Please donate to help cover the costs of operating Greater Democracy. Note that Greater Democracy is not a formal organization, and your donation is not tax deductible. Greater Democracy is not affiliated with any other business, organization, or party.
October 25, 2004Destruction of Social Capital in America has a PriceAs David Reed writes in Reed's Law: "I'd like to close with a speculative thought. As Francis Fukuyama argues in his book Trust, there is a strong correlation between the prosperity of national economies and social capital, which he defines culturally as the ease with which people in a particular culture can form new associations. There is a clear synergy between the sociability that Fukuyama discusses and the technology and tools that support GFNs-both are structural supports for association. As the scale of interaction grows more global via the Internet, isn't it possible that a combination of social capital and GFN capital will drive prosperity to those who recognize the value of network structures that support free and responsible association for common purposes?" If this speculation is correct, we can expect that social capital, and thus economic vitality, are destroyed by internal conflict within a society. The current very bitter polarization in America can hardly be claimed to be creator of social capital and trust, muchless competitive economic vitality. Clearly, the current situation in America is NOT making it easier "to form new associations", a key foundation of prosperity. Why is this negative situation not being discussed as a critical political issue in a Democracy entering the connected era of the 21st century? If we are destroying our social capital for short term political gain, can we afford to ignore the price we will pay? Comments
Hello, My name is Eunseong Kim, and I am a Ph. D student at the School of Journalism at Indiana University. I am currently working on the Ph.D dissertation, and I am emailing you to invite you to participate in my survey. The primary purpose of the dissertation is to examine blogging and its impact on people. Blogging, especially political blogging, has become a popular and important campaign method in the 2004 presidential election campaign. Supporters of presidential candidates have organized and communicated through blogging so effectively that both Democratic and Republican National Committees granted press credentials to some political bloggers. While blogging rapidly garners popularity among people, empirical examination of blogging and its impact on people have been rare. Information you provide in this survey will help us understand communication behavior (media use), political attitudes, and political behaviors of bloggers and provide a useful and important material for empirical examination of blogging and its impact on people. Your participation in this survey is crucial to the success of this study and to understanding the effects of this new communication phenomenon. The following link takes you to the survey questionnaire. It will take approximately 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. After the data analysis, the report will be written in aggregate terms, and thus, no participant will be identified in any forms. The URL of the survey site is http://www.hg4u.com. Thank you for your help. Eunseong Kim Fascinating and thought-provoking, Jock. Yes, when we limit our connections we limit our possibilities. As for why, maybe the answer is the same: the payoff is that we limit our possibilities. That gives us an excuse to limit our connections--which can be hard work :) to make--and also gives us the illusion of control. Sure we can ignore it. The question is not whether we can ignore it, but what will it take to make us stop ignoring it. Posted by: Elissa at October 26, 2004 12:31 PMPost a comment
|