social capital in its place: using social theory to understand social capital and inequalities in...

Social Science & Medicine 66 (2008) 1174e1184www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed

Social capital in its place: Using social theory to understandsocial capital and inequalities in health*

Christine Stephens

School of Psychology, Massey University, Palmerson North, New Zealand

Available online 21 December 2007

Abstract

Social capital has been controversially linked to public health benefits, particularly as an explanation for the relationship be-tween economic inequalities and health. This paper focuses on social capital in this context, particularly a recent emphasis on socialcapital in neighbourhoods and growing use of Bourdieu’s social theory in empirical investigations. A review of some of this work isused to suggest the need for a more coherent theoretical approach to using Bourdieu and to introduce an ethnographic study ofsocial connections in New Zealand. Forty-six residents of, a rural town, a deprived city suburb, or an affluent suburb, volunteeredto be interviewed about their social connections. Their talk was transcribed and analysed in terms of everyday practice. The resultsof this study suggest that social connections are not necessarily located in neighbourhoods, and that social capital will be betterunderstood in a broader social context which includes competition for resources between deprived and non-deprived groups,and the practices of all citizens across neighbourhoods. When considering social capital, an exclusive focus on deprived neighbour-hoods as sites for research and intervention is not helpful.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Social capital; Bourdieu; Health inequalities; Neighbourhood; New Zealand

Introduction

The social capital concept has been developed inde-pendently in areas such as sociology, education, andpolitical economy and drawn on by public health re-searchers since the 1990s to consider social effects oninequalities in health. In their review, Moore, Haines,Hawe and Shiell (2006) argue that since the introduc-tion of the concept, health related research has drawnmost heavily upon Putnam’s (1995) conceptualisation

* The data reported in this paper were collected as part of a study

funded by a grant to Christine Stephens from the Marsden Fund of

the Royal Society of New Zealand.

E-mail address: [email protected]

0277-9536/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.11.026

of social capital in terms of ‘‘features of social organisa-tion, such as civic participation, norms of reciprocity,and trust in others’’ which are assumed to be beneficial.However, this use has been critiqued as ill-defined andinnumerable commentators have called for better theo-ries (e.g. Baum, 1999; Blakely et al., 2006; Campbell& Gillies, 2001; Fassin, 2003; Lochner, Kawachi, &Kennedy, 1999; Muntaner & Lynch, 1999; Szreter &Woolcock, 2004). Hawe and Shiell (2000) and Macinkoand Starfield (2001) have pointed to inconsistencies be-tween the conceptualisations and measures used, andPortes (1998) and Woolcock (1998) noted the concep-tual fragmentation of approaches. On political groundsthere has been concern that the popularity of the conceptallows social policy to ignore structural inequalities

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed

1175C. Stephens / Social Science & Medicine 66 (2008) 1174e1184

(Fassin, 2003; Muntaner, Lynch, & Davey Smith, 2001)and to place responsibility for the effects of poverty onthe poor (Pearce & Davey Smith, 2003).

Recently, Moore et al. (2006) have suggested thatimportant aspects of the social capital concept havebeen ‘‘lost in translation’’ to the discourse of publichealth. In particular, understandings of social capitalas resources accessed through membership in socialnetworks (Lin, 1999) have been lost. This shift in con-ceptualisation has been reflected recently in moves to-ward including the social theory of Pierre Bourdieuwho originally defined social capital as ‘‘the aggregateof actual or potential resources linked to possession ofa durable network.’’ (Bourdieu, 1986). For example,both Carpiano (2006) and Ziersch (2005) have drawnon Bourdieu to contribute considerations of the differ-ences between the antecedents, actual resources, andoutcomes of social capital. Ziersch (2005) surveyedmembers of two Australian suburbs to assess the impli-cations of access to social capital for health. She drewon both Putnam and Bourdieu to conceptualise andmeasure social capital in terms of networks and valuesthat facilitate access to resources and resources avail-able through this infrastructure. Her findings showthat some elements and pathways were related to mentalhealth but none to physical health. Ziersch suggests thatthis complex and fragmented approach to measurementis the key to understanding social capital componentsthat health promoters may target, although she alsowarns against a prescriptive and potentially ‘‘victim-blaming’’ approach to local social capital promotingactivities. Carpiano (2006) draws more fully on Bour-dieu’s sociological theorising to construct a detailedconceptual model of neighbourhood based social capitalwhich focuses on social networks and the importancefor the individual of being connected to networks thatpossess beneficial resources. Carpiano separates themeasurement of resources from that of their antecedentsor consequences. However, to develop an empiricalmodel for the assessment of social capital in neighbour-hoods, he departs from Bourdieu. Like Ziersch, he usesexisting empirical work to itemise elements for mea-surement: social support, social leverage, informalsocial control, and neighbourhood organisation partici-pation. Carpiano (2007) tested this model in a studycomparing neighbourhoods in Los Angeles and foundlittle support for hypotheses about the relationship be-tween these elements of social capital at neighbourhoodlevel with health behaviours or perceived health. Theseshifts, from Putnam’s empirically based account ofsocial capital in terms of norms that are universallybeneficial, to more clearly defined conceptualisations

of networks and resources as the basis for empirical en-quiry, are appealing given past problems and critiques.However, there are three major issues to be addressedin this present application of network theories: the focuson geographical location, the interpretation of socialtheory, and methodological problems.

