The Family in the Light of a New Relational Theory of Primary,Secondary and Generalized Social Capital

The aim of this article is to pinpoint the relevance of family relationships in the studies on ‘social capital’. In order to clarify this perspective, Pierpaolo Donati outlines a new approach called ‘relational approach’. According to it, social capital is a property and a quality of social relationships, not an attribute of individuals or social structures as such. This theory has two major advantages: first, it leads to differentiate those components of social capital which are usually conflated; second, it permits to identify various forms of social capital (primary, secondary-communitarian and civic or generalized). Riccardo Prandini criticizes the sociological prejudices which consider the family mainly as an obstacle for the full deployment of ‘liquid’ and ‘modern’ social relations. The family's social capital is defined as the reciprocal orientations of the family's members which are able to generate trust and therefore cooperative actions. Empirical evidence shows that the family's social capital is strictly connected to the emergence of pro-social attitudes in individuals, particularly in terms of social trust and participation in civil associations.     

Locating difference: class, 'race' and gender, and the shaping of social inequalities

The current interest in difference has arisen in part because of its importance in recent recognition claims, and in part because of a belief that as a concept it can illuminate social diversity. Debates here have stressed the importance of the symbolic in the construction of social relations and social diversity, and have highlighted the relational underpinnings of diversity. In this paper we seek to take forward aspects of such an analysis by examining some issues in the shaping of difference and inequalities in the domains of gender, class and ‘race’. It is our argument that we can gain insights in these domains by better describing and theorising the mutuality of value and material social relations. The paper argues that issues of identity and difference need to be more firmly located within relational accounts of social practice, and in the nature of claims (to recognition and resources) which emerge out of different social locations. By exploring issues of difference in debates on class, gender and ‘race’, we argue that relational accounts must be placed within a perspective that also emphasises the content and patterned nature of (highly differentiated) social relations.     

Founding the New‘Family Studies’

By developing the concept of Multidimensional Developmental Pathways, the potential social policy consequences of such theorising are explored. In moving towards conceptualising the actual needs of people and the unity of their lives we can consciously (rather than unconsciously) contribute proposals for rebuilding social policy. With a view to generating further interest in alternative theoretical approaches to the analysis of ‘family life’, three theorems are then proposed. These three theorems constitute the first step in founding the New‘Family Studies’.     

Meanings of lone motherhood within a broader family context

In this paper, the theoretical approach to the concept of lone motherhood is adopted from ‘new’ family sociology where families are understood to be dynamic processes constituted by webs of relationships. I analyse life stories written by lone mothers in order to examine the meanings that they give to their lone motherhood in relation to their larger family context. This approach reveals that, along with the concept ‘family’, the category ‘lone motherhood’ can be questioned. The life stories show that as with all families, the representations of ‘the lone mother family’ vary. Lone motherhood emerges less as a distinct family form and more as an experience coloured by the lone mother's position in a web of family relationships, as well as her place in her broader personal, social and historical context.     

Gender, home and family in cultural capital theory

The paper argues that Bourdieu's stress on early familiarization for the highest value of cultural capital is closely linked to his idea, strongly emphasized in Distinction, about the role of family and domestic life for individual development and social positions. The role of women, as mothers and homemakers, is crucial in this process. Yet, Bourdieu defines social origin as deriving from the father. The centrality to Bourdieu's thinking of a resilient traditional pattern of masculine domination and feminine submission constitutive of the Western gender habitus explains both his stress on ‘normalcy’ for the production of legitimate dispositions, and his resistance to incorporating into his thinking the implications of recent transformations in home family living, which have destabilized the gender order. It is thus important to consider contemporary feminist analyses of the family and home life and their significance for a renewed theory of cultural capital. The paper considers two sets of literature. Firstly, it addresses the manners in which home and family are conceptualized in Bourdieu's key texts where these issues were prominent in the development of his thinking on cultural capital. The second set of literature includes texts by feminist academics in the fields of family, gender and the body, which analyse the destabilizing of the gender order and everyday family living in contemporary society. Two questions are addressed on the basis of these reflections: (1) Is cultural capital an individual or a household resource? (2) How does cultural capital relate to personal interdependencies at the level of family and households?     

