Is Online Social Networking Building Social Capital Essay

This is an argumentative research paper that examines Robert Putnam’s definition of Social Networking and provides arguments that Social Networking Sites are building Social Capital as Putnam intended its definition. First, this paper will explore Putnam’s definition of Social Capital as well as its alternate definitions. Second, it will explore the definition of Social Networking according to Putnam as well as other comparable definitions. Third, it will distinguish certain distinctions in the concept of Social Networking, Social Networks, and Social Capital. Fourth, it will examine Putnam’s thesis that Social Capital has been declining due to the growing popularity of electronic appliances, computers, and henceforth, Social Network Sites. Fifth, it will examine alternate arguments that other researchers have made in contrast to Putnam’s key arguments. Sixth, this paper will evaluate all of Putnam’s key arguments compared to arguments directly in contrast with Putnam’s thesis. This paper will likewise provide personal insights and assessments that existing body of knowledge in this area has not yet covered. Finally, seventh, this paper will conclude that contrary to Putnam’s thesis that Social Capital has been declining due to the growing popularity of Social Network Sites, Social Capital has in fact been growing at a very rapid pace. Introduction Robert Putnam’s most influential work Bowling Alone, which appeared in 1995, signaled the major changes that the Internet Age has brought about in the daily lives of Americans. Since then, the virtual community has grown in leaps and bounds as rapid technological advances and innovations radically changed American life. Putnam laid the groundwork for his arguments in Bowling Alone with Alexis de Tocqueville’s observations of American life during the 1830s (65). Note that Toccqueville’s era basically covered the economic transition of America from the Agricultural Age to the Industrial Age. This was an age where the exodus of rural Americans into American cities to work in factories and financial centers represented mass migrations as well as increased productivity. Putnam continued laying the groundwork for his arguments as he described the shift from the industrial age to the Computer Age through a growing body of research on the sociology of economic development (66). Since Putnam’s ‘Bowling Alone’ appeared in 1995, Putnam’s Computer Age has already quickly shifted into the Internet Age starting in 1997 as Boyd and Ellison represented in their timeline ending 2006 (212). Note also that the Internet Age signified the start of a worldwide trend in globalization where offshore manufacturing plants and the off-shoring of many American jobs created a great impact on American lives and local communities as well as certain ways of doing work. In this light, this paper will now explore Putnam’s perception of American Society through the concepts of Social Capital and Social Networks or Social Networking. Definitions Putnam provided a definition of ‘Social Capital’ through an analogy with physical and human capital as the social scientists of the Industrial Age perceived the phenomena (67). For Putnam, physical and human capital pertain to â€Å"tools and training that enhance individual productivity† while social capital â€Å"refers to the features of a social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit† (67). Putnam’s central premise on social capital is that a person’s public and private life is heavily and immensely influenced by social connections and civic engagement (67). In support of this definition, Barish aptly provided a simplified and paraphrased version: †¦[I]t makes sense to understand Putnam’s techniques for describing and evaluating the American community†¦ His argument goes†¦ like this: A screwdriver is a valuable thing. It can help me build a house, or fix a car, and so it increases both my individual productivity and the collective productivity of my community. Similarly, any social connections that I have, whether with members of my bowling team, friends from the bar, co-members of the local Rotary club, or congregants from my synagogue increase my personal productivity and the productivity of my group. Just as the screwdriver is a piece of physical capital, the social contacts that I maintain constitute ‘social capital’ and are beneficial to both myself and bystanders in the community. † In another light, a literature review provided a more thorough definition of social capital in its broad, elastic, and indicative terms covering both its positive and negative indications (Ellison, Steinfield & Lampe 1145). Broadly speaking, a 1988 definition of social capital refers to the accumulation of resources via the relationships among people (1145). It has also been noted that social capital has an elastic definition relative to the field of study it is being used in (1145). In such different fields, social capital is generally seen as both a cause and effect or more elaborately in a 1992 definition, as a sum of â€Å"resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition† (1145). Social capital is usually equated to beneficial results like â€Å"better public health, lower crime rates, and more efficient financial markets† (1145). Meanwhile, indicators of its decline are the following negative outcomes: â€Å"increased social disorder, reduced participation in civic activities† and escalating distrust among members of the community (1145). Having established the framework for understanding Putnam’s social capital, the next exploration will be on Putnam’s perspective on ‘Social Networks’. Amusingly, Putnam did not provide a formal definition of social networks but rather discussed or described its context as follows: 1. Vitally important â€Å"for job placement and many other economic outcomes;† 2. Highly efficient, highly flexible ‘industrial districts’ based on networks of collaboration among workers and small entrepreneurs;† and 3. â€Å"The consolidation of country post offices and small school districts†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (66). With this context, it can now be discerned that Putnam’s focus on social networks is work-related or those that pertain to economic value or productivity. Additionally, since Putnam’s influential Bowling Alone in 1995, social capital and social networks have produced conceptual offshoots as Boyd and Ellison show in their 