First, the focus on neighbourhood as the site of ac-cess to social capital does not accord with recent recog-nition that neighbourhood is not necessarily community(Szreter, 2002) and that the value of social capital is inbroader social connections (Szreter & Woolcock,2004). There has been a focus on ‘‘community’’ sincethe new public health developments in the 1970s. Shielland Hawe (1996) pointed to acceptance that ‘‘sense ofcommunity’’ and ‘‘community competence’’ in neigh-bourhoods contribute directly to health, and researchand policy focus for reducing health inequalities inthe UK has been on ‘‘poor places’’ (Cattell, 2004).The communitarian approach to health has associatedneighbourhoods with communities (Moore et al., 2006)and hence with social networks. Here, neighbourhoodsare understood as residential areas which are typicallymeasured either objectively (as in classifications of dep-rivation, affluence, or crime rates in clusters of resi-dences; e.g. Virtanen et al., 2007) or subjectively (e.g.by asking respondents to consider their local area withina 15 or 20 min walk or drive from their home; see Bowl-ing & Stafford, 2007). However, Veenstra (2005) andVeenstra et al. (2005) are among those who have usedempirical work to question whether neighbourhood isclearly related to measures of social capital or health.Edmondson’s (2003) ethnographic research makes thepoint that the importance of location as the focus of so-cial life is contextual across time and place, and we canobserve today that many people do not base their sociallife in their neighbourhood of residence. Another wayof describing this is to draw on Bourdieu, as Gatrell, Po-pay and Thomas (2004) have done, to show empiricallythat neighbourhood is not the same as ‘social space’.They found that social space, described using Bour-dieu’s relational approach and delineated by economiccapital and social capital, is related to health but dis-persed across different geographical spaces. Carpiano(2006) and Ziersch’s (2005) models neglect this recog-nition of the importance of the wider social and politicalenvironment, although Putnam (2000) had alreadynoted that close connections within groups (bonding)may seem helpful, but it is the connections between dif-ferent groups (bridging) that allow sharing of resourcesand are accordingly more beneficial. In relation toneighbourhood groups, qualitative studies in the UK(Campbell, Wood, & Kelly, 1999; Cattell, 2001) and

1176 C. Stephens / Social Science & Medicine 66 (2008) 1174e1184

in the USA (Altschuler, Somkin, & Adler, 2004) havefound that these external links or bridging networksare potentially more important in regards to well-beingthan social connections within neighbourhoods, andPortes (1998) has reviewed evidence for the damagingeffects of neighbourhood networks. Bourdieu’s theoris-ing provides an explanation of the advantages of socialnetworks that is not in terms of exclusive neighbour-hood bonds, but across different fields of practice ina broader conception of social relations.

This brings us to the second problematic issue whichis the way that some health researchers have drawnupon Bourdieu’s theorising and forced a fragment ofhis social theory into models based in an existing com-munitarian approach. Focussing on neighbourhoodcommunities as units within which social capital hasits effects omits the broader social issues which arethe very basis of Bourdieu’s (1977) theory of practice.Bourdieu uses capital as a metaphor for power (Fine,2001), in which the notion of capital includes not onlyeconomic resources but also the benefits of access tocultural, symbolic, and social capitals. Thus, social cap-ital is only one form of capital within a political econ-omy in which all capitals are resources (Bourdieu,1986). Competition for access to these interconnectedresources is constantly enacted across different fieldsof practice, such as education, sport, or commerce, ineveryday life (Bourdieu, 1984). Social capital may beunderstood as a good in these terms, but it is not avail-able for the taking: one very important aspect of the so-cial reality of competition for resources (Bourdieu &Wacquant, 1992) is the exclusion of members of othergroups from access. In ‘‘Distinction’’ Bourdieu (1984)describes the social mechanisms of exclusion throughwhich dominant groups accord status to preferencesfor, and ownership of, objects like art, music or food.He has also pointed out (Bourdieu, 1986) that, whileeconomic capital is the basis of wealth, social and cul-tural capitals are mechanisms that ensure transmissionof capital within wealthy groups. Thus, Bourdieu ex-plains the interrelationship of material, social and cul-tural capitals, and at the same time shifts our attentionfrom the deprived in society (or people who live inpoor places) to the role of the wealthy in perpetuatinginequalities. The understanding that possession of cap-ital is about unequal social relations between groups,and about exclusion of others from beneficial resources,maps well onto current observations of health inequal-ities. Campbell, Cornish, and Mclean (2004) note theperpetuation of inequalities figured by this conceptual-isation of power: possession of economic, social, andcultural capitals facilitates the accumulation of more,

and those with the least remain powerless. Veenstra(2007) has drawn on Bourdieu’s theory and methodsto describe how Canadians from 25 communities werelocated in social spaces delineated by economic, cul-tural, and social capitals. Occupation of positions acrossthe social spaces (and not geographical spaces) was re-lated to differences in self-rated health and depression;those with the lowest income, lowest status occupations,and fewest social connections reported poorer health.Thus, attention to this broader notion of social space,as described by Bourdieu, provides a basis for empiricalenquiry in relation to health; the workings of social cap-ital may be observed in the connections of everydaysocial life across geographical spaces, and betweenwealthy as well as poor people. This will be the basisof the study described in this paper, however, thereare some methodological considerations to be made inundertaking such a shift.

The third issue then is in methodological approachesto observing the function and effects of social capitalconceptualised in this way. Williams (2003) has critiquedthe generally positivist approach to research on inequal-ities and health. Following epidemiological observationsof correlations between inequalities in socio-economicstatus and health, subsequent research (e.g. Wilkinson,2005) has sought explanations based on conflation of on-tological and epistemological levels of understanding.Variables, such as social capital, are hypothesized to me-diate the relationships between inequalities and health ina causal linear flow and proposed for empirical testing asa series of quantifiable relationships. This leads to testingdubiously measured (Fassin, 2003) fragments of the con-structs and any relationships that are apparent are seen assubject to the limitations of place and not generalisable(Ziersch, 2005). Edmondson (2003) describes how re-ducing social capital to single variables measured atthe neighbourhood level, omits the broader social andhistorical view. Social capital is not a single ‘thing’ be-cause the ways social relations are enacted is changingboth culturally and historically (Morrow, 1999). How-ever, this suggestion of complexity does not mean that re-peatedly applying complex models with multipleparameters to different sorts of neighbourhoods willhelp understanding. Bourdieu (1984) has warned of the‘‘.the mistake of inventing as many explanatory sys-tems as there are fields, instead of seeing them as a trans-formed form of all the others; or worse, the error ofsetting up a particular combination of factors active ina particular field of practices as a universal explanatoryprinciple’’ (p. 113).