Performances of social class,race and gender through youth subculture: putting structure back in to youth subcultural studies

This paper aims to advance debates in youth studies about the contemporary relevance of social structures of class, race and gender to the formation of youth subcultures. I demonstrate how drawing on a cultural class analysis and education literature on learner identities and performativity can be productive in theorising the continued significance of class, and indeed also race and gender in young people's lives. In examining school-based friendships and (sub)cultural forms through empirical research in urban schools, I argue that not only are young people's subcultural groups structured by class, race and gender but also they are integral to the production of these identities. By examining the discursive productions of two school-based subcultures as examples: the ‘Smokers’ and the ‘Football’ crowd, I further argue that these identity positions embody resources or capitals which have differing value in the context of the urban school and thus demonstrate how race, class and gender privilege are maintained and reproduced through youth subculture.     

Natural relations: horses,knowledge, technology1

Maintaining the tensions and divisions between the human and non‐human, nature and culture has been a mainstay of Euro‐American thought. Drawing upon two studies of people's associations with horses, we examine how these divisions are being reworked in the social sciences as well in everyday life. We focus on how different ideas about ‘horses’, ‘horsemanship’ and how knowledge is acquired, accomplishes different social worlds. Specifically, what emerges in these differential discourses is that a paradox is put into play to make a distinction between traditional and contemporary ways of being in relation to nature and the animal; it is the paradox of what we want to refer to as ‘natural technologies’. We suggest that the paradox of ‘natural technologies’ is a proliferating feature of Euro‐American cultural life that troubles old divisions between nature and culture and propose that it indicates less about a politics of nature than a politics of culture. Specifically, we show that the preoccupation with bringing nature, and the non‐human, more into alignment with the human promotes ethics and equality as matters of lifestyle choice to the exclusion of very specific ideas about tradition, hierarchy, evolution and socialization.     

The magic of mundane objects: culture,identity and power in a country vets' practice

This article explores and extends the idea that material objects lie at the heart of many of our social, and specifically workplace, interactions. The site of exploration is an ethnography of a British farm animal veterinary surgery. Drawing upon traditional cultural studies approaches alongside contemporary sociological understandings about the place of materials in social life, the article analyses how objects function to track and structure the ways that people of different professional status experience work at a veterinary surgery. It is argued that the power of the veterinary elite in this setting is best understood by paying close attention to ‘mundane’ artefacts. The article argues that such objects, having almost no meaning on their own, can become potent cultural symbols if actors have the necessary social capital to ‘transform’ them. Here, Latimer's concept of ‘strong moves’ (2004) is extended to consider how the reinterpretation of objects might constitute a form of ‘cultural magic’. This article seeks to uncover some of the practical scenarios in which such ‘magical’ transformations play out and describes, through a series of tales from the field (Van Maanen, 1985), the ways in which vets control and regulate their interactions with those outside the professional elite.     

Language,structure and agency: What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics?

The sociolinguistic enterprise raises fundamental questions about the nature of the relationships between social phenomena (such as social class or gender) and linguistic variation, while within social theory a persistent concern is the nature of the relationship between structure and agency. Sociolinguistics can draw on social theory for analysis of the relationship between speaker and system, the role of language in the creation, maintenance and change of social institutions, and the role of human agency in sociolinguistic phenomena. This article summarises the key tenets of a sociological realism, based on the recent work of Margaret Archer (in particular her exploration of analytical dualism) and of Derek Layder (specifically his theory of ‘social domains’). It relates these ideas to sociolinguistics, arguing that language can be seen to have a different significance, depending on which domain is the focus of the researcher's interest. The article considers the distinctiveness of this approach, contrasting it with structuralist and social constructionist accounts and with structuration. It concludes by identifying some methodological implications, suggesting that sociological realism offers a productive theoretical framework for sociolinguistics in dealing with questions of language, structure and agency.     

