The Might of Social Capital within the Capital
Value is something that can be largely attributed to objectivity and physical tangibility, especially with our use of currency, trading of goods, and giving of services. Value is also subjective and varied. Monetary and sentimental value are nowhere near the same, but they are definitely both valid. So, when we attribute value to our relations and the connections that we make with each other, that too is absolutely valid.
Robert Putnam argues that, in his view, the main idea about social capital is that “networks and the associated norms of reciprocity have value” in both public and private situations. It is an abstract trade of certain expectations and possibilities from each other, leading to services in our favor. All relationships are built on at least some level of self-gain; why would you be in a relationship with someone when you yourself have nothing to gain from it? That’s why it is a trade. It’s reciprocal, which, like all forms of capital, can be positive or negative in influence, such as the Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy behind Tim McVeigh, or a group of friends gossiping and spreading rumors about an individual.
Even someone with “bridging” social capital — weaker connections from outside one’s own sphere — is able to gain a lot of reciprocity from several factors. With social media, one person’s worth of bridged social capital is pretty weak. It’s the combination of that capital possible through a global, accessible connection that increases the quantity, the participation, and the reciprocity, which is the measurement of social capital. Dissimilar individuals share interests and values, even over Twitter, a platform based on short, quick responses. Distance acquaintances can still offer things of value if one’s cards are played right, and the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That’s because the sum of the parts can be hundreds, thousands, or millions nowadays.
Perhaps a controversial but representative case of (bridged) social capital is with Donald Trump and his followers on Twitter. Trump, whether you support him or not, has been a divisive president, one who has said divisive things and has done divisive actions. What he understands, however, is the power of social media, its reach, and what he can gain from it. During his campaign and presidency, his actions and words have been unpopular and spread controversy and backlash. Those who agreed with him, however, were able to form together to support him, and in return there was an agreement: if he supplied his people with the promises they wanted to hear for America’s future, they would listen and give him a base to express himself and his opinions and thoughts to. An abstract trade. Social capital.
Having a base and solely targeting that base instead of the larger American public may seem like a disadvantage. Even so, millions of people — of all calibers — use Twitter, and with Trump being the president, he has incredibly far reach (unless you happen to block him, or vice versa). It is his primary way of communicating with the American public, but the group of people who he is actually targeting is his base of supporters. They are the ones who listen, the ones who create the hashtags and handles that pit themselves against mainstream media and other candidates (#BlacksForTrump, #WomenForTrump, #NeverWarren, etc.), uniting under one massive group. Not to mention, with him being the POTUS, his tweets get lots of media attention, which increases engagement in and out of the platform.
The president uses the power of Twitter to rapidly respond to events and his presidency, and his supporters and the rest of the public are able to view it instantaneously. Despite weak individual links, with Trump’s base, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and there is a trust network built into it all. As a result, there is a reciprocation, a trust network between Trump and his base. While the information being presented may be suspect or biased, the power of that shared reality created between these two entities highlights the strength of the social capital Trump has accumulated, and he is using that capital to attain certain ends that his supporters benefit from.
Like all capital, social capital can be used for benevolent or malevolent purposes. It’s a gray area regardless, but norms are created, a structure of trust is built, and there are only gains for both sides.
