role in his 1993 _Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy_ (Princeton University Press), which was a major smash hit. In a nutshell, Northern Italy is doing much better than Southern Italy because it has a lot more social capital. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: Forstater, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 3:08 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8040] RE: Re: RE: Social Capital >I should make clear, if my earlier post did not, that my problem is with the >word "capital." Capital is very important to the study of capitalism (duh) and >we can't just go throwing it around all over. It also is repulsive to see >capital=good, which is implied in a lot of this stuff. There is also the problem >of using all these "analogies" like "investing", etc. This is what formalist >anthropology started doing (e.g., my personal favorite to hate, Harold K. >Schneider), so it is a very short step to all activity through time and space >described by Principles of Neoclassical Microeconomics. When you compare that >development to the efforts to develop a non-deterministic Marxian framework, it >is the neoclassicals who end up being the real economic determinists. > >On Jim's comment about Marxian terminology, money capital is required to >purchase labor-power. So that portion of capital is variable capital, but labor >power itself is not capital. Yes? > >
Re: Re: Re: Social Capital
Once you leave the realm of Adam Smith's beaver and deer, everything gets fuzzy. I mentioned goodwill as another example. While a piece of software used as capital may resemble a machine more than Mickey Mouse, on the accountant's books such distinctions can disappear. On Tue, Feb 13, 2001 at 04:34:11PM -0500, Doug Henwood wrote: > Michael Perelman wrote: > > >With the increasing importance of intellectual property, economics is > >rapidly rethinking what is and what is not capital. The inclusion of > >software as a capital expense is indicative of the reconceptualization of > >capital. > > Don't you agree that there's something qualitatively different > between, say, a piece of software and Mickey Mouse? Software is dead > labor that can leverage the power of living labor; Mickey is an icon > that can seduce people to part with their money, but doesn't have > much effect on the productivity of labor. > > Doug > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Social Capital
Christian, Hmmm, interesting. That might count, although it is somewhat different from the usual definitions imposed by the social capitalists. But, it might fit. The big difference is that usually the social capital crowd emphasizes specific interpersonal relations, not trust in an organization per se. Barkley Rosser -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 4:13 PM Subject: [PEN-L:8052] Re: Re: Social Capital > >jbr wrote: > >>But, how does one commidify "trust" or >>"community"? > >Corporate "goodwill" is close to this, no? It is frequently understood to be the "good name" of a company above and beyond the book value of its combined assets. It is frequently recorded on balance sheets (and even depreciated), and accounted for in M&A transactions. > >Christian > >
Re: Re: Re: Re: Social Capital
At 03:05 PM 2/13/01 -0500, Doug wrote: >Jim Devine wrote: > >>isn't this what Clinton called "triangulation," using the other major >>party's rhetoric and programs to justify one's own programs? And should >>the Dem/GOP overlap be surprising, given how similar the two parties are? >> >>At 01:43 PM 2/13/01 -0500, you wrote: >>> Anyway, apparently the communitarian social capitalists >>>have gotten to Bush. Reportedly the speechwriters for his >>>inaugural address consulted at length with Putnam. That is >>>why the speech was crawling with discussions of "civic >>>responsibilitym," etc. I gather that the head of the Faith Based >>>Initiatives project, DeIiulio (check out the four vowels in a row >>>in that name), is a member of Putnam's network and a card- >>>carrying Democrat. > >Jim, can you fix your attributions to specify who wrote what you quote, >rather than the frustratingly anonymous "you"? Who, in this specific case, >is "you"? I missed it first time around. okay. It was Barkley who was the "you" above. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
RE: Re: RE: Social Capital
I should make clear, if my earlier post did not, that my problem is with the word "capital." Capital is very important to the study of capitalism (duh) and we can't just go throwing it around all over. It also is repulsive to see capital=good, which is implied in a lot of this stuff. There is also the problem of using all these "analogies" like "investing", etc. This is what formalist anthropology started doing (e.g., my personal favorite to hate, Harold K. Schneider), so it is a very short step to all activity through time and space described by Principles of Neoclassical Microeconomics. When you compare that development to the efforts to develop a non-deterministic Marxian framework, it is the neoclassicals who end up being the real economic determinists. On Jim's comment about Marxian terminology, money capital is required to purchase labor-power. So that portion of capital is variable capital, but labor power itself is not capital. Yes?
Re: Re: Re: Social Capital
Jim Devine wrote: >isn't this what Clinton called "triangulation," using the other >major party's rhetoric and programs to justify one's own programs? >And should the Dem/GOP overlap be surprising, given how similar the >two parties are? > >At 01:43 PM 2/13/01 -0500, you wrote: >> Anyway, apparently the communitarian social capitalists >>have gotten to Bush. Reportedly the speechwriters for his >>inaugural address consulted at length with Putnam. That is >>why the speech was crawling with discussions of "civic >>responsibilitym," etc. I gather that the head of the Faith Based >>Initiatives project, DeIiulio (check out the four vowels in a row >>in that name), is a member of Putnam's network and a card- >>carrying Democrat. Jim, can you fix your attributions to specify who wrote what you quote, rather than the frustratingly anonymous "you"? Who, in this specific case, is "you"? I missed it first time around. Doug
Re: Re: RE: Social Capital
Jim Devine mentioned the wierdness of human capital. Here is a short section from Class Warfare in the Information Age. In order to come to grips with this expanded vision of the labor force, economists devised a new concept. Specifically, they invented a new resource, which they called, "human capital," a theoretical quantity, which is supposed to reflect the effect of the education and experience of a worker. Thus, human capital is separate from and in addition to the conception of the worker as a basic mechanical device. You may find the idea of human capital to be a bit weird. I do. Certainly, the language is wonderfully ambiguous, mixing the idea of "human" with capital -- an obviously inhuman concept. According to the imagery of human capital, we have a mix of the "human" aspect of labor -- which, ironically, is comparable to the earlier inhuman vision of labor as a pair of hands or arms -- together with an inhuman or capital part -- reflecting education and experience, aspects of life that we normally associate with a humanizing influence.Does the human being somehow give life to the capital? Or perhaps we should say that the concept of human capital dehumanizes humans to the level of capital. In order to be fully human, a person must enjoy ownership of a significant quantity of this particular form of capital. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