Family as source,user, and builder of social capital

Purpose: For many years, family scholars have documented the significance of the family as a major institution for carrying out essential functions for individuals and societies: reproductive, physical sustenance, economic maintenance, socialization, nurturance, and meeting sexual and other social-emotional needs. The concept of social capital draws attention to the equally significant role of the family in building and supplying this component in the workings of the economy and society. Social capital provides a rubric for bringing together various ideas about the family that have been circulating for some time. A quarter of a century ago, the late Kenneth Boulding (1973) gave attention to the integrative function of the family, its role in supplying “the glue” that helps other parts of the social-economic system to hang and function together. More recently, Robert Bellah and his associates (1985) discussed the weakening of the moral or social ecology of a community—the web of moral understandings, relationships and commitments that tie people together—and how the family contributes to or, conversely, diminishes the social ecology. I consider social capital as a resource (i.e., matter, energy, or information converted into specific forms for attaining goals) embedded in relationships among people upon which they can draw to provide information or other resources or to facilitate activity of social or personal benefit. Family capital is a form of social capital for its members, as well as a contributor to the more general concept. I will emphasize positive forms or outcomes of social and family capital, realizing that harmful forms and outcomes also exist. I consider families to exist in a state of interdependence with community, societal and global socio-cultural, human-built, and physical-biological ecosystems.Methods: I will first focus on how the family through its nurturance, care-giving, and socialization function develops (or fails to develop) values, attitudes, expectations, and habitual patterns of behavior on which social capital and moral ecology depend. I will then discuss findings of research with families on small farms that illustrate the interdependence of family with other systems in its environment as source and user of social capital.Family as Builder and Source of Social Capital. Much has been written in recent years about the essential role of the family in building human capital, investing in the health, education, values and skills of it members to enable them to play productive roles in society. Human capital is essential for building economic, physical and social capital. I will not discuss this further, per se, but will concentrate on particular ways in which the family contributes to social capital.One of the most fundamental needs of human beings is development of the sense of trust—the belief that you can rely on and believe in others to do what is expected. Trust is the foundation of moral behavior on which social capital is built. The function of morality is to provide guidelines for social cooperation and coordination of activity in which humans can live together and interact with one another so as to avoid a situation in which “all are at war against all.” Building trust is part of the attachment process that begins in infancy as parents (or other primary caregivers) care for and meet the needs of young children for food, warmth, comfort, love, security, and human response. If these needs are not met in early life, a sense of mistrust develops; suspicion of others and failure to develop moral behavior or the ability to relate to and cooperate with others are likely results. In the world in which we live, we eventually learn that everyone cannot be trusted, but if a basic sense of trust has been established, betrayal and disappointment can be easier to deal with.Along with the sense of trust, family relationships and behavior help establish the principles of reciprocity and exchange—the notion that as you receive something from others, you are expected to give something in return. If you have given, you have a right to expect something in return. Reciprocity and exchange underlie creation and use of social capital. Boulding used the concept of grants that the family makes to its children or weaker members for material and emotional sustenance. Recipients of such grants do not provide “tit-for-tat” exchanges in return, but are sources of love and gratification to the giver. There is the assumption also, usually implicit, that children will provide care and help for parents in their older age. There is also the expectation that you should help other family members. Behavior in the family can also lead to generalized social reciprocity in which one gives to others without direct return from those to whom one has given, but gives because one has received benefits in the past.Research on social relations among older adults lends substantial support to operation of these principles in the family and in provision of continuity in human relationships through kinship structures. Virtually every study reports that most older adults are entrenched in a network of people who are very important to them—family and friend relationships that have existed for a long time. Parent–child and sibling relationships are especially important in providing economic aid, help with tasks, personal and health care, and companionship to older adults. Cross-generational help, such as provision of child care by grandparents, is also significant. Families, however, cannot meet all needs and must draw upon other systems. For example, friendship relationships are important in older life for many people, especially for leisure activities and intimacy, and have significant positive impact on well-being. Thus, while the family is a critical source of social capital, it must be seen as a system in a network of mutually interdependent systems. I hypothesize that learning how to participate in social groups and establish relationships is rooted in family behavior and in how open the boundaries are between the family and other groups in its ecosystem. Through its pattern of participation in other systems—religious, economic, civic, and the like—the family models behavior for future generations.Research with Families on Small Farms. Our research with families on small farms illustrates interactions with community systems for exchange of resources in using and creating social capital. We did intensive case studies over two-and-a-half years with three families who moved to farms at a field research station of Michigan State University as part of a research-demonstration program. In one facet of our research we obtained information about contacts the families made with systems in their environments through records and construction of ecomaps in which families identified various external systems with which they interacted and had exchanges. Systems were classified on a continuum of formality based on characteristics of structure and control with highly formal systems such as businesses, schools, and government agencies at one end and at the other informal relationships with relatives, friends, and neighbors. In between were semiformal systems with varying degrees of structure such as food and child care cooperatives, neighborhood and community clubs, and other interest groups. Some systems, such as local extension staff or clubs, were allied with formal systems but had more autonomy and flexibility. Exchanges were classified on the basis of the Foa and Foa (1974) framework in which it is proposed that six classes of resources account for the basic needs of human beings: money, goods, services, information, love/affection, and status. These are transmitted through interpersonal behavior interpreted as an exchange. Of particular significance for understanding social capital were findings related to informal and semiformal systems.Since the families had moved to a new community, many miles away from their extended families, establishing relationships with neighbors and making new friends became especially important as sources of friendship, status, information, and services. Locating or helping to create semiformal systems, including cooperatives and agricultural-interest groups such as sheep farmers or organic growers were also important, especially for getting and giving information about agricultural practices the families were trying out, such as organic farming for which, at that time, formal systems (e.g. the University) had little information to provide. Semiformal systems also provided friendship and status and served as places for barter, and sometimes sale, of goods and services. Systems of this nature play a unique role in what Flora and Flora (1993) propose as the kind of social infrastructure necessary for community development. By this is meant the “group level, interactive aspect of organizations or institutions” that can facilitate the flow of resources, particularly information. This type of infrastructure is essential for the development and flow of social capital. The family is an integral player in such an interdependent system for creating and using social capital.     