Williams’ (2003) recommends a critical realist ap-proach in which the social reality of the flow of capitals


may not be observed directly (although its effects onhealth are) and is not necessarily linear. The key as-sumption here is that there is a social reality that maynot be directly observed but may be described; the cri-teria for testing social theories ‘‘.cannot be predictive,but must instead be exclusively explanatory’’ (Scambler,2002, p. 43). Bourdieu (1984) sees capital as ‘‘a socialrelation.which only exists and only produces its effectin the field in which it is produced and reproduced’’(p. 113). Veenstra (2007) has described the importanceof this relational theory to his use of correspondenceanalysis to describe social spaces. However, Bourdieu(1984) also noted that this sort of survey producesa ‘‘snapshot’’ taken ‘‘after the battle’’ for a continuallycontested and negotiated set of social relations andvalues, in which the researcher’s measures themselvesare ‘‘weapons and prizes in the struggles between theclasses’’ (pp. 245e246). Accordingly, he recommendsa variety of methods to capture social space. Edmond-son (2003) has demonstrated the usefulness of ethno-graphic research, and Altschuler et al. (2004) usedinterviews and focus groups to study ‘‘processes and ac-tions of people’s relationships.’’ (p. 1221), and toshow how social resources vary according to economicresources. Thus, qualitative methods were also chosenfor the present study that was designed to explore peo-ple’s social connections. In regard to Bourdieu’s theoryof practice, we aimed to ask people about their sociallife in terms of everyday practice. These practiceswere also to be examined in relation to the differencesin people’s access to material resources (deprived andnon-deprived groups) and to differences in their geo-graphical situation (rural and urban).

Method

Interviews and small group interviews were con-ducted with residents in three different neighbourhoodsin, or near, a New Zealand provincial city (population100,000). The areas were chosen to include urban andrural localities, and both deprived and non-deprivedareas. The small rural town (we named ‘Watersdown’)was selected because of its proximity to the city(30 km) and its mix of farming and town dwellers ina small area. Two urban neighbourhoods were selectedaccording to levels of deprivation by using the NewZealand Deprivation Index (Salmond & Crampton,2002) which ranks small areas (‘meshblocks’ definedby Statistics New Zealand, with a median populationof 90) using data (from the 2001 census) for those livingin each area on nine variables: telephone, benefits,unemployed, income, access to a car, single parent,

qualifications, home ownership, and bedroom occu-pancy (Salmond & Crampton, 2002). Each meshblockis ranked on a deprivation scale from 1 to 10 and linkedto addresses in the electoral role. We selected twogroups of five contiguous meshblocks in the city. Onegroup with a score of 10 (most deprived; in a suburbwe named ‘Sefton’) and another with a score of 1 (leastdeprived; named ‘Johnsville’).

Once the three areas were selected we contacted keyinformants in each area (e.g. social workers, council-lors, members of a ‘progressive association’, and localmarae (traditional M�aori meeting place) committee)to describe the study and receive advice. We advertisedthe study in local newspapers, with flyers and notices,and held a public meeting in each area to discuss thestudy. Next, 200 people were randomly selected fromthe electoral roll in each neighbourhood and sent a letterwith information and an invitation to participate in indi-vidual or group interviews.

In total 46 people (aged from 18 to 81 years) wereinterviewed. In Sefton there were four individual inter-views with women, and one small group interview withthree participants (one man and two women). Ethnicitywas self-defined and described here in broad categoriesto indicate diversity while protecting anonymity.

The Sefton participants included two M�aori, twoNew Zealand Europeans, one Middle-Eastern Asianand one Far-Eastern Asian, and one Pacific Islander.In Johnsville there were 16 interviews (seven men andnine women). There were two small group interviewswith three (one man and two women) and two womenparticipants, respectively. The Johnsville participantsincluded two M�aori, one Far-Eastern Asian, and 18New Zealand Europeans. In Watersdown there were15 interviews (seven men and eight women) and onesmall group interview (one man and two women). Theethnicity of the Watersdown participants included twoM�aori and 16 New Zealand Europeans.

The interviews were conducted in people’s homesand the groups were conducted in community rooms.The questions were semi-structured and enquired aboutsocial connections in terms of daily activities, sense ofidentity in relation to place, the neighbourhood asa community, and personal involvement in this setting.

The study employed an ethnographic approach (in-cluding other data collection methods such as photo-graphs, follow up interviews, and meeting feedback).For present purposes, the first interviews provideda rich source of information. The analytic concernwas with talk as practice and as descriptions of people’sdaily social lives. This analysis accepts people’s ac-counts as information about practice, re-presentations


of past occurrences that have a presence, reality, andsignificance in these people’s lives. Talk about thesepractices remains one of the most practical ways inwhich we can gain access to these activities beyondtalk.

The interviews were audio recorded. Following tran-scription of all the first wave interviews, ATLAS_TIsoftware was used to code the data for topics usingthe grounded theory technique of constant comparison(Strauss, 1987). The interviews were then read againand the topics grouped into themes. The themes werechosen for similarities and differences within andbetween neighbourhoods. Selected themes were consid-ered for this discussion in terms of Bourdieu’s theory ofpractice.

