Social Capital: Capitalising Human Relations

that make the former’s mobility possible, which Urry (2007) named “mobility capital”. Thus, documents, humans, money, personal relationships, qualifications, vehicles, and devices are meshed together, performing spaces and realities. Apart from this form of capital, (mobility), mobile students also negotiate attachments in this new space/reality, where the importance of translating with potential employers and other students assumes a pivotal role in international education realities (Tillman 2012). As Montgomery (2010, p.40) puts: “friendships and social relationships are a significant element for the learning experience of international students”, which – together with the fluctuations and/or shifts of power – makes the investigation of the metaphor of social capital relevant for this study.

2.6 Social Capital: Capitalising Human Relations

The reference to ‘capital’ suggests that all who use the term see it as an ingredient of resource allocation mechanisms (Dasgupta & Serageldin 2000, p.x).

The idea of “capital” has nurtured a wide series of debates in social theory and beyond. Lin (2008) points out that capital can be considered both as a theory and a concept. As a concept, capital represents investments in resources that are considered valuable. As a theory, “it describes the process by which capital is captured and reproduced for return” (Lin 2008, p.51) – the perspective that I focus on.

In the previous section of this chapter, I have demonstrated some articulations that are rooted in the idea of capital, such as transnational identity capital (Kim 2010) and mobility capital (Urry 2007). In a sense, there is a “family of capital theories” (Castiglione 2008, p.18). An example of a member of such family is the human capital theory, regarded as a powerful discourse in neo-liberal globalised realities (Lin 2008). According to this theory, one’s talents, skills and knowledge – seen from a utilitarian “value” perspective – produce economic gain not only for themselves, but also for organisations where they work38 (OECD 2007). Bourdieu’s (1986) contributions on the forms of capital are also relevant, being frequently invoked in studies of international education (Bótas & Huisman 2013; Tran 2016). Apart from economic – the forerunner form – capital can also be understood as cultural, symbolic and social. Although separating forms of capital from one another is a risky theoretical task, it is also analytically unavoidable.

In the following paragraphs, I am concerned with the largely disseminated, plural, and not easily defined idea of social capital (Dasgupta & Serageldin 2000). Van Deth (2008, p. 152, my text) observes that “virtually every article in this area (social capital) begins with complaints about the wide variety of definitions and conceptualizations available”, which could not be different in this study. According to Esser (2008, p.22), “social capital is now understood to encompass almost everything connected to social embeddedness: ranging from neighbourly help to the civil morality of a globalized world society”. However, social capital is more commonly seen as a “source of network-mediated benefits beyond the

38 _{According to Burt (2000, p.347): “The human capital explanation of the inequality is that the}

immediate family” (Portes 1998, p.12), calling attention to the importance of nonmonetary assemblages as “important sources of power and influence” (ibid, p.2).

I start with the definitions of social capital elaborated by “key” scholars, namely Pierre Bourdieu, James Coleman, and Robert Putnam. The fact that I considered them as key is due to the degree of influence they exert on the debate of social capital, shaping the way many academics understand and apply social capital in empirical and theoretical studies. Lin (1990; 1999; 2001; 2008), Burt (2000), and Alejandro Portes’ 1998 seminal article, “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology”, are also considered as thorough guides through such a slippery concept, and will join the discussion.

Pierre Bourdieu defines social capital as “the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition” (Bourdieu 1986, p.51). From a perspective of profitability – not necessarily economic – individuals have to deploy (the less costly) strategies in order to form and maintain networks that might accrue profits for its members, or “produce and reproduce lasting, useful relationships that can secure material or symbolic profits” (Bourdieu 1986, p.52).

A significant contribution from Bourdieu (1986) is related to his elaboration of the relationship between different forms of capital, and the “specific labour” (ibid, p.54) required for the “conversion” from one form of capital into another (social,

cultural, economic, symbolic). He cites an example of a gift giving situation where economic capital is being transformed into social capital (and where I am calling the actors involved A and B). In this, A spends a seemingly unrewarded amount of time with B in order to be able to personalise a gift to B. Due to “the logic of social exchanges” (ibid, p.54), A is making such an effort as they wait for a possibility of receiving something from B in the future, where something can be related to a specific form of capital. Bourdieu (1986) also illustrates the transformation from economic to cultural capital (in the institutionalised form of educational qualification), where time and effort (from one and one’s family) are necessary to make such a conversion.

