The current emphasis in public policy initiatives and foundation funding on comprehensive community initiatives confirms the long-term commitment of many women led organizations and the role women play as catalysts for social change.
Social capital and community building
Women build social capital through leadership, community participation, and networking. As mentioned above social capital is the establishment of social association through common norms, trust, and networks that make social action possible.(Putman, 1993). Despite the fact that theorists have recognized the strong link between citizen participation and local democracy, it is a further step toward identification with a group, sharing values, and developing trust that builds social capital and the ability to take civic action. By the structure of their organizations, women leaders in community development are among the primary developers of social capital by building civic capacity to create change in their communities. This means that the leadership style of women have contributed to the development of social capital.
Community participation is another key issue in creating social capital. Women-led organizations frequently pursue participation through community organizing, the focus of which can range from mobilizing public protests to constituency building through leadership development. Women leaders’ identification with the communities in which they work is an important factor in their commitment to community participation. This close identification with the community and sense of personal commitment on the part of women leaders means that there are generally few barriers between their personal lives and their community work. This approach, which is held by many women leaders, means that there is more opportunity for participation by non-professionals whose personal life experiences are valued.
Women-led organizations invite more participation because they focus on the "daily life" issues that affect most community residents. Women do not see addressing these issues as an end in itself but as human development that is above and beyond providing services or programs. This reproduces the theory that women’s activism is based on the desire for connection and relationship and is not simply an instrument for attaining individual ends. Women leaders who were most successful at developing grassroots leadership created an atmosphere in their organizations that made community women feel comfortable. Some women describe listening and establishing a dialogue as the first step in creating a collaborative environment. (Gittell, Bustamante and Steffy, 1999).
Finally, networking helps women to build social capital. The creation of a variety of networks helps women build effective organizations. In addition to networks of friends who support them personally, many women leaders also advise younger women in their communities or encourage the formation of personal networks by other women staff members. Women’s networks with each other give them the personal support they need to be leaders. For women with limited professional networks, these personal connections can provide the first step toward broader community involvement. Sharing ideas and knowledge can also enable groups to collaborate more easily, which is particularly important when resources are limited. Organizations can increase their access to decision-making and resources that were previously unavailable by building networks outside their communities.
Putman’s theory on gender discrimination
Social capital is defined by Putman as “connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” In Bowling Alone (2000) Putnam considers how far the movement of women into the paid labor force and the related stresses of two-career families contributed towards any decline in civic engagement and social capital in America.(Putman, 2000). He acknowledges that the movement of women out of the home is a double-edged weapon it both increases opportunities for them to make new social connections and networks via the workplace, and yet also simultaneously reduces the time available for community involvement. After examining data mainly from the DDB Needham Life Style surveys, and acknowledging gender differences in some common forms of community associations, such as PTAs, churches and professional organizations, he concludes that during the last two decades the movement of women into the paid labor force can account for only a modest amount of the total shrinkage of social capital in America: “With fewer educated, dynamic women with enough free time to organize civic activity, plan dinner parties, and the like, the rest of us, too, have gradually disengaged. At the same time, the evidence also suggests that neither time pressures nor financial distress nor the movement of women into the paid labor force is the primary cause of civic disengagement over the last two decades…civic engagement and social connectedness have diminished almost equally for both women and men, working or not, married or single, financially stressed or financially comfortable.” (Putman ,2002)
In more recent work, however, he does draw a useful distinction between ‘bridging’ and ‘bonding’ groups. In Putnam’s words: “Bridging social capital refers to social networks that bring together people of different sorts, and bonding social capital brings together people of a similar sort. This is an important distinction because the externalities of groups that are bridging are likely to be positive, while networks that are bonding (limited within particular social niches) are at greater risk of producing externalities that are negative.”
