Sport and Social Capital

Matthew Nicholson, Russell Hoye

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• ISBN:
  9781136365034
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Despite the importance of sport as a social, economic and political institution, research into sport and social capital has not been extensive. Sport and Social Capital is the first book to examine this increasingly high profile area in detail. It explores the ways in which sport contributes to the creation, development, maintenance and, in some cases, diminution of social capital. Written by an internationally renowned author team who are leading figures in this area of study, this engaging and far-reaching text brings leading research from around the world into one comprehensively edited volume. Themes covered in the book include: education, gender, policy, community, youth sport, diversity and many more. It is essential reading for sport management, sport development and sport sociology students around the globe and offers fascinating and invaluable insight to interested stakeholders from industry, community and government.

CHAPTER 1…Sport and social capital: An introduction

Matthew Nicholson and Russell Hoye

DOI: 10.4324/9780080569727-1

To build bridging social capital requires that we transcend our social and political and professional identities to connect with people unlike ourselves. This is why team sports provide good venues for social-capital creation.

(Putnam, 2000: 411)

Sport and social capital is a result of this proposition and others like it that suggestively position sport as an institution capable of creating substantial social capital. Even a cursory examination of public discourses that relate to sport and leisure reveals that politicians, academics, sport administrators, policymakers, journalists, athletes and commentators are convinced the idea that sport is a vehicle for the creation, development and maintenance of social capital is, at the very least, intuitively correct. We have deliberately used the word ‘intuitively’ here, as a way of signalling that these propositions and related policy declarations are often not supported by a significant body of research. While there has been a large volume of literature produced on the idea of social capital, the relationship between sport and social capital has not been thoroughly examined. The collection of work in this book seeks to critically examine the theoretical connections between sport and social capital and in doing so, highlights the central role sport plays in facilitating social integration and civic participation. We also hope the research presented in this book that focuses on the connections between sport and social capital progresses discussions of these connections beyond intuition, suggestion and political opportunism. More broadly, we expect sport and social capital to stimulate and provide an accessible and useful framework for public debate about the social significance and benefits of sport and how sport and other areas of public policy might be reframed to more directly facilitate social capital development.

In 2000 the Saguaro Seminar argued that social capital was an important influence on the wellbeing of individuals, organizations and nations, citing research in economics, psychology, epidemiology, sociology and political science. The Seminar, an initiative of social capital researcher and author Robert Putnam, was in part a response to what was perceived to be a crisis in American civic engagement. Claims of social capital's importance and fears for its demise have been the foci of much of the intellectual and political energy dedicated to the discussion of social capital and its benefits. As yet, the role of sport in generating social benefits, contributing to the demise of social capital or providing a vehicle for generation or regeneration of social capital is unclear. National sport policies of countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK refer to the role sport plays in generating social capital. However, these social capital outcomes tend to be assumed to result from more instrumental policy aims such as supporting elite sport systems and fostering greater numbers of participants in sport rather than any direct policy elements aimed at enhancing social integration or civic participation. Further, social capital as an idea seems far removed from the everyday operations of sport clubs and groups whose focus is to get a team on the field and enjoy playing sport. This chapter addresses several fundamental questions about sport and social capital before briefly introducing each of the contributions to this book.

What is social capital?

A key principle guiding the work contained within this book is that definitional similarities rather than differences are of greater importance in establishing whether social capital is a useful conceptual lens for examination of the social significance or benefit of sport. We acknowledge the argument that ‘beneath the general agreement about social capital as a metaphor lie a variety of network mechanisms that make contradictory predictions about social capital’ (Burt, 2000: 2). Despite these contradictions we are more inclined at this point in the investigation of the relationship between sport and social capital to embrace a key point of agreement, metaphoric or otherwise, that ‘the people who do better are somehow better connected’ (Burt, 2000: 3) or even more colloquially that ‘it's not what you know, it's who you know’ (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000: 225). In other words, there is an inherent logic in the idea that the more connections individuals make within their communities the better off they will be emotionally, socially, physically and economically. Perhaps more importantly, while it might result in a charge of naivety, we are advocates for Putnam's (1995b: 665) contention that the question of who benefits from social capital should be determined empirically rather than definitionally. We did not wish to suggest that the contributors to this book limit themselves to empirical research, for some make valuable conceptual advances, but rather that the book should attempt to establish a foundation of empirical research that contributes to the general discussion of social capital by providing some contemporary empirical evidence.

