ABSTRACT
Putnam states unambiguously that our social capital is ‘good for us’, and we need more of it (Putnam 2000: 414). This chapter challenges his optimistic view: the power of networks is often a public good, but it can also be used with much more negative results. In a particularly interesting study, two Italian scholars have examined the relationship between social capital and cheating in school achievement tests (Paccagnella and Sestito 2014). First, they found that cheating was higher in schools situated in neighbourhoods with low scores on several social capital measures. So far, then, their study seems to support Putnam’s positive story. But they also found that cheating was more frequent when teachers were from the local community as well as when the students were relatively homogeneous in terms of social status and ethnicity. In summary, then, some types of social capital seemed to inhibit cheating, while others made it more likely. What can we make of these findings? First, they show us that social
capital can also have a ‘dark side’, when people’s connections serve to conceal or promote asocial behaviour. Second, though, they suggest that a differentiated conception of social capital can help us understand why it sometimes produces what economists call ‘negative externalities’. While most of the literature on social capital exudes a warm glow,
some researchers have become interested in identifying negative and unwanted effects. This chapter therefore explores two types of negative consequence. First, it explores the possibility that social capital helps reinforce inequality, as Bourdieu suggests; it then considers the part played by social capital in supporting anti-social behaviour. It then considers possible ways of understanding this shady side. Social capital’s capacity for negative outcomes should not come entirely as
a surprise. Bourdieu, as the previous chapter showed, was largely concerned with the way that clubbish social capital served to underpin struggles for status and power. Nor has this negative capacity gone unnoticed by the concept’s primary authors, particularly Putnam (2000: 315-316). Yet, although he accepted that social capital might be misused in certain circumstances, Putnam remained convinced that it was overwhelmingly a force for good. His recent study of religion in the US, for example, acknowledges that faith can divide people, but his conclusion is that attendance and participation in religious institutions promotes a dense web of interpersonal ties that in turn fosters tolerance and trust between people of different faiths (Putnam and Campbell 2012: 467-475). Yet, if it is wrong to claim that the founding theorists of social capital ignored its down side completely, neither do they sufficiently appreciate the risks inherent in defining social capital as a public good without constant qualification.