2008 definition of ‘Social Network Sites’ and its difference with ‘Social Networking Sites’ (211). In simple terms, Boyd and Ellison define social network sites as web-based services that enable people to show and tell about their social networks resulting in connections that will otherwise not happen among people with existing as well as previously existing offline connections in their line of work, schooling, community, family, former community and other specialized social groups (211). While Beer makes a fine argument on the broadness of Boyd & Ellison’s definition and that there is a need to classify and categorize Social Network Sites or SNS (517-9), it is evident that aside from the people that are involved in an existing social network, interests like bowling (Putnam) or content like videos in the case of YouTube (Beer 519) can bond together strangers with similar interests. These make the boundaries between social network sites versus social networking sites confusing as Boyd and Ellison attempted to differentiate (211). Distinctions With the above definitions, clear-cut distinctions are now discernible from the available body of work pertaining to social capital, social networks, and social networking compared with Putnam’s concepts. Firstly, social capital according to Putnam are built from an individual’s public and private life as shown by a person’s productivity through social connections and local community involvement. Quan-Hasse and Wellman also note that Putnam’s social capital is essentially limited to a neighborhood, city or a country. Moreover, Quan-Hasse and Wellman distinguishes Putnam’s concept of social connections as â€Å"interpersonal communication patterns, including† physical visits, face-to-face physical â€Å"encounters, phone calls and social events. † In addition, Quan-Hasse and Wellman distinguishes Putnam’s local community involvement, which is usually termed civic engagement, as the â€Å"degree to which people become involved in their community, both actively and passively, including such political and organizational activities as political rallies, book and sports clubs. In this regard, Putnam’s concept is distinctive mainly as geographically-knit in nature rather than geographically-dispersed. Secondly, from Putnam’s point of view, social networks are usually work-related or community-related where mutual benefits are produced as results or positive outcomes of a group activity or group activities involving physical actions or efforts. In this regard, Putnam’s concept is distinctive mainly as physical rather than virtual. Thirdly, based on Putnam’s perspective, social networks involve social bonds among people who see eye-to-eye, face-to-face, and physically in a geographically-knit location while social networks or social networking is social bonding and bridging among people who knew each other or even strangers in a geographically-knit or geographically-dispersed location. In this regard, Putnam’s concept is distinctive mainly as an interaction between people with prior connections versus total strangers. Social Capital’s Decline Putnam presented a doom and gloom scenario with the advent of the Electronic and/or Computer Age and its manifestations like the mailing list and television. He skillfully used facts and figures to illustrate that Social Capital has declined through the following manifestations: 1. low voter turnout and substantial statistical differences since the 1960s compared with the 1990s (67); 2. lower public meeting attendance in a town hall or in school (68); 3. lower trust in government (68); 4. ower membership in workers’ unions, parents-teachers associations, fraternities, religious organizations and other mainstream organizations (68-70); and 5. lower membership in organized bowling leagues and the unprecedented rise in solo bowling (70). Putnam argued that the decreased sales of pizza and beer among bowling lane proprietors is a fitting example of a negative economic trend due to the decline of social capital, when certain groups of people who bowl ed together now prefer to bowl alone. Noteworthy of Putnam’s five indicators that supported his argument is item 3. lower trust in government. All other indicators involve some form physical action or effort while trust is basically an abstract concept. Social Capital’s Rapid Growth Quan-Haase and Wellman carefully noted Putnam’s thesis about Social Capital’s decline and likewise identified C. S. Fischer’s counter-arguments against Putnam’s that: 1. Putnam’s measures of social capital’s decline are invalid and unreliable; and 2. he amount of decrease appeared to be substantial from the point of view of Putnam while Fischer argued that it is negligible and short-term. While Fischer’s counter-arguments against Putnam’s are not taking a 360 degree turn to illustrate the contrary, Fischer’s arguments subsequently fueled other arguments against Putnam’s contentions that showed the other side of the fence. Quan-Haase and Wellman insightfully observed: â€Å"The Putnam-Fischer debate is a continuation of a 150-year long tradition in the social sciences to see if community is declining or flourishing since the Industrial Revolution. In short, the economic changes brought about by technology like machines and electricity for the industrial revolution or television, electronic components and computers for the Electronic/Computer Age are quite moot and academic. Quan-Haase and Wellman are essentially saying that there will be a natural decline in the railroad business when automobiles replace the old mode of transport just like when trains replaced horses, and horses replaced walking. The natural decline in the older technology as it is replaced by a newer technology does not necessarily represent a decline in social capital rather it simply represents a decline in an old technology. Meaning, new measures are simply needed to accurately determine social capital’s decline or growth. And most likely, social capital has grown rapidly due to the newer technology rather than its opposite or contrary perspective whether these are supported with figures or not. Quan-Haase and Wellman are basically saying that Putnam’s facts and figures didn’t fit when social capital is evaluated from a historical perspective. Another worthy contention is that Social Capital has, on the contrary, rapidly grew. Since Putnam’s concepts are too focused on the adult population, Putnam failed to foresee a growing trend among the younger