Bourdieu (1986) considers that “economic capital is at the root of all the other types of capital” (ibid, p.54), a view which has been criticised for attributing an interest based view of human relations (Jenkins 1992). For Bourdieu (1984; 1986) and Bourdieu & Wacquant, (l992), social inequalities are maintained as a consequence of the degree to whether or not actors can access the resources from networks. In this sense, the dynamics of all forms of capital would be able to draw a picture of how a certain society works, based on its positional and structural division in social classes.

A few observations could be made in regards to the work of Bourdieu on social capital. First, the author does not distinguish between two differentiations elaborated by Lin, (2008, p.52), which are: social capital’s potential capacity (access) and its actual use (mobilization). Second, although Bourdieu states that “the existence of a network of connections is not a natural given, or even a social

given” (Bourdieu 1986, p.52), he does not assume an investigative posture – as a material semiotics scholar probably would – towards the concept of “membership”, omitting the performative and uncertain character of, in this case, human relations and group formation. Third, Bourdieu draws attention to the size of one’s social network as an indicative of the availability of resources and/or benefits. This idea opens space for qualitative questionings rather than quantitative measurements of a given social network. Fourth, the author expresses that profitability of social networks are related to past accumulated social capital, raising an ontological question: “Just what is social capital a stock of?” – as put by Solow (2000, p.7).

James Coleman sees social capital as a public good rather than a social phenomenon that reproduces inequality (Bourdieu 1984; 1986; Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992). His definition implies that social capital is productive and “exists in the relations” among actors (Coleman 2000, p.19).

Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity but a variety of different entities, with two elements in common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate certain actions of actors – whether persons or corporate actors – within the structure (Coleman 2000, p.16).

Coleman (1988; 2000) was the first scholar to articulate a relationship between social capital and the creation of human capital, placing trust as a key factor for the production of these forms of capital. For the author “a social group within which there is extensive trustworthiness and extensive trust is able to accomplish much more than a comparable group without that trustworthiness and trust” (Coleman 2000, p.19). Whether in a familial or societal context, social capital is

essential as it creates human capital. However, human capital – even if it is held by A – would not be transmitted from A to B if social capital is not present in the relationship between A and B in a given context.

The role given to trust by Coleman (1988; 2000) is of great analytical relevance, as it informs his theorisation of social capital established upon norms of reciprocity. The “credit slip” (Coleman, 2000, p.20) governs the relationships that might generate social capital (and in turn, human capital) for the actors. In his words “if A does something for B and trusts B to reciprocate in the future, this establishes an expectation in A and an obligation on the part of B” (ibid, p.20).

Robert Putnam formulations of social capital follow a more “macro”, or “collective” approach (Portes 1998, p.18). He gained notoriety for his work on social capital in Italian communities (Putnam 1993b), grounding “his influential work in Coleman's argument” (Burt 2000, p.348).

For Putnam (1993a, p.35) social capital refers to “features of social organizations, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate action and cooperation for mutual benefit”. In this sense, social capital acts as a facilitator of human relations and is directly related with the degree of trust and civic participation of individuals in their communities – whether attending voluntary meetings, voting and/or caring for one another in various forms – or in Putnam’s words: “voting, giving, trusting, meeting, visiting” (Putnam 2000, p.183). Such voluntary civic participation would affect the degree to which a certain community is politically, economically and socially stable. Therefore, from a community perspective, high levels of

social capital indicate high quality of life, trust, and democratic values. In other words, social capital is both a cause for, and a consequence of, communities with high civic participation – an argument considered as tautological by Portes (1998).

The work of Putnam raises some observations. For instance, Foley and Edwards’ (1999) critique of Putnam’s approach to trust is of relevance. The treatment given to trust in a societal “level” begs the question if the analyst can rely on every member of a certain community being trustworthy to one another. In this sense, Putnam assumes that trust can become a “macro”, all-encompassing characteristic, which is viewed with disbelief by Foley and Edwards (1999). Such disbelief could be exemplified by a quote in his 2000 seminal book, “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community”, which says that “newspaper readers (…) trust their neighbors more39” (Putnam 2000, p.235).