Results

Social connections

An immediate finding was that, although we had fo-cussed on neighbourhood or local community in struc-turing the study, in explaining its purposes toparticipants, and in many interview questions, the pri-mary daily connections reported were not related toneighbourhood. The important connections operatedacross several different fields of practice such as family,schooling, work, and recreational activities beyond theneighbourhood.

FamilyAlthough there is concern today with the break down

of family as a central social structure (e.g. Popenoe,1993), the most important connection reported by allparticipants was family. The one exception e a singleimmigrant e had ‘‘adopted’’ a local family and helpedcare for their children in an avuncular way. Even ourmost socially isolated participant’s only contacts werewith members of her family. The most gregarious andwidely connected people counted family as their mostimportant connections. In New Zealand many peopledo not live close to family and these connections in-cluded family members across New Zealand and theworld. A notable shift in family structure is that manyfamilies with young children have only one parent, nev-ertheless, the parent/child unit, and the broader familystructure still worked in traditional ways. For olderpeople, grown children and grandchildren were a centralpart of their social lives. Most middle-aged peoplemaintain regular contact with their elderly parents(differently depending on proximity) to check on theirwell-being.

Daily practicesThings that people do together were the next most

important connections. The most common of these ac-tivities is paid work which was the basis of daily connec-tions for some, but not the most discussed. For parentswith young children, the children’s friends and parents,and school, are important connections. School or pre-school is often the place where newcomers to the townin any area made their first connections and for recentimmigrants, these first contacts were an important intro-duction to local culture. Pass-times also provide net-works of friends. Many of our participants competedin, or helped their children compete in a great varietyof organized or informal activities such as team sportsor cycling and hiking. People also belonged to a varietyof clubs such as dancing groups, drama groups, choirs,gardening clubs, service groups, education groups,hobby groups or political groups. Volunteering iscommon and people in all areas reported giving a handto schools, neighbours, and friends in everyday ex-changes. They also helped in more formal ways throughschools and many other organisations, or by fund raisingfor charities. There are a variety of very active (mainlyChristian) churches in the city and country that area very important focus for many people’s social lives.Attending church services and functions were importantactivities and church membership was based on affilia-tion with religion or denomination, not place. The Maraeis also an important focus for some local people whowork together on marae based activities, especially inthe country where the local marae is an importantfocus of social life for a larger proportion of thepopulation.

NeighboursNeighbours were not important social connections. It

was seen as good to have friendly neighbours, but ingeneral people had many other connections that weremore important to their identity, especially in the city.However, there were some differences between theareas which will be described in Differences betweenneighbourhoods.

Differences between neighbourhoods

According to Bourdieu, access to economic capitaland social capital is closely linked (according to therules of each field of practice). This study was notable to consider these relationships systematically, how-ever, the different areas enabled some comparisons tobe made in terms of different levels of economicdeprivation.


Differences between deprived and affluentneighbourhoods

People from Johnsville and Sefton generally re-ported different kinds of social connections. In the de-prived suburb of Sefton people talked more aboutcloser networks, like family, church and friends. Theyhad family and neighbourhood or Church links, butfewer broader connections with the state and institu-tions, and fewer international connections. In contrastto Johnsville, most participants in Sefton had developedcloser friendships with their neighbours (even if theyhad not lived there very long). These stronger connec-tions can work both ways. Several people had alsofallen out with neighbours and had quite serious verbaland physical disagreements with them.

In Johnsville the residents had many more connec-tions with city, national, and international networks,but none knew their neighbours well. Many of our par-ticipants lived in cul-de-sacs which created a feeling ofsupport, but this was commonly expressed throughfeeding the cat and keeping an eye on the house whenthey went away. Otherwise they had nodding acquain-tance. If their neighbours were a nuisance it was at adistance, through noise, burglaries, or plants crossinga boundary, which they dealt with through the policeor city council.

Differences between town and country placesPlace was more closely connected to social networks

for rural dwellers. In Watersdown families also formpart of the social structure of the town. There wasawareness of the generational links of the older fami-lies, and the members of these older families, bothM�aori and European, play important local roles. Manyof the town’s social services are aimed at supportingthe younger generation and enabling them to stay inthe town. Neighbours have more importance in Waters-down compared to the city. People are more likely toknow their neighbours and support them. Farmersmay not have close friendships with neighbours, butthey rely on them for sharing tasks and tools, for infor-mation (informally and through formal alliances), andfor help in times of serious difficulty such as floods.

Differences between affluent and deprived groupsin the country

Since Watersdown was not chosen in terms of levelof deprivation there are more differences in the eco-nomic resources available to individuals. Broadly, therewere two groups: farming families with good incomesand resources, and town dwellers attracted by lowcost housing and living on low incomes. This was

reflected through two different views of life and connec-tions in Watersdown. Those who could afford to travel(i.e. had good cars and fuel) saw the larger nearbytown and the city as their social and service centres,and were not concerned about loss of services, suchas the doctor and bank’s cash dispensing machine,from Watersdown. These people regularly visitedfriends and belonged to various groups in any of the sur-rounding towns and the city. The low income towns-people, in contrast, saw Watersdown as a ‘‘fragile’’community endangered by a steady loss of local ser-vices. Some also noted ruefully that most of the profes-sional people working in the town, e.g. all the schoolteachers, lived in the city and commuted to the town.

