It is easy to assume, through a casual evaluation of the title that the article DeFilippis (2001) negates the entire concept of social capital. Indeed, in the article’s conclusion, the author admits as such. However, the primary argument in the article is not against social capital but rather against the modern definition of the concept, primarily by Robert Putnam. Instead of this latter definition, the author opts for older definitions such as the ones propagated by Glenn Loury borrowed from the ideas of older sociologists such as James Coleman. In DeFilippis (2001), a carefully woven and credible argument complete with proper citations is made on how the former concept of social capital has been mutilated by the latter concepts.
Article Summary
The article DeFilippis (2001) takes the traditional format of beginning with an introduction, connecting it to a background where what is known about the subject is canvassed before making the cause of disagreement argument. In the introduction outlines the argument that the concept of social capital without combining it with economic capital must be wrong. In the background section, the author presents a chronology of how the concept of social capital has changed over time. First is a presentation of social capital as defined by James Coleman and Glenn Loury as a potential that can have positive or negative outcomes. Then follows social capital as defined by Robert Putnam where social capital and civil society are intertwined. Further, under the latter definition, social capital is presented as always having a positive outcome. In the discussion segment, the article delves into not only why the former definition of social capital is superior to the latter but also why the latter definition by Robert Putnam is a fallacy. The author concludes by reiterating the importance of social capital even as he laments how the current preeminence of Robert Putnam’s version of social capital has adversely affected the entire concept, leading it is misapplication.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Review and Critique
DeFilippis (2001) is a bold, courageous, well-researched and properly presented an argument about an important social and economic issue. It is important to note, as reflected in the article that at the time of publication, the argument made in the article went against what was commonly believed about the subject. In order to make such an argument effectively, the author conducts a lot of research on the subject then carefully reviews that research in the article. Even a reader who is not well versed in the disciplines discussed in the article can be able to follow the argument made. The fact that the author first discusses each of the two contrasting positions on the subject of social capital is another positive attribute to the article.
When it comes to the discussion segment, to his credit, the author abandons the theoretical approach utilized in the background segment and focuses more on the practical application of theory. Examples such as how the rapid expansion of the real estate market in Harlem has not benefited the African American community in the suburb presents solid evidence on the arguments made by the author. By the end of the article, most readers would agree with the argument made in the article or in the very least give it the benefit of doubt.
Conclusion
Based on the totality of the above, DeFilippis (2001) is an article about of complex issue yet one that is properly founded, well written and comprehensive in nature. The author seeks to overturn the status quo relating to the understanding of an important issue in the community, which can be a risky venture. However, based on careful evaluation of the article as outlined above, the author does seem to properly rise to the challenge. It is evident from the argument in the article that the concept of social capital only makes sense when combined with economic capital.
References
DeFilippis, J. (2001). The myth of social capital in community development. Housing policy debate , 12 (4), 781-806.
