We turn now to examining three main paradigms that are shaping models of community development: ‘of ’, ‘alongside’ or ‘against’ neoliberalism.
Neoliberal civil society and social capital: of neoliberalism
Neoliberals have posited social capital as the elixir that will fix the problems
of late modernity. Skidmore and Craig (2005, p. 17) assert, ‘social capital is
an appealingly simple proposition: the kinds of social relationships people
have with one another and the trust and shared values that emerge from
them, influence the capacity of communities to work together to tackle
common problems’. Robert Putnam is regarded as the ‘high priest’ of
social capital as a theory of managed change. He argues that ‘in measurable
and well-documented ways social capital makes an enormous difference in
our lives . . . social capital makes us smarter, healthier, safer, richer and
better able to govern a just and stable democracy’ (The Irish Times, 1
November 2002). He attributes the lack of social capital in a contemporary
society to our lifestyle, which he argues is dominated by television. Televi-
sion, he contends, has undermined community involvement and civic
engagement. In this visually orientated world, lifestyle has become increas-
ingly individualistic and atomized, deeply disconnected from ‘the social’.
He contends that the public realm has suffered not only in declining mem-
bership of churches, unions, clubs and societies but also in disconnection
from politics and democracy defined by voter apathy. Despite his appar-
ently apolitical orientation, Putnam does connect civic disengagement
with democratic deficit.
Putnam is correct to argue that the quality of democracy defines civic
virtue. But, social capital is conceptually disconnected from democracy.
Its inspiration is in market capitalism in a world where the consumer has
become a substitute for the citizen (Bourdieu, 1998, p. 25). This is the funda-
mental flaw in the neo-Tocquevillean position. There are grounds for believ-
ing that Putnam may even be misreading American society. It is true that
more traditional forms of civil society are in decline. Bowling leagues are
a metaphor for community decline. On the other hand, as Harriss (2002,
pp. 53 – 54) points out, ‘the generation in America that Putnam holds
responsible for the decline of community has been responsible too for
having created the first consumer movement since the 1930s, the first
environmental movement since the turn of the century, public health move-
ments, grassroots activism and community organising, the first feminist
movement since the pre-World War I period, the civil rights movement,
and innumerable transnational non-governmental organisations and civic
movements, all of which led to unprecedented advances in rights and social
justice’. The reality is that as culture changes, so does civil society.
The Welfare State replaced many traditional social service organizations
operated by voluntary organizations whose egotism and paternalism
were at odds with a democratic society. Putnam’s passionate attempt to
restore communitarian values in the spirit of Alexis de Tocqueville mis-
guidedly seeks to evoke a past where civic virtue rested upon self-help.
Skidmore and Craig (2005, p. 19) conclude ‘the call for the restoration of
civic virtue to its proper place in people’s lives may be impassioned, but
this new traditionalism also feels rather implausible as the basis of
genuine, far-reaching renewal’. A return to the past based on a fusion
between the market and civil society offers a vision of social policy where
it would be residualized in the mould of the Poor Law State and traditional
philanthropy. It is a socially regressive option.
No comments:
Post a Comment