Neighbourhood as a sign of distinction

Wilkinson and Pickett (2006) point out that classidentity is only established in relation to society; thatis a poor neighbourhood is only deprived in relationto richer neighbourhoods. From Bourdieu’s perspective,lower social status is conferred on deprived groupsthrough the competitive actions of those with more eco-nomic, cultural and social resources across the fields ofpractice, in particular through signs of ‘distinction’.Thus, residence in a poor neighbourhood becomesa sign of (non)distinction that is conferred on themore deprived by those who live in ‘better’ neighbour-hoods. Muntaner et al. (2001) suggest the importancefor public health research and practice of exploringsources of connections and ‘‘what determines whogets connected to whom’’ (p. 219). For Bourdieu, thisincludes determinants of who doesn’t get connected,and how people are excluded. The effect of this socialactivity most clearly observed in our participants’ talkwas the need to defend their neighbourhood and theirown status (as the quote from P3 below demonstrates),against the claims of those who did not need to defendthe reputations of their own neighbourhoods.

We did not specifically ask people about other placesand yet some of our respondents in Johnsville revealeda negative view of Sefton. In the following examplea Johnsville resident uses Sefton as an example ofwhat her area of residence is not. Furthermore, sheshows that she characterizes those who live in Seftonas a certain ‘‘sort of people’’ with whom she does notwant to mix.

INT: And what would you identify as being the mostpositive things about the community you live in?

P1: Oh this is a bit snobby. I like the area. I like thecleanliness of the area. And I like the people that are


in the area. .I wouldn’t want to live in Sefton. Youknow places like that.I don’t like the sorts ofpeople.

In the second example, a Johnsville participant ex-presses fear of Sefton’s inhabitants, although she qual-ifies this by suggesting that she does know peoplewho live there. There is quite a lot of rhetorical workin both of these statements, but they also reveal a detri-mental view of people according to their place ofresidence:

P2: I would be scared in Sefton. And I am quitescared when I go there to see friends.

From the alternative perspective, a resident of Seftondescribed her experience of these views:

P3: .you know how that was a huge negative thingabout our Sefton, it’s so sad because I always think,no! I know another girl, she used to live down inSefton and she works with me, she said it’s so sadhow the others.I said it’s just how they perceivethings. You know how people are negative aboutSefton.

INT: Is that people outside the community orinside?

P3: Outside the Sefton area. But there’s even mypoor son. When he told the boys he was walkinghome from school and they say how do you walkhome? How can you walk in Sefton? This is ourkids at school! And my son laughed and he said‘‘There’s nothing wrong with walking in Sefton’’.Even from work I walk. And they say how canyou walk there? I said why shouldn’t I walk e it’swhere I live. I walk but they say would you feelsafe? I say of course I feel safe e what’s wrongwith Sefton? I can’t understand when they sayhow can you live there? I say well how can youlive where you live?

The residents of both Watersdown and Sefton weremore likely to identify with their town or suburb to de-fend its good name against detractors in this way.Watersdown has a poor reputation in the local regionas a low income area with a (distant past) gang problem,and hence a great deal of positive talk functioned to de-fend the town’s good name and to counteract that badimage. Residents were initially quick to express pridein the town’s attractions, natural surroundings, andgood weather.

Sefton has a national reputation as a difficult area dueto shootings and other criminal activities that have

brought media attention. The residents are very awarethat the actions of some residents and, more gallingly,continuing biased reporting by the news media, have con-tributed to generally negative views and that they have todefend their part of town and themselves as residents. So,there was a great deal of positive talk whose main pur-pose was to defend the reputation of residents and builda positive image in the face of critique from others.People in Sefton also expressed pride in their neighbour-hood, the facilities, and the community organisationsand services available in the area where there are a num-ber of active community groups working to broker sup-port from public funding and to provide social services.

In contrast, the residents of Johnsville characterizedtheir suburb as a pleasant part of town in which to stay,with good shops, attractive parks, and river walks. Butthey did not tend to see their part of the city as a separateplace with which they identified, and certainly not asa place that required defense. In talking about theirown lives, they were more likely to locate themselvesin the context of the city as a whole, or the wider region,or the country.

Effects of distinction in different fields of practice

So far, the analysis has shown that the neighbour-hood of residence has fewer implications for social con-nections within neighbourhoods, than it has for socialconnections between neighbourhoods. It has been foundthat people may identify with their neighbourhood forcertain social purposes (such as defending it), buthave different social connections in different fields ofpractice (see Stephens, 2007). However, there is alsoan important interplay between people’s access to anduse of economic, social, symbolic and cultural capitals.Here, I focus the analysis on the effects on social con-nections of living in a low income (low economic cap-ital) and low status neighbourhood (low symboliccapital) that were apparent in different areas of dailypractice. Some examples in relation to civic engage-ment, the use of health and social services, and school-ing are described here.

Civic engagementIn Watersdown, the loss of services (such as health

services, council services like lighting and drainage,and commercial services like shops and banking facili-ties) that the town has experienced contribute to thesense of fragility expressed by town dwellers. Some res-idents belonged to a variety of active community groupswhich work to counteract the loss of facilities and


services by lobbying the regional council and providers,by providing health or youth support services, or byworking on parks and public buildings to improve thetown’s image. Thus, a sense of embattlement hasbrought some people together in networks whose spe-cific purpose is to counteract an erosion of supportfrom the wider region. This civic engagement providesa strong sense of community and has had notable suc-cesses. In contrast, in affluent Johnsville, civic engage-ment is not restricted to local struggles. Since thesepeople have access to doctors and cash dispensing ma-chines, those involved in political groups have broaderor more personal issues at stake. For one man, it wasabout the use of city resources to develop an art galleryas opposed to a museum; another woman lobbied atnational level for a child cancer charity.

Health and social servicesOwing to its deprived status, Sefton has several spe-

cial social and health services provided for members ofthe local community by government, council and localorganisations. Although all interviewees in Sefton ex-pressed admiration for, and pride in, these servicesthey did not all use them. For example, one womanwho had recently experienced a burglary and was of-fered counselling and support through her daughter’sschool, believed that these services were not for her asan employed house owner. Another woman thought thatlocal services, such as an internet cafe in the shoppingcentre, were only for M�aori. Even those who hadbenefited from some services (like social support forchildren) did not see the other services (like localclinics) as relevant to them (although they had serioushealth problems). Additional services were seen asa public good, but they were for other, deprived mem-bers of the community with whom they did not identify.

