Social capital’s external effects are frequently antisocial and negative

Evidence

Sometimes “social capital,” like its conceptual cousin “community,” sounds warm and cuddly. Urban sociologist Xavier de Souza Briggs, however, properly warns us to beware of a treacly sweet, “kumbaya” interpretation of social capital. Networks and the associated norms of reciprocity are generally good for those inside the network, but the external effects of social capital are by no means always positive. It was social capital, for example, that enabled Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. McVeigh’s network of friends, bound together by a norm of reciprocity, enabled him to do what he could not have done alone. Similarly, urban gangs, NIMBY (“not in my backyard”) movements, and power elites often exploit social capital to achieve ends that are antisocial from a wider perspective. — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 45

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s core theme: solidarity formed via bonds WITHIN a group is often purchased precisely by an out-group; dovetails with the black-hat/white-hat group dynamics literature. — connects to: Social capital serves harmful as well as beneficial ends — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 1099; Social capital valuable for one activity can harm others. — Coleman, SocialCapitalCreation-1988, 40; Social capital constrains behavior even as it enables it, reducing innovativeness. — Coleman, SocialCapitalCreation-1988, 111 (+2 more)
• SEED: Angle for a piece on how “solidarity without an enemy” may be the exception — even cohesion built on shared projects tends to generate external negative effects, from NIMBY to gangs.

Broader Connections

• Social capital serves harmful as well as beneficial ends #expands (0.95) — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 1099
• Social capital is activity-specific and even harmful in some contexts. #expands (0.95)
• Social capital valuable for one activity can harm others. #exemplifies (0.90) — Coleman, SocialCapitalCreation-1988, 40
• Social capital constrains behavior even as it enables it, reducing innovativeness. #exemplifies (0.85) — Coleman, SocialCapitalCreation-1988, 111
• Individual mobility decisions can destroy social capital others depend on involuntarily. #exemplifies (0.85) — Coleman, SocialCapitalCreation-1988, 210