CHAPTER 3: UNDERSTANDING NETWORKS
3.5. Social capital and networks
3.5.1. Bonding and bridging capital
Like any other form of capital, social capital can also be used to achieve benefits for individuals. It is an important tool that is used to integrate people within and across a network. It links people with common characteristics and across those in heterogeneous relationships. Before exploring how social capital acts as a bond and bridge within networks, it is important to explore the concept of homophily and how it applies to networks.
Homophily is a concept that explains the influence of perceived similarities among nodes that instigates the formation of networks. It is defined as “having one or more common social attributes, like the same social class. More technically, pairs can be said to be homophilous if their characteristics match in a proportion greater than expected in the population from which they are drawn or the network of which they are a part” (Kadushin 2004: 5). There are two classifications of homophily, value and status homophily. Value homophily occurs when people are connected because they share the same beliefs which include religion or traditions; while status homophily is the connection of people who share a common class and attributes (Centola et al 2007: 906). The theory argues that individuals are more likely to form network ties with people who are similar to them (Golub and Jackson 2011). This is because people are more comfortable developing relationships with those that have the same characteristics like culture, race, gender, religion or class. McPherson et al (2001) postulate that the presence of homophily leads to the formation of different types of network ties which include affective ties such as marriage and friendship; and supportive ties such as work, advice, exchange of information, and financial support. By implication, social differences can obstruct the formation of ties. This is supported by McPherson et al when they conclude that “homophily is the principle that a contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people” (McPherson et al. 2001: 416). Homophily therefore, influences the formation of network ties and shapes the nature of relationships within the network. On the one hand, it can lead to social categorization and on the other, it can sustain cultural diversity through the continued interaction of different groups over a long period of time which eventually melts the different barriers and creates common ground where
56
perceived similarity becomes the basis for interaction. In the latter case, bridging social capital is employed to blur the lines of diversity and foster interaction between diverse groups.
Putnam (2000) explains how social capital can foster relations among people of sameness and diversity through bonding and bridging. Woolcock and Narayan (2000: 225) note that social capital can be evident within and across a community. Bonding capital is associated with the kinds of bonds that exist within communities. The term community connotes a group of people bound by certain socio-cultural affiliations. It includes various “forms of collective life in which people are tied together through tradition, interpersonal contacts, informal relationships, and particular affinities, interests or similarities” (Storper 2005: 34). It is described as a social attachment of people bound by common traditions, beliefs and practices. Cobb (1992: 2) adds that “in a community, people take responsibility for collective activity and are loyal to each other beyond self-interest. They work together on the basis of shared values. They hold each other accountable for commitments”. A community therefore has a strong bond of trust, identity and loyalty among its members as a result of a perceived notion of belonging built on sameness and collective good.
Society differs from a community in terms of what binds or brings people together. Society
“generally refers to collectives held together through anonymous, rule-bound, more transparent, formal, and universalistic principles” (Storper 2005: 35). Ferlander notes that a society consists of weak relationships which are somewhat impersonal, formal and calculative without any boundaries (Ferlander 2003: 34). Society therefore suggests a more open and complex relationship which is not built on homogeneity or sameness. Hampton (2001: 11) explains that societal relations are impersonal and individualistic. As a result of its recognition of individuality rather than the communal, it allows for the existence of differences. These various descriptions of society describe a fragmented and fluid arrangement of people rather than an organic whole which is depicted in a community. It is based on this that Storper (2005: 35) asserts that “bonding… operationalizes the classical notion of community, and bridging that of the society”. Simply put, and in relation to the discussion on the utility of social capital for networks, bonding is a dimension of social
57
capital that is evident among people with homogeneous characteristics, while bridging has to do with people with differences.
Putnam and Goss (2002: 11) explain that the term bonding in social relations within a network has to do with uniting or bringing “together people who are like one another in important respects (ethnicity, age, gender, social class, and so on).” Dahal and Adhikari (2008: 11) explain it as the connection that exists among people because they share common demographic characteristics. Homogeneity or sameness is the bond that connects these agents and enables them to create and utilize social capital within a network. As Woolcock and Sweetser (2002:26) note, “bonding social capital refers to connections to people like you (family, relatives, kinship).” Therefore this dimension of social capital is evident in networks of strong ties. They share a common culture or identity which is a bond that enables them to create ties easily as they perceive themselves as homogeneous. In other words, members of this social network comfortably form social relations and develop trust of one another as a result of their common characteristics. As Storper (2005: 42) puts it, “actors trust each other because of their common cultural background, shared values, and strong reputation effects due to dense interpersonal networks”. This leads to a closed network system of only those perceived to share certain characteristics. Knudsen et al (2010: 7) reiterate that “bonding social capital reinforces exclusive identities and homogeneous groups”. It is mainly present in social networks that are homophilous in nature.