Like many before us we are drawn to Bourdieu's (1986: 248) definition of social capital as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’. As subsequent researchers have identified, the definition highlights social relationships and the resources that are made available through these relationships. Contemporaneously, Coleman (1988: S98) also identified that social capital constituted ‘a particular kind of resource’ and ‘inheres in the structure of relations’. Similarly, Portes (1998: 6) noted that there was a growing consensus that social capital is ‘the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures’, and in a later version substituted the word ‘benefits’ for ‘resources’ (Portes & Landolt, 2000). Lin (2001: 3) defined capital as the ‘investment of resources with expected returns in the marketplace’ and thus, social capital as the ‘investment in social relations with expected returns in the marketplace’ (Lin, 2001:19).

A series of important interrelated issues arise from these definitions and their focus on resources and social relations (variously referred to as relationships, networks or structures). First, if social capital is a resource that is made available and able to be mobilized through social relations, then the corollary is that an individual's access to the resource or resources comes at the expense of others. Bourdieu (1986) noted that the volume of social capital available depends on the size of the network of connections that an individual can mobilize and the volume of capital possessed by the membership of the network. If there are finite resources within a set of social relations then one individual gains access to resources to the disadvantage of another. Thus, within the sport context it might be useful to think of a producer–consumer dichotomy, or at least consider that not all people within a social network will be better off because of the stock of social capital made available. Furthermore, if there are finite resources within a community, then those who are not members of social networks are disadvantaged by not having access to the privilege that comes with membership. In other words, a lack of social relations denies access to the resources of the network(s).

Second, as Portes and Landolt (1996, 2000) have argued, it is important to distinguish between the sources and benefits of social capital, for to confuse or conflate them might ultimately lead to the banal conclusion that the successful succeed. The unequal distribution of wealth and resources in society and across nations means that the social capital and therefore the ability to access resources does not guarantee a positive outcome (Portes & Landolt, 2000). In other words, an economically disadvantaged community might have very strong social networks, but the volume of capital possessed by the members of the network might be relatively low. In this respect social capital, or the ability to access resources, might mean that the resources of a network are optimized, yet minimal (Woolcock, 1998). Given that people participating in sport with regularity are likely to have a higher socio-economic status than those who do not, it is important not to draw the conclusion that the resources these people are able to access are as a result of their sport participation. In this context their sport participation may simply have extended the size of the network and the amount of capital available, which was considerable prior to participation.

Third, if social capital is relative to the size of the network of social relations and the volume of other forms of capital available through the network, then it is likely that people will build their social network over time and through a variety of activities. It will be rare for an individual to build their social network exclusively through involvement in one activity. Thus, social networks are the result of entangled activities, including those conducted with family, friends, workmates, fellow volunteers, etc. Clearly, the challenge for researchers generally and within this book specifically is to disentangle these activities and determine which are more or less effective in building social networks and providing access to resources (Coalter, 2005).

Putnam (2000: 19) defined social capital as ‘social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’. Unlike Bourdieu and others, however, Putnam did not make a direct link to resources that are available to individuals as a result of their involvement in a social network. According to Putnam (1995a: 67), ‘life is easier in a community blessed with a substantial stock of social capital’, because social networks foster reciprocity and trust, facilitate communication, amplify reputations and ‘allow dilemmas of collective action to be resolved’. The social network is a conduit for a range of other outcomes (such as increased trust), which in turn might lead to further outcomes (such as emotional physical or financial support during a time of need). Adler and Kwon (2002: 18) explained this phenomenon by arguing that if goodwill (sympathy, trust and forgiveness) is the substance of social capital, then ‘its effects flow from the information, influence and solidarity such goodwill makes available’.

It is clear that a common ground for social capital theorists is the concept of social networks – ‘the core idea of social capital theory is that social networks have value’ (Putnam, 2000: 18–19). We acknowledge, however, that social capital definitions vary according to ideas about what these social networks facilitate. For some, resources, access to resources and investment of resources within an expected return are central (see Bourdieu, 1986; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Portes, 1998; Lin, 2001). For others, the outcome is the ability of people to work together; communication, cooperation and positive collective action are at the core of this understanding of social capital (see Woolcock, 1998; Putnam, 2000). These two understandings of social capital are not mutually exclusive, for the outcomes of increased trust, reciprocity and communication can result in greater access to the resources of the collective. While we agree that the emphasis on resources enables a more effective understanding of power, we cannot escape the conclusion that using a more inclusive definition of outcomes might lead to an understanding of how social interactions, in which there is no exchange of resources of any economic value, make people happier and healthier.

