A Comparison of Theories of Social Capital by Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman

A Comparison of Theories of Social Capital by Pierre Bourdieu and James Coleman

Social capital is a sociological theory which has gained increasing

attention in recent years. Whilst Bourdieu can be credited with

introducing the term to sociology, it was James Coleman who allowed

the concept to gain widespread recognition, highlighting its

importance as an individual notion. For Bourdieu social capital forms

a part of an overarching theory of ‘fields’, ‘capital’ and their

relation to class reproduction. The key importance of social capital

for Bourdieu is its relationship with economic capital, whilst for

Coleman, social capital is seen to lead to human capital. It seems

that both Bourdieu and Coleman agree that social capital represents

social ties or membership of particular communities that make

resources, advantages and opportunities available to individuals.

Whilst both identify social capital with social structure, they do so

differently, in ways that reflect the theoretical underpinnings of

their respective approaches and the aspects of social reality they

seek to understand. Both Coleman and Bourdieu emphasize the intangible

character of social capital relative to other forms. As Portes (1998)

notes, economic capital can be found in peoples’ bank accounts, whilst

human capital resides in peoples’ heads. Social capital, however,

inheres in the structure of their relationships. Thus to possess

social capital, a person must be related to others and it is those

others, not himself, who are the actual source of advantage. In order

to address this question I will firstly compare and contrast the

definitions of social capital...

... middle of paper ...

... how this situation can be improved. Coleman, by contrast, whose

theory seems to have many theoretical inconsistencies, has left a

vague and malleable definition which has not only allowed theorists

the opportunity for somewhat problematic empirical testing, but has

also offered social capital as a usable and creatable solution for

such inequalities. Thus, whilst for Bourdieu, social capital helps to

explain why inequalities continue to persist, for Coleman, social

capital represents a tool for reducing these inequalities. The latter

theory has therefore undoubtedly seemed more attractive for those,

particularly in educational research, who wish to improve problems

such as social exclusion, and who are perhaps reticent to accept that

social capital may be one of the reasons why such problems will

inherently remain.