One of the consequences of bonding is the production of reciprocity or mutuality in relations among members of a network, thereby creating a sense of solidarity (Putnam 2000: 22). In his study of social networks in the community of Jewish diamond traders in New York, Coleman (1988) states that due to the existence of social cohesion and trust within this community, the traders have a sense of obligation to one another (Coleman 1988). Trust in bonding social capital is characterized by reciprocity and mutuality. Torche and Valenzuela (2011: 181) argue that “reciprocity is the type of social capital embedded within personal relations…” It is an unspoken norm that expects actors to treat others the way they were or expect to be treated. Reciprocity is “a social dynamic whereby persons give, receive, and return” (Torche and Valenzuela 2011: 188). This type of trust therefore regulates social relations among members of networks as a conscious effort is made not to betray trust between members. This guides the relationship, creating not only obligations but sanctions in
58
situations where trust is broken. Storper (2005: 36) explains that trust in relationships reduces certain “moral hazards”. The level of trust within a bonded community or network is intense and personal. Putnam (2000) describes this kind of trust as thick trust. In his words,it “refers to trust with a short radius, encompassing only others who are close to the truster” (Putnam 2000: 466). A short radius refers to the social distance between the actors in the network.
Therefore, the closer and more personal the relationship is between actors, the greater the level of trust.
On the negative side, this solidarity that creates a bond and connection among people who are perceived as homogeneous paradoxically excludes those perceived to be different.
Schuller et al (2000: 10) note that apart from creating a link between “like-minded people, or the reinforcement of homogeneity”, it also has an adverse effect on those outside in ways that can lead to the construction of “higher walls excluding those who do not qualify”. Bonding social capital is ironically advantageous to only those perceived to be within the social network because they share a certain degree of perceived sameness. Granoveter (1983) explains that, while, in common with other forms of capital, members can benefit from bonding social capital through access to resources and information within this closed group, this invariably excludes and prevents the formation of social relations outside the homogeneous group. It therefore ignites group identities that advocate sameness rather than differences. In Ester’s (2006: 188) words, “bonding social capital is exclusive and inward looking and tends to reinforce group identity and group solidarity”.
It has been argued that attaining bonding social capital in a network is more plausible than bridging social capital because of the difficulty in developing trust across diverse people.
Storper (2005: 36) reiterates that “bonding is a lot easier to come by than bridging and that where many different groups are present, it is much more difficult to achieve high levels of social capital than in more homogeneous societies.” As noted earlier, bridging social capital is evident in cases where individuals are diverse. Putnam and Goss (2002: 11) explain that it has to do with bringing “together people who are unlike one another”. Field (2003) concurs that it brings people together across different social divisions. Woolcock and Sweetser (2002:
26) explain that this diversity is usually based on demographic origin. Diversity varies from cultural to social and economic. Putnam (2000: 22) explains that it usually encompasses
59
“diverse social cleavages”. It is therefore not sufficient to describe diversity simply as a difference in demographic origins or ethnicity. De Souza Briggs (2003) provides a broader picture of diversity. He states that bridging includes building ties across diversity which includes “roles, status differences, material and symbolic interests, space, norms, and even worldviews” (De Souza Briggs 2003: 2).
As a result of this diversity, bridging social capital can be found in ties that are not necessarily kinship-based or convivial. Rather, it is usually present in weak network ties (De Souza Briggs 2003: 10). Grannoveter (1973) describes such ties as fragile, and impersonal and characterized by relative trust among strangers. Furthermore, the kind of trust evident in bridging social capital is not as intense as that found in bonding social capital. Newton (1997: 578) describes it as “thin trust”. Thin trust is a type of trust “with a long radius, encompassing people at a greater social distance from the truster” (Putnam, 2000: 466). A long radius implies an impersonal and more formal relationship. As a result of social distance, this type of trust is not based on affection but is formal and impersonal. It is the kind of trust that is found among business associates or work colleagues. Kavanaugh et al (2003: 2) state that “thin trust is less personal, based on indirect, secondary social relations”.