‘Workaholics’ and ‘whingeing women’: Theorising intimacy and emotion work — the last frontier of gender inequality?

In a variety of discourses and empirical studies it has been argued that compared with women, men show more reluctance to express intimate emotion in heterosexual couple relationships. Our paper attempts to theorise this gender asymmetry in intimate emotional behaviour as a sort of ‘emotional power’, within the wider context of continuing gender inequalities of resources and power in society. To the extent that men's role as breadwinner becomes their central life interest (they become ‘workaholics’), women are left with emotional responsibility for the private sphere, including the performance of the ‘emotion work’ necessary to maintain the couple relationship itself. Increasingly women's dissatisfaction in relationships (which men dismiss as unjustified ‘whingeing’) stems mainly from this unequal division. Yet many women still collude with male power by living the family ‘myth’ and ‘playing the couple game’; they perform emotion work on themselves to convince themselves that they are ‘ever so happy really’, thereby helping to reproduce their own false consciousness. This suggests that gender asymmetry in relation to intimacy and emotion work may be the last and most obstinate manifestation and frontier of gender inequality.     

Inequality and 21-year-olds' negotiation of uncertain transitions to employment: a Bourdieusian approach

Faced with uncertainty, how do young people navigate the transition from school to work? Applying Bourdieu's concept of habitus to the ‘fields’ of education and employment, I argue that past experience, family background and unequal access to economic, social and symbolic forms of capital differentiate their transitions. Drawing on the tenth wave of the Australian longitudinal Life Chances Study, we found that all of the twenty-five 21-year-olds interviewed expressed uncertainty when discussing their futures. However, those from high-income backgrounds with access to strong social, economic and cultural resources were better able to manage the risks arising from uncertainty than their counterparts from low-income backgrounds. The following article seeks to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of young people's experiences at age 21 through the application of Bourdieu's conceptual framework. The interviewees’ habitus and cultivation of varying forms of capital tend towards social reproduction, yet also reveal opportunities for those considered ‘disadvantaged’ to mobilise their cultural resources. Bourdieu's model of the field, and its component conceptual tools, provide an explanatory frame to make sense of the seemingly incoherent paths that young people trace between education and employment.     