SchoolingDeveloping connections in Sefton was not necessar-

ily what parents wanted for their children. Several of theSefton participants sent their children to schools outsideof the area despite expense or inconvenience. Onewoman who was committed to staying in the area anddefended its reputation vociferously, had also sent herdaughters to private schools outside. Another womanexplained that by attending a slightly more distant pri-mary school her daughter can meet ‘‘.a cross sectionof kids in there from different areas.not just youknow this low income area.’’ In a similar way, some res-idents of Johnsville had moved there specifically fromother towns or suburbs so that their children couldattend better secondary schools.

Moving onFor city residents, the sense of stigmatization contrib-

utes to an aim to move out. Although residents of Seftoninsisted that Sefton was a fine place, some also plannedto leave. Most recent arrivals had moved to Sefton forthe low cost housing and had no plans to remain. The im-migrant families saw Sefton as a first home only. Anotherambition is to move socially: one woman, who did nothave the physical resources to move house, talked abouther efforts to make social connections beyond Sefton byjoining a quilting group through connections at work:‘‘.’cause it’s very hard to get into these groups yousee.’’ Such quilting groups were very popular amongthe women participants in Johnsville.

Practices such as accessing health services outsidethe area, taking children to other schools, and joiningother cultural groups, demonstrate efforts to build so-cial, cultural and symbolic capitals. A closer study ofthe social difficulties and physical barriers that are sug-gested by participants in these extracts may also revealthe everyday ways in which power relations operatethrough distinction to affect access to these resources.

Summary

Neighbourhood was not the important source ofmost people’s social connections. In some areas, neigh-bourhood is more important, but that import depends onthe characteristics of the neighbourhood and the pur-poses of those connections. In this example, for somesmall town dwellers, the rural situation itself, the lossof communal material resources, and personal circum-stances, created needs for developing social networkswithin the neighbourhood. This is not a novel finding.Others have observed that poor people have strongerlocal social connections and fewer broader connectionsthan well off people (Campbell et al., 1999; Cattell,2001; Szreter, 2002). Recently, Volker, Flap and Lin-denberg (2007) reported that people in neighbourhoodsform community when neighbourhoods have moremeeting places, neighbours are motivated to invest inlocal relationships, neighbours have few relations out-side the neighbourhood, and neighbours are mutuallyinterdependent. The present results show that thesesorts of conditions are more likely to apply to poor peo-ple in rural neighbourhoods, and more likely to apply tothose living in deprived areas rather than wealthy areasin a city.

Considering relations between groups highlightsa recognition that an important effect of place of resi-dence is on social status and broader social relations.In the struggles for power, place itself is a sign of


distinction. Lower material resources (economic capital)and lower status (symbolic capital) are defined as depri-vation only in relation to the resources of more advan-taged groups. Thus, deprivation in turn is related tosocial connections and access to social capital. Forthose with more resources and more power in societythere is a social advantage in denoting deprived groupsas those to fear and avoid. For some who live in thosedeprived areas staying and defending (and building lo-cal social capital) is one positive option. However, otheroptions are to not connect with local groups, to moveaway as soon as possible, or to make connections withhigher status groups for oneself and one’s children.

It is important to note here that these conclusionshave not included a study of cultural differences andtheir implications for different ethnic groups. In NewZealand M�aori are the original settlers, the biculturalpartners to the Treaty of Waitangi which establishedthe modern nation, and the largest minority group. Inaddition, mortality rates for M�aori are twice those fornon-M�aori in New Zealand (Blakely, Fawcett, Hunt,& Wilson, 2006). M�aori living in all three areas contrib-uted to the development of this study, assisted with con-sultation and were participants. However, the study wasnot designed to inquire directly into ethnic and culturaldifferences and there were not enough participants toexplore any cultural differences in the experience ofneighbourhood or place. While this is a major limitationof this study in the local context, the implications fordiscussion are in regard to people’s talk about neigh-bourhood as exemplifying aspects of social theory,and the implications of its use for future study of socialcapital and health promotion.

Discussion

In public health research there has been a shift to-ward applications of Bourdieu’s network based theoryof social capital to explanations of social inequalitiesand health. However, Bourdieu’s use of the social cap-ital metaphor must be understood as part of a broadersocial theory and not treated as an autonomous ‘vari-able’ to be shoe-horned into models based on other as-sumptions. This broader theory does not focus on localconnections as a source of beneficial social capital andsuggests alternative understandings of the place andutility of the social capital concept in health relatedresearch.

The findings of the present study are seen as provid-ing suggestions for future research that can include pla-ces, but also includes understandings of the importanceof the broader social context. These results support

previous evidence and suggest three key areas for fur-ther explorations along these lines. The first suggestionis that neighbourhood is not the main source of socialconnections or networks. Gatrell et al. (2004) foundthat, although there is a tendency for people with highersocial and economic capitals to be clustered together,the social spaces related to ill health were dispersedacross different geographical locations. I have foundthat the social connections of people, especially in ur-ban areas, are not primarily based on their location ingeographical space, i.e. on their neighbourhood of res-idence. The second suggestion is that if social capital isdefined as social networks that provide resources (Bour-dieu, 1986), then neighbourhood is not the basis of so-cial capital. It is apparently only lack of resources ina neighbourhood, like good housing, cash dispensingmachines, or medical services that leads to local net-work building. If individuals have access to material re-sources they are less likely to engage with localnetworks. Accordingly, a neighbourhood that lacksmaterial resources may be a limitation to membershipin wider social networks with more powerful members.The third suggestion is about the importance of differ-ences between neighbourhoods for social capital. Thiscomes from the way in which neighbourhood wasrevealed as a source of symbolic capital. Membershipin local networks will not advantage residents of de-prived communities when particular neighbourhoodscarry stigma and signs of non-distinction. In this waysocial capital is more about the importance of connec-tions developed outside neighbourhoods, and the effectof the symbolic capital accrued to those who live ina particular area, than it is about social capital devel-oped within neighbourhoods. From these perspectivesplace may be understood as a limitation to the develop-ment of social capital, but not a useful source of socialcapital.