For example heterogeneous bridging local associations such as the Red Cross are believed to have beneficial consequences for building social capital and social equality, by generating interpersonal trust and reinforcing community ties. On the other hand homogeneous bonding organizations can also provide positive functions, by benefiting members. But the danger is that bonding groups can also have dysfunctional consequences for society as a whole by widening existing social inequalities. Bonding practices can underline the practices of nepotism, ethnic hatred, and sectarianism, as well as sexism. Bonding groups reinforce close-knit networks among people sharing similar backgrounds and beliefs, generating an uneven distribution of women or men. By contrast, when related to issues of gender equality, bridging groups are essentially inclusive across the sexes, reflecting the composition of the general population by bringing together a fairly even distribution of women and men. (Putman, 2002)
The broader literature on civic engagement and political activism suggests that gender differences in community are created by the factors of structure, culture and agency. Structural accounts stress the way that gender difference in levels and types of civic activism and organizational membership, analogous to those associated with social class and ethnicity, are closely related to the unequal distribution of resources, notably of time, money, knowledge, and skills. Belonging to local groups, attending community events and holding more demanding leadership position in voluntary organizations requires sufficient leisure time, and also the flexibility of schedules, that facilitates participation. As married women have increasingly entered the workforce, in dual-career households there has been a modest adjustment in the division of sex roles within in the home and family, but on the other hand women continue to shoulder most of the family responsibilities and care of dependents. (Mennino and A. Brayfield. 2002)
Structural explanations emphasize that social and demographic inequalities based on educational qualifications, socioeconomic status, gender and age lead to inequalities in other civic assets, like skills, knowledge, experience, time, and money. Possession of these assets makes some better placed than others to take advantage of the opportunities for participation.
Culture is the second factor that contributes to the creation of gender discrimination on civic engagement and political activism. Cultural explanations emphasize the attitudes and values that people bring to civic engagement, social networks, and community activism, including prior motivational interests and ideological beliefs. (Almond and Verba, 1963)
Lastly agency accounts focus attention upon the role of mobilizing networks such as informal social ties generated by family, friends, and colleagues. Rosenstone and Hansen emphasize how people are ‘pulled’ into activism by party organizations, group networks like churches, voluntary associations and trade unions, and by informal social networks. (Rosenstone and Hansen, 1995. Verba also found that churches and voluntary organizations provide networks of recruitment, so that those drawn into civic life through these associations develop the organizational and communication skills that facilitate further activity. (Verba, Lehman Schlozman, and Brady, 1995)
Criticism of Putman’s theory on Social capital
Putnam’s definition of the concept social capital may well be the same as Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s, but its application at a broader social scale does add complexity to the original formulation.
Putnam’s empirical measurement of social capital has been criticized for being reductionism, as it places undue weight upon participation in voluntary associations and assumes that reciprocity and trust will flow from this participation (Harris and de Renzio, 1997). Robert Putnam has presented compelling evidence for the decline in social capital in the United States over the past generation, measured by a variety of indices of participation in church-related groups, labor unions, traditional women's clubs, fraternal organizations, and mainline civic organizations. A danger of this approach to measuring social capital is that the concept loses its specificity as a resource to action and becomes redefined, in the ‘measurement rush’, as the action itself (Newton 1997). Harris and de Renzio (1997) and Putzel (1997) also criticize Putnam for prescribing a linear causal link between civic engagement in voluntary associations and improved democratic institutions, rather than allowing for a dynamic interrelationship between the two. As a consequence they argue that Putnam wrongly excludes a role for democratic institutions, such as government, in the creation of social capital.
Putzel (1997) argues the precise definition of social capital must be sensitive to analytically distinct elements. ‘There is a need to distinguish carefully between what might be seen as the mechanics of trust and the political content and ideas transmitted through such networks and embodied in such norms. We can see how the mere existence of networks and norms underpinning trust between individuals or groups can facilitate exchange by reducing risks and making behavior more predictable. But whether or not these networks will contribute to democracy has much more to do with the political ideas and programs transmitted through them.’ (Putzel ,1997).
This distinction between the mechanics of social capital and the content of the ideas transmitted points to the notion that social capital may have negative effects for some parties what is referred to as the ‘dark side of social capital’ (Putzel 1997). The notion of dark side outcomes is integral to the original formulation of social capital by Bourdieu and Coleman. They focused upon how social capital enabled individuals to gain a competitive advantage, either in economic or human capital terms.
