I want to use this space to discuss the work of the organizer, using the language of the social capital school of thought, specifically the interplay of formal and informal social capital.
Formal social capital arises most frequently due to employment networks. Formal social capital occurs in the networks which we belong in through necessity. A retail worker's formal capital exists among the connections that they have to their coworkers. A salesman's formal capital resides in the connections which he holds with the others in his office, and also to his clients. Formal social capital generally occurs in pre-existing, functional, top-down, sometimes regulated, networks.
Informal social capital tends to occur more organically, growing as more individuals gain access to a given network. Informal capital is found in networks and connections which we choose to be a part of, which we voluntarily embed ourselves within. A bowling team enjoys informal social capital among its members.
Both formal and informal social capital are useful insofar as helping individuals realize their goals more effectively than an individual could have realized those goals alone. However, informal social capital tends to be more social, more engaging - I admit that I have no formal studies to back this claim, however, it seems fairly self-evident: formal capital exists because it has to - we engage with our coworkers because if we did not, we could not do our jobs. We engage with our fellow bowlers because we have a common goal, a shared cause which stands outside mere subsistence, that perfect 300!
A community organizer's goal is to turn formal social capital into informal social capital. Everyone who lives in a community has a certain, sometimes miniscule, amount of formal social capital with their neighbors: there is always some mutual dependence on other members of one's immediate locale to avoid wanton destruction and mayhem. What an organizer does is to help the citizenry move from this formal relationships into informal states. This transition can only occur when informal capital is possible - with a shared cause or common goal. This goal may be something as small as griping about local politicians. What matters is that the common ground is found, and allows for the beginning of an open dialogue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
If I understand the boundaries
correct, formal social capital arises out of necessity - boss want's a project done so you work with Johnson on project A since he complements your skills, project is a success so you're more likely to consider working with and helping Johnson in the future.
Whereas informal SC occurs voluntarily and is more engaging. You're not forced to bowl with Fred, but do so because you enjoy the sport and his company. The shared experience leads you to recommend people to Fred's business.
My question is, wouldn't it be
possible for informal social capital to arise within a organization, especially one with
a flatter hierarchy? Don't employees who go to the bar and perform other activities together outside of work develop informal SC? The same goes for people who choose to attend the company picnic on their day off. When blending work/life relations it seems those people who develop ISC will be a more cohesive team while employees at work. This would imply that just like a community organizer, HR and Marketing have a responsibility to create situations where informal social capital will flourish to the organizations and individuals benefit.
Post a Comment