The implications for health promotion are that socialcapital is not a ‘thing’ that should be identified andgiven to people or promoted somehow through publichealth interventions. It is an aspect of social life whoserelationship to inequalities in all the forms of capital itwould be useful to understand. Understanding socialcapital is part of understanding the operations of powerin daily life and how social structure as practiced indaily life creates and perpetuates inequalities. Portes(1998) has already suggested that social scientistsshould understand social connections as varying aspectsof complex social processes and not as some sort ofgood or panacea. Using social theory in this way willlead us away from the focus on deprived communitiesas the site for enquiry into social capital building. It


may be that poor people tend to live in the same places(although this is not to be relied on; Pearce & DaveySmith, 2003). However, this does not justify a focuson people in poor neighbourhoods as those who shouldbear the brunt of inquiry and intervention to changetheir health. Taking account of social theory that in-cludes all members of society points us toward therole and actions of wealthy people as well as the poor.Our data suggest that affluent people use place asa sign of distinction and exclusion. Putnam (2000)uses epidemiological data to suggest that by joininga club ‘‘.you cut your risk of dying over the nextyear by half’’. However, he is silent on what happensto those who are excluded from an association, or whosefellow-members will not meet at their house in thewrong part of town. To examine the effects of higherlevels of social networking, Scambler (2002) suggeststhe ‘‘greedy bastards hypothesis’’ to account for the ac-tions of Britain’s ‘capitalist class’ and the growth of in-equality. Bourdieu enables us to study the moremundane operations of privilege across all the fieldsof practice in daily life in and beyond neighbourhoods.

Lin (1999) makes the point that Bourdieu’s theory ofcapital is part of an image of society as ‘‘one of layeredor stratified negotiating discourses’’ (p. 29) and Bour-dieu (1984) describes research to describe social prac-tice as capturing only points in time after the‘‘battle’’. Thus, the purpose of this paper is not to de-scribe any particular social situation or make any spe-cific suggestions for health promotion, but rather topoint to the battle itself as a basis for enquiry. The inter-views described here were exploratory and the resultshave provided a basis for more focussed and specificallyframed enquiries. I have already pointed to the culturallimitation and it would be particularly important to fo-cus further enquiries into cultural differences. Bour-dieu’s theorising is about class differences, but thenotions of distinction, habitus and practice would mapwell onto the issues of exclusion and health inequalitiesamong different racial groups in society.

Of the diverse theoretical approaches to social capi-tal, Bourdieu’s theory is particularly applicable to thepublic health area and to a discussion of its role in in-equalities in health because it is about social inequal-ities. The theory explains how groups in society workto maintain status and resources and perpetuate inequal-ities. It provides an explanation of the role of social cap-ital, not as a mediator between income inequalities andhealth but as part of the broader social fabric in whichgroups compete for resources and negotiate their valueacross different fields of activity. And it points ustoward methodological approaches in which social

capital is not a thing that can be measured and assignedto individuals as a variable, but an aspect of daily nego-tiations. Accordingly, an ethnographic and relationshiporiented approach to observation and analysis of itsoperation in society is required. It is not the purpose ofthis paper to suggest that Bourdieu provides the onlysolution. There are many critics of Bourdieu’s theoryor aspects thereof (e.g. Crossley, 2001; Williams,2003), particularly in regard to its determinist slant.However, given the growing interest in application ofBourdieu’s theorising, this paper is written as a contribu-tion to developing that use, which should be furthercritiqued as it grows. As a first step I have suggestedthat Bourdieu can help us but only if we take accountof his theory in its place.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Anne-Marie Gillies and Neil Pearce for theirsupport for this project, and to three anonymous reviewersfor their comments on an earlier draft of the paper.

References

Altschuler, A., Somkin, C. P., & Adler, N. E. (2004). Local services

and amenities, neighborhood social capital, and health. Social

Science & Medicine, 59, 1219e1229.

Baum, F. (1999). Social capital: is it good for your health? Issues for

a public health agenda. Journal of Epidemiology and Community

Health, 53, 195e196.

Blakely, T., Atkinson, J., Ivory, V., Collings, S., Wilton, J., & How-

den-Chapman, P. (2006). No association of neighbourhood volun-

teerism with mortality in New Zealand: a national multilevel

cohort study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35(4),

981e989.

Blakely, T., Fawcett, J., Hunt, D., & Wilson, N. (2006). What is the

contribution of smoking and socioeconomic position to ethnic in-

equalities in mortality in New Zealand? The Lancet, 368(9529),

44e52.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice(R. Nice of,

Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement oftaste(R. Nice of, Trans.). London, UK: Routledge.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.),

Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education

(pp. 241e258). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive

sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bowling, A., & Stafford, M. (2007). How do objective and subjective

assessments of neighbourhood influence social and physical func-

tioning in older age? Findings from a British survey of ageing.

Social Science & Medicine, 64(12), 2533e2549.

Campbell, C., Cornish, F., & Mclean, C. (2004). Social capital, par-

ticipation and the perpetuation of health inequalities: obstacles to

AfricaneCaribbean participation in ‘partnerships’ to improve

mental health. Ethnicity & Health, 9(4), 313e335.


