| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
2 | |||||
3 |
4 | 5 |
6 |
7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 |
13 | 14 |
15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 |
« Facebook and the (possible) future of anti-social capital | Main | Redrawing boundaries in the 21st century »
17 March 2009
Sociologists' fondness for the term "capital," borrowed from economics (as noted in a comment from David Allen), is a curious thing. It substitutes for "resources," but when we use it in place of the latter term we somehow seem more sure of ourselves, as if we've discovered that something that seems heterogeneous (such as "social capital") can be taken as homogeneous when it comes to downstream consequences. The problem is that unlike money, which is pretty useful whatever the (economic) situation, the utility of other sorts of capital is situationally contingent. A friendship tie, for instance, is a mighty fine thing when what you want is a favor or a shoulder to cry on, but a bit of a drag on one's self-presentation when one is trying on a new role (an important insight of this recent piece on college students' Facebook connections). The same is true of any bit of (internally diverse) conversational capital, as academics re-learn whenever they spend time with non-academic family members. It is for this and other reasons that, my previous (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) blog aside, I resist using the term.
Posted by David Gibson at March 17, 2009 8:29 AM