Despite the differences between the views of Bourdieu (1986), Putnam (1993a; 2000) and Coleman (1988; 2000), they also display one commonality. The metaphor of social capital is closely related to the idea that social networks offer resources that can be used by its members, in the sense that “better connected people enjoy higher returns” (Burt, 2000, p.348). One discussion, however – that is of importance for this study – relates to the way social capital “works”, especially regarding access to advantageous information and resources, an observable characteristic of actors performing new spaces.

39 _{Putnam (2000, p.603), however, provides a series of references to support his argument, such as}

The access to information and resources was a concern for Coleman (1988; 2000) and Lin (1990; 1999; 2001; 2008) when analysing whether social networks favour or hinder the functioning of its information channels. For Coleman (1988; 2000), the denser a network is, the more access to information its members have. On the other hand, Lin (2001; 2008) believes that information circulates more efficiently from and through the weak ties of a social network, basing his argument on the contributions of Granovetter (1973) and Burt (2000).

Although not mentioning “social capital”, Mark Granovetter’s 1973 seminal article “The Strength of the Weak Ties” deconstructed the idea that closure between actors is a sine qua non condition for social advantages, such as access to employment via dissemination of information. Albeit the measurement of the strength of interpersonal ties remains intuitive, the author concludes that removing weak ties would cause more “damage to transmission probabilities” than extinguishing strong ties in one’s network (Granovetter 1973, p.1366). He provides an illustration of his theory.

If one tells a rumour to all his close friends, and they do likewise, many will hear the rumor a second and third time, since those linked by strong ties tend to share friends. If the motivation to spread the rumour is dampened a bit on each wave of retelling, then the rumor moving through strong ties is much more likely to be limited to a few cliques than that going via weak ones; bridges will not be crossed (Granovetter 1973, p.1366).

Burt (1992; 2000) proposes a similar understanding on how weak ties – which he called “structural holes” – can favour the circulation of people in either side of the structural hole, accessing distinct flows of information. For him, “individuals with contact networks rich in structural holes are the individuals who know about,

have a hand in, and exercise control over, more rewarding opportunities” (ibid). The “knee-jerk” reaction from the argument proposed by Burt (1992; 2000) is explained. How does a network with holes work more efficiently than a dense network? A structural hole between two groups does not mean that one group is oblivious to the existence of the other. Instead, each group is focused on their particular activities, which precludes attendance in one another’s social events. Burt (2000, p.353) argues that “holes are buffers, like an insulator in an electric circuit”, where an individual whose relationships “spans” these holes will acquire beneficial information.

Putnam’s (2000) recognises the existence of both weak and strong ties, but makes use of a different nomenclature: bonding social capital (strong ties) that increases group cohesion but implies “narrower selves” (ibid, p.21) – and bridging social capital (weak ties) that is responsible for the expansion of a given social network and might imply in the generation of “broader identities40” (ibid, p.21). The author states that the most lucrative form of capital will depend on the actor’s context. For instance, small children might benefit more from bonding social capital in order to be properly stimulated and cared for. On the other hand, bridging social capital may be more beneficial among the “disadvantaged” due to their lack of material and social resources41 (Putnam 2000). Citing Xavier de

40 _{While bonding social capital is related to the concept of homophily, bridging social capital}

relates to heterophily (Lin 2008).

41 _{Putnam (2000, p.21) provides examples of both forms of social capital: “examples of bonding}

social capital include ethnic fraternal organizations, church-based women’s reading groups, and fashionable country clubs. Other networks are outward looking and encompass people across diverse social cleavages. Examples of bridging social capital include the civil rights movement, many youth service groups, and ecumenical religious organizations”.

Souza Briggs, Putnam (2000, p.20) states that bonding social capital is “good for getting by, but bridging social capital is crucial for getting ahead”. Lin (1990; 1999) believes that dense networks (bonding) are useful when actors are keeping already mobilised resources, whereas bridging social capital helps more effectively those actors who are searching for resources.

Lin (1999) provides a table that illustrates the controversies across the contributions of Bourdieu, Putnam and Coleman. It must be noted that Putnam (2000) recognises that both bridging and bonding social capital can be important, a position, however, that was published one year after Lin’s (1999) article. In this sense, Putnam changed his position as showed in his earlier works. Putnam’s (2000) major publication42 indicates that he agrees with Lin (1999) and disagrees with Coleman’s (1988) arguments.