Social and family responsibility or self-interest?

Mothers’ increasing labour market participation is posed as a key aspect of a growing trend towards individualization — both for ill and for good. In ‘for ill’ versions, mothers’ employment is regarded as undermining commitment to family relationships and leading to a loss of community. In ‘for good’ versions, family and community relationships become contingent upon values of equality and respect. ‘Preference theory’ modifies the individualization thesis, with a posited distinction between mothers in full-time employment with ‘work-centred’ identities and those with part-time work who want ‘adaptive’ or ‘home-centred’ identities. This paper examines such issues, drawing on qualitative case study research on mothers employed full and part time in a hospital and an accountancy firm in the UK. It considers how the variable work ethos of organizations, and the ways mothers engage with these, can interact with their engagement in family and community relationships. In particular, it suggests that employment can be as much about social obligation in a local community, and commitment and obligations to family, as about individualized self-provision and options.     

Clothing and dementia: A neglected dimension?

The article explores the neglected subject of clothing and dementia. Addressing questions of the body, identity and selfhood, it argues – against the dominant understanding – that clothes continue to be significant in the lives and wellbeing of people with dementia. Drawing on new theorising that emphasises the embodied nature of selfhood, the article explores the role of clothing in the maintenance of identity; its nature as the ‘environment closest in’; its significance in social interaction; and its potential character as an agent of control and normativity. The article concludes that clothing and dress offer a potentially interesting field in which we can explore the nature of personhood in dementia, and in ways that offer insights into forms of response through which individuality and selfhood can be recognised, maintained and enhanced.     

Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

Using a sociometric approach to family relationships, we test the hypothesis that the way individuals define their family context has a strong impact on the types and amount of social capital available to them. Binding social capital is defined in terms of network closure, i.e. a redundancy of ties within a group. From this perspective, social capital is to be found in groups with a high density of connections, network closure enhancing expectations, claims, obligations and trust among individuals because of the increase of normative control. Bridging social capital is an alternative way of defining family social capital as a function of brokerage opportunities: the weaker connections between subgroups of a network create holes in the social structure which provide some persons—brokers—with opportunities to mediate the flow of information between group members and hence control the projects that bring them together. Using a sample of college students from Switzerland, we found that family contexts based on blood relationships such as those with grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins, provide a ‘binding’ type of social capital, whereas family contexts based on friendship provide a ‘bridging’ type of social capital. Inclusion of stepparents is associated with neither type of social capital.     

Limits and Possibilities of the Postmodern Narrative Self

The task of theorising the self has been of little interest historically in systemic therapy, yet becomes more interesting in the postmodern turn to the narrative metaphor and social constructionist ideas. Within this frame, the self is theorised as relational, fluid, and existing in narrative. The ‘postmodern narrative self’ counters modernist assumptions of self as an autonomous and fixed ‘internal’ entity, and brings with it theory and practice possibilities. However, any theory also brings limits, and this paper explores the limits of the central ideas of the postmodern narrative self. Through questioning and discussion, an argument is made for holding a dialectic in our thinking about the relational and autonomous self, for acknow-ledging very real boundaries on the fluidity of self, and for thinking of narrative as one way of knowing self, rather than exclusively constituting the ‘being’ of self.     

Epistemic authority and the gender lens

Researching ‘hidden’ forms of social inequality such as gender often poses particular challenges. Not least of these is how to uncover such dimensions of social life whilst preserving the perspectives of research participants, who may not consider such matters relevant to their lives, particularly if other forms of identity or oppression are more prominent for them. Here, I reflect on these issues in the context of researching user involvement in mental health services from a feminist perspective. I show how ‘uncovering’ gender and other forms of social inequality in the field was aided through adopting a wide analytical lens focusing on power, along with reflexivity and openness in discussing my own political analysis and commitments in relation to the study area with the researched. I also describe how I attempted to resolve the epistemological‐ethical issues involved through conceptualising these in terms of ‘situatedness’ and gender salience and adopting a feminist standpoint which emphasised what researchers can, and indeed should, bring to the research enterprise. Related issues of power and empowerment in the research process are discussed.     

