What’s the Big Idea? A Critical Exploration of the Concept of Social Capital and its Incorporation into Leisure Policy Discourse
Abstract Starting from the overwhelming welcome that Putnam’s (2000) treatise on social capital has received in government circles, we consider its relative merits for examining and understanding the role for leisure in policy strategies. To perform this critique we identify some of the key points from Putnam’s work and also illustrate how it has been incorporated into a body of leisure studies literature. This is then extended to a discussion of the methodological and theoretical underpinnings of his approach and its link to civic communitarianism. We suggest that the seduction of the ‘niceness’ of Putnam’s formulation of social capital not only misses the point of the grimness of some people’s lives but it also pays little attention to Bourdieu’s point that poorer community groups tend to be at the mercy of forces over which they have little control. We argue that if the poor have become a silent emblem of the ways in which the state has more and more individualised its relationship with its citizens, it is they who also tend to be blamed for their own poverty because it is presumed that they lack social capital. This in turn encourages ‘us’ to determine what is appropriate for ‘them’. As a critical response to this situation, we propose that Bourdieu’s take on different forms of ‘capital’ offers more productive lines for analysis. From there we go on to suggest that it might be profitable to combine Bourdieu’s sociology with Sennett’s recent interpretation of ‘respect’ to formulate a central interpretive role for community leisure practitioners – recast as cultural intermediaries – if poorer community groups are to be better included.