Issue Contention Problem

Collective or individual asset (Coleman, Putnam)

Social capital as collective asset

Confounding with norms, trust

Closure or open networks (Bourdieu, Coleman, Putnam)

Group should be closed or dense

Vision of class society and absence of mobility Functional (Coleman) Social capital is indicated by

its effect in particular action

Tautology (cause is determined by effect) Measurement (Coleman) Not quantifiable Heuristic, not falsifiable

Table 2: Social Capital: Issue, Contention and Problem – adapted from Lin (1999, p.33)

The problem of “absence of mobility”, as shown above, together with a great degree of confusion around the idea of social capital will inform the analysis

subsequently in this thesis43, where I articulate a translation between teachings of social capital and an ANT ontology (social capital actor-networks). How can one think of social capital in regards to a mobile actor when sociability acquires a different meaning?

Apart from the theoretical disagreements and controversies demonstrated in the previous paragraphs, empirical encounters between social capital and mobile students have been articulated by a range of authors. From a Bourdieusian perspective, Tran (2016) analyses global student mobility as a process of becoming, aiming to understand the logics and practice of the social field of international education. Bótas & Huisman (2013) investigate the cultural and

social capital perspectives of the participation of Polish students in the Erasmus programme and the extent to which students develop their cultural, social and linguistic capital.

Using the framework proposed by Putnam (1993a; 2000), Guo et al. (2014) suggest that Chinese international students in Japan engage in virtual social networks, building social networks and benefiting from psychological well-being. Rienties et al. (2015, p.1212) uses Lin’s (2001) understandings of social capital to investigate the establishment of social capital links in a British university. The results show that Asian students “lived in separate social worlds”, while English and other international students engaged in forming multi-national networks. Inspired by Coleman (1988), Neri and Ville (2008) aimed to shed light on how international students renew their social networks, and whether such investments

could be associated with the enhancement of their human capital. The results show that investments in social networks renewal are only related with wellbeing, rather than academic performance.

Investigations of social capital of Brazilian individuals in Ireland did not contemplate mobile students44. Sociological analyses of Brazilian migrant communities in Ireland were conducted by McGrath (2010), Maher (2010),

Maher & Cawley (2014; 2015), and Sheringham (2009). These investigations focused on the town of Gort, where the “influx” of Brazilian nationals coming to work in meat processing and other rural activities was significant in the 1990s. These studies, conducted from a “sociology of the social” perspective (Latour 2005), concerned issues of ethnic identity, community support, and access to the local labour market through social networking – themes that were associated with diverse social capital postulates.

The metaphor of social capital – in all its multidimensionality, tension, and complexity – was able to gather three general common understandings, as illustrated by Van Deth (2008, p.152). In this sense, it is agreed that social capital can be seen as “(1) consisting of structural and cultural aspects, (2) something that requires investments for future goods and actions, and (3) a concept defined by the functions it performs”. However, these theoretical agreements have neither been conclusive nor have articulated a “precise meaning” of social capital (ibid).

2.7 Summary

This chapter offered a brief debate on philosophy of science, introducing the post movement (St. Pierre 2013; St. Pierre et al. 2016), and articulating a critique of Cartesian dualism and the work done by purification in modernism (Latour 1993b). It continued by elucidating ANT main principles elaborated by Callon (1986a): agnosticism (non-judgement of the researcher on what is being said by the actors); generalised symmetry (human and non-human entities being treated in the same analytical manner); and free association (the capacity of heterogeneous actors to relate in the same ontological plane).

This chapter proceeded with the examination of crucial concepts that accompany ANT research, such as: actors (any entity that has agency); intermediaries (actors that transport meaning); mediators (actors that distort meaning); translation (the only encounter between actors); and enactment (reality done in practice). ANT’s view that the proximity between entities is the result of their connection – rather than geographical distance – and the dismissing of the micro/macro dualism were analysed. Finally, I provided the reader with an ontological guide to be considered throughout this study: an ANT anti-essentialist and relational ontology where meaning is acquired as a result of semiotic and material practices.

This chapter followed by surveying relevant literature for this study, approaching the frequently discussed idea of globalisation before analysing international education realities and social capital. In all these three themes, I sought to elucidate three dimensions of the literature: what it is; how it is understood; and how it is practiced.