The concept of social movement

Recent developments in social movement research have evidenced a greater underlying consensus in the field than one might have assumed. Efforts have been made to bridge different perspectives and merge them into a new synthesis. Yet, comparative discussion of the concept of ‘social movement’ has been largely neglected so far. This article reviews and contrasts systematically the definitions of ‘social movement’ formulated by some of the most influential authors in the field. A substantial convergence may be detected between otherwise very different approaches on three points at least. Social movements are defined as networks of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in political or cultural conflicts, on the basis of shared collective identities. It is argued that the concept is sharp enough a) to differentiate social movements from related concepts such as interest groups, political parties, protest events and coalitions; b) to identify a specific area of investigation and theorising for social movement research.     

Conceptualising social capital in relation to the well-being of children and young people: a critical review

This exploratory article forms the background for an empirical study for the Health Education Authority on children, young people, health, well-being and social capital. In terms of morbidity, children tend not to exhibit clear health problems, but obviously engage in activities that have important implications for their health and well-being (West & Sweeting, 1996), and these activities may be influenced by, as well as impact upon, children's social capital. Social capital is an elusive concept and has been defined in various ways, and refers to sociability, social networks and social support, trust, reciprocity, and community and civic engagement. The paper contrasts three interpretations of the concept, by Coleman (1988, 1990), Putnam (1993, 1995) and Bourdieu (1986). It concludes that the concept is currently poorly specified as it relates to children, and that the use of the term is inherently problematic, and needs to be carefully critiqued and empirically grounded before it can usefully be applied in social policy formulations. One possible way forward might be to conceptualise social capital not so much as a measurable ‘thing’, rather as a set of processes and practices that are integral to the acquisition of other forms of ‘capital’ such as human capital and cultural capital (ie qualifications, skills, group memberships, etc).     

‘Family ideology’: identification and exploration

The issue of ‘family ideology’ has been systematically ignored by a majority of ‘family¹ scholars whilst it has been taken for granted by a minority. The following study arises from the author's attempts to explore the issue of alternative theoretical approaches to the analysis of family life’.² Increasing numbers of contemporary researchers concur in recognising the diversity of ‘family forms’ and the inappropriateness of speaking of ‘The Family’.³ Despite these recognitions many researchers find themselves re-adopting the term ‘The Family’ in their discussions and especially in the titles of their work. For example. Segal clearly recognises that the ‘traditional family model’ no longer reflects the reality of our lives (1983, 11) and yet the title of her book is What is to he done about THE FAMILY? (emphasis added). One reason for the re-importation of the idea of ‘The Family’ may be found in the rather limited nature of previous conceptualisations of ‘family ideology’. With the exception of Barrett (1980), recognitions of ‘family ideology’ tend to be conceptualised in terms of sets of partisan beliefs supporting a particular ‘family form’. Thus the concept of ‘The Family’ is rarely regarded as being problematic in itself, rather attention is paid to the presumed virtues or deficiencies of the particular form of ‘The Family’ which is assumed to be prevalent. Notwithstanding the recognition of ‘family diversity’ or the inappropriateness of the term ‘The Family’, nearly all discussion becomes a straightforward attack upon, or defence of. ‘The Family’.⁴ Only very rarely does analysis avoid this trap and question whether ‘The Family’ really exists to be attacked or defended; thus Collier et al. have asked ‘Is there a Family?’ (1982) and the present author has asked ‘Do we really know what “The Family” is?’(Bernardes, 1948a). The objective here is to identify and explore a specific conceptualisation of ‘family ideology’. The aim is to avoid engaging in attacks upon, or defences of, ‘The Family’ but rather to address the ideological context of such debates themselves, especially in respect of the assumed existence of ‘The Family’. It is hoped that this approach will stimulate a much more critical examination of ‘family ideology’ and the concept of ‘The Family’. More generally, the attempt to conceptualise ‘family ideology’ in this much broader sense is seen as a pre-requisite for the development of an alternative theoretical approach to the analysis of ‘family life’.