Individuality evolves and is being shaped by social interaction with others. We become what we are not just out of our own volition. It is important, therefore, to differentiate the social and cultural context in which individuals function. This has for long been the purview of sociologists and anthropologists and the challenge is how we make sense of it in the contemporary global context where people live under very different circumstances. Compare, for instance, a secular and civic country like Denmark with other places where either religion or ethnicity reigns. The point is that some individuals grow up in societies where they have a choice; where voluntarism prevails. Others find themselves confined to primary forms of social organizations like family, clan or tribe. Some are caught in social organizations that are inclusive; others in those that are exclusive in nature. As individuals they take in different values and help sustain, but also change, the environment in which they function. The following figure hopefully illustrates what I am arguing:
Different types of social capital
Exclusivist
Bonding Blinding
Primary_________________________________Secondary
Binding Bridging
Inclusivist
Bonding social capital is the context in which individuals find themselves wherever family and other ascriptive ties are strong. Blinding capital is found especially in religious organizations where individuality is shaped by strong beliefs in a God. Examples abound from around the world and this type of social capital has become increasingly important in shaping individuality in the contemporary context. It should perhaps be added that blinding social capital is also prevalent among sports fans although it could be argued that it is not likely to rest quite as deep as social capital rooted in religious beliefs. Bridging social capital is what Robert Putnam associates with civicness and is, in his view, the preferred type of social capital because it is most likely to support liberal democracy. Binding social capital, finally, is necessary in multi-cultural societies where compromise across cultural boundaries is necessary to keep them going. The consociational versions of compromise in the Netherlands and Switzerland would be cases in point, as would multi-ethnic countries, say in Africa, where successful political governance rests on pragmatic “deals” among elites.
So, like Winston Nagan has argued in his contribution, individuality is shaped in interaction with others. Who they are, and how they are organized matters – along the lines suggested in the figure above.
Individuality and Social capital
I like Professor Hyden's link between Individuality and Social capital since it may help the Academy understand the causes of the present and potential future global crises. When nation states had their own religion and subscribed to a common set of values, social capital was perhaps taken for granted in the trust it generated. However, with transnational associations/ corporations / endeavours and globalization, local and national communities are no longer homogenous and subscribing to common values. One is therefore seeing a marked surfacing of positive and negative forms of social capital, the latter often undermining the successes of the former. In addition to social capital generated by 2-way interactions which Professor Hyden has illustrated, we will also need to consider social capital generated by 1-way interactions, the positive and negatve forms of these in selected global-local challenges / crises and how these may be linked to the satisfaction / inhibition of human needs. It may be worthwhile to look at the studies / pubication by my former colleague, Professor Professor Paul Collier in relation to development.
Individuality and social capital
This is a really interesting theory. I especially find the part about religion to be true, I think Nietzsche said something along the same lines of how social morals have been effected by religion. So here we have the blinding capital again... Clearly if religion has had and still does have in certain areas a large amount of influence over the morals that are accepted by the society in which the religion is present then it follows that this will have a large effect on any individual who resides within the society.
Individuality and social capital
I really like the proposal on social capital and cultural and social context. My most recent co-edited book Social Capital and Social Justice, ed G Woolcock and L Manderson, see http://www.cdu.edu.au/cdupress/
Greetings, Lenore
Individuality
Thank you for your thoughtful response to the Individuality Project survey. Your comment clearly brings out the importance of social capital and cultural context in the support for and emergence of Individuality. This is an important issue which we need to explore during the e-conference. We look forward to your further contributions.
Garry Jacobs
for the Individuality Project Team