The participation of women in society has modestly increased at the level of community and local problem solving activities, and that the decrease in voter turnout has not been accompanied by a general decrease in citizen activism, even on campaign related activities. Particularly we do not know how and whether specific indices of decline in participation have impacted on citizen capacities to innovate to solve problems. For example membership in the League of Women Voters may have declined 42 percent since 1969, but local Leagues have developed a whole variety of civic innovations to address environmental and child care issues that were not on the agenda a generation ago. In addition membership in the national Federation of Women's Clubs is down by more than half, but newer women's groups have addressed issues including ones such as domestic violence that were previously masked within old forms of social capital by developing grassroots networks, community supports, and educative relationships with criminal justice and social welfare agencies that represent new investments in social capital.
In addition we need to be careful not to interpret the argument for the overall, quantitative decline of social capital to entail a nostalgia for earlier times. This is most obvious when it comes to forms of social capital that were illiberal and socially exclusivist. But the decline of other forms of social capital, such as bowling leagues, may not be all that significant, if they do not lend themselves to being mobilized for new forms of community problem solving and trust building. The decline of church attendance may be far more significant.
Summary & Conclusions
In this essay the role of social capital in empowering individuals and communities who experience inequality and gender discrimination has been examined. Putman’s theory on gender discrimination has been used in order to support the inequality of women’s in society.
As we have seen social capital is a social resource to which individuals, families, neighborhoods and communities have access. It has a well established relationship with several areas of policy interest, including economic growth, social inclusion, and educational attainment, levels of crime, improved health and more effective government. The key indicators of social capital include social relations, formal and informal social networks, group membership, trust, reciprocity and civic engagement. The broader literature on civic engagement and political activism suggests that gender differences in community are created by the factors of structure, culture and agency.
I believe that by advancing gender equality and equity and the empowerment of women, and the elimination of all kinds of violence against women, and ensuring women's ability to control their own fertility, are cornerstones of community development.
The human rights of women are integral part of universal human rights. The full and equal participation of women in civil, cultural, economic, political and social life, at the national, regional and international levels, and the eradication of all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex, are priority objectives of the community development.
References
Cavaye, J. (2001), “Social capital: The concept, the context”, Paper to Social Capital Symposium, Hosted by the Community Service and Research Centre at The University of
Queensland, Brisbane Convention Centre, 11 September.
Gabriel A. Almond and Sidney Verba. (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in FiveNations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Harriss, J. & De Renzio, P. (1997), ‘Missing link or analytically missing? The concept of social capital’, Journal of International Development, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 919-937.
James S.Coleman. 1988. ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital.’ American Journal of Sociology 94: 95-120;
Lochner, K., Kawachi, I. & Kennedy, B.P. (1999), “Social capital: A guide to its measurement”, Health and Place, no. 5, pp. 259-270.
Marilyn Gittell, Isolda Ortega-Bustamante, Tracy Steffy, (1999). Women Creating Social Capital and Social Change: A Study of Women-led Community Development Organizations.
Newton, K. (1997), ‘Social capital and democracy’, American Behavioural Scientist, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 575-586.
Pierre Bourdieu. (1970). Reproduction in Education, Culture and Society. London: Sage;
Putnam, R., with R. Leonardi, and R. Nanetti. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic
Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Putzel, J. (1997), ‘Accounting for the “dark side” of social capital: reading Robert Putnam on democracy’, Journal of International Development, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 939-949.
Robert D. Putnam, (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. NY: Simon and Schuster.
Robert D. Putnam, (2002). ‘Introduction.’ In The Dynamics of Social Capital. Ed. Robert D. Putnam. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
S.F. Mennino and A. Brayfield, (2002). ‘Job-family trade-offs - The multidimensional effects of gender.’ Work and Occupations Vol.29, no.2 pp. 226-256.
Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady, (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Steven J. Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen, (1995). Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
Stewart-Weeks, M. & C. Richardson, (1998), Social Capital Stories: How 12 Australian Households Live Their Lives, Policy Monograph 42, The Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney.
Internet Sources
Trust and action: Social capital and non0govermental organisations
.
Building social capital
Social capital for development
Community formation and social capital in Australia
The myth of social capital in community development
Social Capital, Regeneration and Urban Policy
.
People empowerment vs. social capital. From health promotion to social marketing.