population getting involved in social network sites (Hargittai 280) and technological advancements providing suitable substitutes to face-to-face contact like the web-camera, online team gaming across different geographic locations, broadband, etc. Comparative Evaluations and Insights Putnam’s definition of social capital and his concept of social network are essentially encapsulated within a by-gone age. First, face-to-face encounters, physical activities, geographic cohesion and the nature of jobs and hence, productivity, have changed and are constantly changing. Second, Putnam’s view that only the adult population is capable of building social capital could be very limited. Third, social connections and civic engagements could have had transformed into a different form. Putnam laid the groundwork for his thesis with great leverage on Tocqueville’s observation of the Industrial Revolution in America. This groundwork has made his argument shaky and his definition of social capital quite narrow, failing to recognize that societies, hence social capital, in fact evolve as new technologies appear from the Stone Age, to the Iron Age, to the Bronze Age and so forth. Cooperation, collaboration and productivity normally improve as new technologies appeared throughout history. Hunting bands now became metropolitan cities with millions of residents. Caves now became mega-structures of skyscrapers that house thousands of humans. The examples would be endless. First, face-to-face encounters are now possible across great geographic distances through video conferencing, net meetings, and the like as teams of people work together across different time zones and different countries. Social Networks and Social Networking are not necessarily limited to websites but could also include the other technological tools that would facilitate communication, collaboration and cooperation. Thus, Putnam’s social network, which has a local flavor, has now become global. Moreover, various workers across the different U. S. States can now work collaboratively and cooperatively. Moreover, leisure time has also taken new dimensions. While bowling leagues may no longer be in fashion because bowling is in fact an individual sport rather than a team sport, new forms of recreation that encourage teamwork are now available as online games. Physical activities have likewise taken a new and robust meaning. Individuals now have a wider range of options when, where, and with whom they are going to spend their time with. Ticket reservations for vacations and other leisurely activities with groups of people now take lesser time to execute. Of course, Putnam’s argument that trust in government has declined, and this appears to be strong, exemplifies a decrease in social capital,. Yet from a different angle the same facts and figures would actually prove the contrary. Social Capital would have had in fact increased because greater civic engagement is now possible through the power of television and the media. That the low trust in government is simply saying that society is now more aware of what government is doing through television rather than through an actual attendance in a town hall. Moreover, society has become more efficient through the membership dues derived from mailing lists because these huge funds can finance professional lobbyists that would maximize a person’s civic engagement. A highly paid professional lobbyist with huge funds representing a huge membership can do more compared to a group of individual amateurs representing a small group of people in a community. Second, exactly because of social networks and social networking, the youth are now actively involved in a variety of social activities online including collaborative projects, group assignments, net events, and online team sports. Third, social connections and civic engagements have now transformed into a different form. Group chats through the Internet are now possible among friends that are located at great geographic distances where they can view each other’s faces. Downloading forms and information from a government website is now more efficient compared to actually attending a town hall meeting. Moreover, social network sites are actually populated by people who have prior physical connections with one another rather than total strangers. Conclusion Putnam appears to have overlooked the effects of the various economic transformations brought about by technology that transforms society during the course of history. Thus, making his definition of social capital unresponsive to the changing times. However, this paper finds that Putnam’s general definition of social capital as referring â€Å"to the features of a social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit† is accurate and sound. The finding of this paper is that Putnam’s drawback appears to have occurred in his exposition of the general definition. This exposition provided metes and bounds that are geographic in nature, physical in nature, and pits people who have already established prior social connections versus total strangers. Migrations due to the nature of jobs, the highly evolved efficiency of transport systems, academic choices and suburban development have essentially dispersed people geographically. Social Network Sites basically strengthens these former social bonds. Most noteworthy also is that technological advances are now providing suitable substitutes that solve geographic and physical limitations making productivity more efficient through better communication, cooperation, and collaboration. The best evidence in terms of facts and figures that social capital has indeed been built up by online social networking is the phenomenal growth and popularity of social network and networking sites. Another is the exponential trade volume growth on Ebay. Of course, the only difference in these observations with Putnam’s definition is on how Putnam elaborated his ideas. He built his groundwork and framework of understanding on a local and physical aspect that ultimately made him unable to foresee the economic, and thus social, transformations taking on a global flavor: that somehow, everyone is connected and affected with and by another. This is the same reason why civic engagements have also likewise taken a worldwide scope in such organizations as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund and even through international causes like the fight against global warming and world hunger.