So, the notion that social capital is the resources available to and accessed by an individual or community through social networks is a reasonable starting point, although we would advocate a broader and more inclusive definition of resources that does not reduce social capital to an economic mechanism, as well as an understanding that aspects such as trust, sympathy and reciprocity are features of the network that indicate its strength and the ability of members to produce or access resources. For example, Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) provide a useful way of investigating the structure of social relations by dividing social capital into three clusters, although they acknowledged that the clusters are highly interrelated despite their analytical separation: the structural, relational and cognitive dimensions of social capital. The structural dimension of social capital refers to ‘the overall pattern of connections between actors – that is, who you reach and how you reach them’ (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998: 244). These connections, or networks, facilitate the flow of information as well as the building of relationships (King, 2004). Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) argue that the presence or absence of network ties is an important aspect of the structural dimension, as are network configurations. Included in the structural dimension is Coleman's (1988) notion of appropriable social organizations, in which the network might operate for purposes other than the one it was created for. The relational dimension of social capital refers to the ‘personal relationships that people have developed with each other through a history of interactions’ (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998: 244). In this dimension trust and trustworthiness, norms and sanctions, obligations and expectations, and identity and identification are considered key factors. Finally, the cognitive dimension of social capital refers to ‘shared meaning and common values’, as well as collective goals and a shared vision among community or network members (King, 2004: 473).

Importantly, we wish to acknowledge from the outset that social capital is not exclusively positive, although clearly its overwhelmingly positive overtones are of interest to policymakers in particular. Rather, it has the potential to sustain communities in which the members of the community are socially, financially, culturally, mentally and physically prosperous, but also has the potential to exclude and create or sustain significant disadvantage. In this respect, Putnam's distinction between bonding and bridging social capital has merit for an examination of the role of sport. Bridging social capital refers to processes by which the development of social norms, networks and trust through social interaction links various segments of the community and contributes to the connection of disparate elements of the community, rather than reinforcing notions of division and difference (Putnam, 1995b). By contrast, bonding social capital involves the norms, networks and trust contributing to the cooperation of members within a group. Whereas bridging social capital is regarded as having a positive influence in society, organizations or communities that experience high levels of bonding social capital can have a negative impact on wider society, such as extremist religious groups or neo-Nazi gangs. In these cases the level of bonding social capital results in the community or organization being exclusive rather than inclusive. Coalter (2007) noted that the concept of linking social capital should not be ignored in the context of the operations of sport organizations, and drew on the definition provided by Woolcock (2001) that linking social capital refers to vertical connections between different social strata that enable individuals to gain access to other resources.

Why social capital?

Social capital is a theoretical paradigm that has gained increasing currency in recent years as academics and politicians alike have searched for ways to conceptualize social, economic, demographic and political changes and their impact on communities. Since Putnam's Bowling Alone (2000) the entrance of social capital into the public arena has been magnified, although even prior to this publication the term social capital was described as one of the ‘most popular exports from sociological theory into everyday language’ (Portes, 1998: 2). Like Blackshaw and Long (2005) we are fascinated by social capital's meteoric rise, particularly in the policymaking discourse, where it is variously used to provide structure or legitimacy. We acknowledge that we are disturbed by the way in which social capital appears to have been uncritically adopted within sport policy and management discourses, but are at the same time enamoured by its potential to provide a conceptual framework for investigating the social impacts of sport.

It makes little sense to ignore the social capital concept, particularly given that its political, as well as its academic currency appears to be growing rather than diminishing. The approach adopted within sport and social capital is to examine whether the concept has any conceptual or practical use by investigating its relationship with a specific social institution, in this case sport. The prevalence of the social capital concept within public policy generally and sport policy more specifically makes it imperative to critically assess this relationship. Furthermore, the popularity and influence of Putnam's Bowling Alone (2000) has meant that there is an implicit, if not explicit link between sport and social capital in the political and public imagination. Thus far the academic research on the relationship between sport and social capital has not been of sufficient critical mass to determine the nature or extent of this link, let alone determine its legitimacy. At a base level, it is hoped that sport and social capital provides a forum to investigate the relationship more thoroughly.

Are participation trends useful for measuring social capital and the impact of sport on social capital?

This question is prompted by the work of Putnam in particular, and specifically his use of participation trends in organized sport to illustrate the decline in American social capital in Bowling Alone (2000). In lamenting the decline in league bowling in favour of more individual and more informal participation, Putnam (2000) quotes figures indicating that although the total number of bowlers increased by 10 per cent between 1980 and 1993, league bowling decreased by 40 per cent during the same period. He claims that the significance of this trend ‘lies in the social interaction and even occasionally civic conversations over beer and pizza that solo bowlers forgo’ (Putnam, 2000: 113). Furthermore, Putnam (2000: 113) argues that the decline in the numbers of people participating in teams rather than as individuals or informal groups illustrates ‘yet another vanishing form of social capital’. One of the inherent problems with this analysis, despite Putnam's concept of participation with ‘a diverse set of ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of Tables
• List of Figures
• Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Sport and social capital: An introduction
• Part One Concepts and Contexts
• Part Two Clubs and Community Sport Organizations
• Part Three Sport and Social Capital in Action
• Subject and Author Index