Campbell, C., & Gillies, P. (2001). Conceptualizing ‘social capital’ for

health promotion in small local communities: a micro-qualitative

study. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology,11(5), 329e346.

Campbell, C., Wood, R., & Kelly, M. (1999). Social capital and

health. London, UK: London Health Education Authority.

Carpiano, R. M. (2006). Toward a neighborhood resource-based the-

ory of social capital for health: can Bourdieu and sociology help?

Social Science & Medicine, 62, 165e175.

Carpiano, R. M. (2007). Neighborhood social capital and adult

health: an empirical test of a Bourdieu-based model. Health &Place, 13(3), 639e655.

Cattell, V. (2001). Poor people, poor places, and poor health: the

mediating role of social networks and social capital. SocialScience & Medicine, 52, 1501e1516.

Cattell, V. (2004). Having a laugh and mucking in together: Using

social capital to explore dynamics between structure and agency

in the context of declining and regenerated neighbourhoods.

Sociology, 38(5), 945e963.

Crossley, N. (2001). The social body: Habit, identity and desire.

London, UK: Sage.

Edmondson, R. (2003). Social capital: a strategy for enhancing

health? Social Science & Medicine, 57, 1723e1733.

Fassin, D. (2003). Le capital social, de la sociologie a l’epidemiolo-

gie: Analyse critique d’une migration transdiciplinaire. Revued’Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique, 51(3), 403e412, Full

text in English on. www.e2med.com/resp.

Fine, B. (2001). Social capital versus social theory. London, UK:

Routledge.

Gatrell, A. C., Popay, J., & Thomas, C. (2004). Mapping the determi-

nants of health inequalities in social space: can Bourdieu help us?

Health & Place, 10(3), 245e257.

Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2000). Social capital and health promotion:

a review. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 871e885.

Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connec-

tions, 22(1), 28e51.

Lochner, K., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (1999). Social capital:

a guide to its measurement. Health & Place, 5, 259e270.

Macinko, J., & Starfield, B. (2001). The utility of social capital in

research on health determinants. The Milbank Quarterly, 79,

387e427.

Moore, S., Haines, V., Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2006). Lost in trans-

lation: a genealogy of the ‘‘social capital’’ concept in public

health. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(8),

729e734.

Morrow, V. (1999). Conceptualising social capital in relation to the

well-being of children and young people: a critical review. The

Sociological Review 745e765.

Muntaner, C., & Lynch, J. (1999). Income inequality, social cohesion

and class relations: a critique of Wilkinson’s neo-Durkheimian

research programme. International Journal of Health Services,29, 699e732.

Muntaner, C., Lynch, J., & Davey Smith, G. (2001). Social capital,

disorganized communities, and the third way: understanding

the retreat from structural inequalities in epidemiology and

public health. International Journal of Health Services, 31,

213e237.

Pearce, N., & Davey Smith, G. (2003). Is social capital the key to in-

equalities in health? American Journal of Public Health, 93,

122e129.

Popenoe, D. (1993). American family decline, 1960e1990: a review

and appraisal. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(3),

527e542.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: its origins and applications in mod-

ern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1e24.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social

capital. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65e78.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of

American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Salmond, C., & Crampton, P. (2002). NZDep2001 Index of Deprivation

User’s Manual. Wellington, NZ: Department of Public Health,

Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences. Available

from: http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/Files/phi-users-manual/

$file/phi-users-manual.pdf.

Scambler, G. (2002). Health and social change. Buckingham: Open

University Press.

Shiell, A., & Hawe, P. (1996). Health promotion community develop-

ment and the tyranny of individualism. Health Economics, 5(3),

241e247.

Stephens, C. (2007). Participation in different fields of practice: using

social theory to understand participation in community health

promotion. Journal of Health Psychology, 12(6), 1000e1011.

Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cam-

bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Szreter, S. (2002). The state of social capital: bringing back in power,

politics, and history. Theory and Society, 31, 573e621.

Szreter, S., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Health by association? Social

capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health.

International Journal of Epidemiology, 33(4), 650e667.

Veenstra, G. (2005). Location, location, location: contextual and

compositional health effects of social capital in British Columbia,

Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 60(9), 2059e2071.

Veenstra, G. (2007). Social space, social class and Bourdieu: health

inequalities in British Columbia, Canada. Health & Place,

13(1), 14e31.

Veenstra, G., Luginaah, I., Wakefield, S., Birch, S., Eyles, J., &

Elliott, S. (2005). Who you know, where you live: social capital,

neighbourhood and health. Social Science & Medicine, 60(12),

2799e2818.

Virtanen, M., Kivimaki, M., Kouvonen, A., Elovainio, M., Linna, A., &

Oksanen, T., et al. (2007). Average household income, crime, and

smoking behaviour in a local area: the Finnish 10-Town study.


Volker, B., Flap, H., & Lindenberg, S. (2007). When are neighbour-

hoods communities? Community in Dutch neighbourhoods.

European Sociological Review, 23(1), 99e114.

Wilkinson, R. G. (2005). The impact of inequality: How to make sick

societies healthier. London, UK: Routledge.

Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2006). Income inequality and

population health: a review and explanation of the evidence.


Williams, S. J. (2003). Beyond meaning, discourse and the empirical

world: critical realist reflections on health. Social Theory &

Health, 1(1), 42e71.

Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: to-

ward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and

Society, 27(2), 151e208.

Ziersch, A. M. (2005). Health implications of access to social capital:

findings from an Australian study. Social Science & Medicine,61(10), 2119e2131.

http://www.e2med.com/resp

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/Files/phi-users-manual/&percnt;24file/phi-users-manual.pdf

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/Files/phi-users-manual/&percnt;24file/phi-users-manual.pdf

social capital in its place: using social theory to understand social capital and inequalities in...

Documents