Torche and Valenzuela (2011: 186) expound that this type of trust “transcends the particularism of personal relations, universalizing duties and obligations beyond those established by reciprocity”. Lancee (2012: 27) adds that thin trust is an important type of trust which serves a different purpose from thick trust but is characterized by loose and weak ties. The nature of ties between diverse actors is not guided by reciprocity. People with long social distance between them are referred to as strangers within the network. A stranger is described as a person “who I have no personal obligations with because I have not received anything from him. The stranger is characterized by the condition of impersonality or anonymity” (Torche and Valenzuela 2011: 186). Therefore, thin trust is evident across diverse networks with weak ties.
This does not necessarily imply that bridging social capital which is present in weak ties is less important. In essence, “weak ties are more instrumental than strong ties – providing informational resources rather than support and exchange of confidences” (Kavanaugh et al 2003: 3). Bonding social capital serves a different purpose from that of bridging social
60
capital. The main purpose of bridging social capital is to “get ahead” (Lancee 2012: 14). The nature of social capital that can be accessed across networks through bridging is one that provides opportunities for actors that cannot be achieved within a close knit network. As Stone explains, “bridging ties with people from different networks can provide access to opportunities” to actors across networks (Stone 2003: 13). Paxton (1999) adds that one of the benefits of bridging social capital is the provision and exchange of resources across diverse groups. The nature of network ties, otherwise known as relationships, which occur across the boundaries of various networks provide a wider channel for exchange of resources, information and opportunities. Burt (2001) reiterates that an open network with relations across diverse networks is important in gaining new opportunities that actors will not necessarily obtain from their closed network. The need to access or exchange resources or information initiates the development of thin trust among actors of diverse networks. In Torche and Valenzuela’s (2011: 190) words, “it is only within impersonal relations – with those to whom we owe nothing, and to whom we are not linked by affection or obligation of any sort – that trust emerges as a compulsory necessity and a purposeful decision”.
Developing trust for a stranger becomes a necessity in order to achieve an end result. Simply put, while in bonding social capital trust is developed due to the comfort of perceived similarity and the norm of reciprocity; in bridging social capital, trust is developed out of necessity and is described as “getting ahead”.
Another important factor that should be taken into consideration in terms of bridging social capital is its inclusive nature. Schuller et al (2000: 10) argue that although the ties and connections among heterogeneous networks are fragile, they tend to foster social inclusion among these diverse groups. The nature of the tie that exists in bridging social capital extends beyond closed networks to create relationships across diversity. Ester (2006) states that “bridging social capital refers to inclusive and outward looking social networks across diverse cleavages” (Ester 2006: 7). She further explains that a community that has bonding social capital and lacks bridging social capital is likely to “degenerate into social enmeshment, narrow-mindedness, or intolerance” (Ester 2006: 10). In this sense, bridging social capital can be an important factor for social inclusion and tolerance of diversity in a multicultural and pluralistic world.
61
It is important at this juncture to note that these two dimensions of social capital, that is bonding and bridging, are not necessarily exclusive of each other. Although different, they sometimes overlap. As Staveren and Knorringa (2008: 115) explain,
the two categories of social capital are not mutually exclusive. An economy needs both types of social capital. It requires a minimum level of bonding social capital for bridging social capital to emerge. Bonding social capital generates externalities for individual agents’ behaviour from group practices, creating and reproducing certain social capabilities, for example, the adherence to social norms, which may include mutual help, trustworthiness, sociability, solidarity, loyalty and responsibility, as well as knowledge sharing. Bridging social capital builds on these social capabilities – it will not just arise by itself in a society without any experience of close bonds between people in families, friendships, associations and organizations. The relationship between the two however, is not straightforward; the two levels of social capital seem to be partly trade-offs and partly supporting each other.
Simply put, a friend who is a work colleague could share both dimensions of social capital.
Therefore categorizing them as exclusive of each other may be problematic. Although it is possible for each dimension to exist in isolation, in certain cases these two capitals complement each other.