Robert Putnam (2000) put forward an interesting framework regarding reasons why some communities are healthy, regain and retain health. Putnam contends that the primary key is social capital: “features of social organization, such as networks, norms and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit.” Social capital enhances benefits of investment in physical and human capital. Social capital is a necessary ingredient for successful economic development. Putnam’s theory has been so widely accepted, it is almost synonomous with community development.

     What is social capital? We hear the term all the time thrown here and there. In fact it could be classified as one of the latest ”buzz” words. Unfortunately social capital is one of those terms that has no universal definition similar to other terms like harm reduction and community development. Depending on who is doing the investigating and why, social capital can have a number of meanings. Several researchers define social as the value of social networks, bonding similar people and bridging between diverse people, with norms of reciprocity (Dekker and Uslaner 2001; Uslaner 2001). Sander (2002 p.213) stated that ‘the folk wisdom that more people get their jobs from whom they know, rather than what they know, turns out to be true’.

     Yet, DeFilippis says Putnam’s theory fails to take into consideration the challenges of power in producing communities and it is separated from economic development. DeFilippis explains that since people who live in affluent suburbs experience a significant level of social isolation, why are those interested in economic development in low-income communities stressing the use of social capital as a viable method for moving low income people and communities out of poverty?  Good question. Perhaps in low-income communities people really aren’t as socially isolated as it seems. In this case, a  fair subsequent assumption might be, “poor doesn’t equal lonely”. DeFilippis sort of agrees and argues that low-income communities are not disconnected and have plenty of social networks including nonprofit organizations. He says what they lack is “power” and the “capital” that creates that power.

     Okay, here’s my opinion, seems communities are in dire need of community psychologists who are being taught to not just study individuals and how they affect communities, but how communities impact individuals as well. However, DeFilippis says communities really aren’t living organisms and therefore can’t impact people. Does anyone agree? I’m not so sure communities aren’t living organisms—corporations are certainly set up to be a “person” per se, and the power they wield is beyond measure. How come communities can’t do the same thing?  I think some communities are already doing this—shouldn’t we spend more time studying these communities rather than spending more time studying poor communities and the people that comprise them?

Advertisement