As I sat down for lunch with Erik Olin Wright, Joel Rogers,
and James DeFillipis I thought to myself: Are our values the same? Do my opinions correlate with theirs? Is what I think important? These three questions were those I thought of
when I read the two articles, “American Society: How it Really Works” and “The
Myth of Social Capital in Community Development”. My answer to my own questions was yes, and
this is because I am a member of society whose amendments grant me the power to
think, feel, and express what I please.
As I asked
Wright to pass the salt, I remembered the burning question I had the entire
time I was reading his article (and by the way, it is very annoying when all
you can think about is one question the ENTIRE time.) The question was simply this: Do inequalities
reinforce equilibrium in the United States?
As Wright and Rogers choked down their BLT’s, they answered my question
as I had hoped they would. “Well, being
the fair share men that we believe we are, we think that inequality is needed
to maintain a sense of equilibrium for a couple of reasons. For one, if everyone had the everything
people would no longer try their best or strive for more. Our country thrives off of competition
economically, socially, and spiritually.
If there was no competition, the institutions that have held us together
for so long (and the institutions that have almost destroyed us, I thought)
would be meaningless. Secondly,
redistribution of wealth is a folly. Due
to this, no one can ever be equal. Lastly, equilibrium is brought by change and
if inequality did not exist, then having change amongst society would be nearly
impossible because no one would want to change anything for fear that they
would not be equal to their companion.”
I was overjoyed to hear that what I thought resonated with them as
well. For me, I believe that if you work
hard, do your share, and are moral you will succeed. However, success is in the eyes of the
beholder, which is where I believe inequality sets in. Success is measured differently, therefore
causing disequilibrium.
Not wanting
DeFillipis to feel left out, I asked him to pass me the salt again (damn, there
goes my cholesterol…) and I proposed the question that I had wanted to have the
answer to: Do you think that the concept of social capital will ever be solidly
understood by everyone? Or do you
believe it will forever be a debated concept.
He paused before answering, just as I had before asking the question due
to the fact that it is a difficult one to answer. Then finally after sipping his Merlot and
biting into his sandwich he answered, “Lauren, social capital is a concept that
will forever be vaguely understood because it is a circumstantial concept. What I mean by this is that as times change, the
concept and understanding of social capital will change as well. People will value something now that they
will not value twenty years from now.
Putnam uses the example of bowling leagues as ways to build social
capital. Well that is a great way if you
are seventy years old and can’t hold your liquor. Social capital now in our time may be
achieved by having a group of people, say from knitting club or a summer job,
go out for a couple cocktails. This is a
bridging and bonding experience, which many theorists have pointed out will
boost social capital. But you must
understand, twenty years from now there will be another way to go about social
capital and how to achieve it.”
Satisfied with his answer, I began to think of ways that I could gain a
more concrete concept of social capital.
However, before I even began to ponder that I asked for another glass of
wine…J
