Family as source, user, and builder of social capital

Abstract Purpose: For many years, family scholars have documented the significance of the family as a major institution for carrying out essential functions for individuals and societies: reproductive, physical sustenance, economic maintenance, socialization, nurturance, and meeting sexual and other social-emotional needs. The concept of social capital draws attention to the equally significant role of the family in building and supplying this component in the workings of the economy and society. Social capital provides a rubric for bringing together various ideas about the family that have been circulating for some time. A quarter of a century ago, the late Kenneth Boulding (1973) gave attention to the integrative function of the family, its role in supplying “the glue” that helps other parts of the social-economic system to hang and function together. More recently, Robert Bellah and his associates (1985) discussed the weakening of the moral or social ecology of a community—the web of moral understandings, relationships and commitments that tie people together—and how the family contributes to or, conversely, diminishes the social ecology. I consider social capital as a resource (i.e., matter, energy, or information converted into specific forms for attaining goals) embedded in relationships among people upon which they can draw to provide information or other resources or to facilitate activity of social or personal benefit. Family capital is a form of social capital for its members, as well as a contributor to the more general concept. I will emphasize positive forms or outcomes of social and family capital, realizing that harmful forms and outcomes also exist. I consider families to exist in a state of interdependence with community, societal and global socio-cultural, human-built, and physical-biological ecosystems. Methods: I will first focus on how the family through its nurturance, care-giving, and socialization function develops (or fails to develop) values, attitudes, expectations, and habitual patterns of behavior on which social capital and moral ecology depend. I will then discuss findings of research with families on small farms that illustrate the interdependence of family with other systems in its environment as source and user of social capital. Family as Builder and Source of Social Capital . Much has been written in recent years about the essential role of the family in building human capital, investing in the health, education, values and skills of it members to enable them to play productive roles in society. Human capital is essential for building economic, physical and social capital. I will not discuss this further, per se, but will concentrate on particular ways in which the family contributes to social capital. One of the most fundamental needs of human beings is development of the sense of trust—the belief that you can rely on and believe in others to do what is expected. Trust is the foundation of moral behavior on which social capital is built. The function of morality is to provide guidelines for social cooperation and coordination of activity in which humans can live together and interact with one another so as to avoid a situation in which “all are at war against all.” Building trust is part of the attachment process that begins in infancy as parents (or other primary caregivers) care for and meet the needs of young children for food, warmth, comfort, love, security, and human response. If these needs are not met in early life, a sense of mistrust develops; suspicion of others and failure to develop moral behavior or the ability to relate to and cooperate with others are likely results. In the world in which we live, we eventually learn that everyone cannot be trusted, but if a basic sense of trust has been established, betrayal and disappointment can be easier to deal with. Along with the sense of trust, family relationships and behavior help establish the principles of reciprocity and exchange—the notion that as you receive something from others, you are expected to give something in return. If you have given, you have a right to expect something in return. Reciprocity and exchange underlie creation and use of social capital. Boulding used the concept of grants that the family makes to its children or weaker members for material and emotional sustenance. Recipients of such grants do not provide “tit-for-tat” exchanges in return, but are sources of love and gratification to the giver. There is the assumption also, usually implicit, that children will provide care and help for parents in their older age. There is also the expectation that you should help other family members. Behavior in the family can also lead to generalized social reciprocity in which one gives to others without direct return from those to whom one has given, but gives because one has received benefits in the past. Research on social relations among older adults lends substantial support to operation of these principles in the family and in provision of continuity in human relationships through kinship structures. Virtually every study reports that most older adults are entrenched in a network of people who are very important to them—family and friend relationships that have existed for a long time. Parent–child and sibling relationships are especially important in providing economic aid, help with tasks, personal and health care, and companionship to older adults. Cross-generational help, such as provision of child care by grandparents, is also significant. Families, however, cannot meet all needs and must draw upon other systems. For example, friendship relationships are important in older life for many people, especially for leisure activities and intimacy, and have significant positive impact on well-being. Thus, while the family is a critical source of social capital, it must be seen as a system in a network of mutually interdependent systems. I hypothesize that learning how to participate in social groups and establish relationships is rooted in family behavior and in how open the boundaries are between the family and other groups in its ecosystem. Through its pattern of participation in other systems—religious, economic, civic, and the like—the family models behavior for future generations. Research with Families on Small Farms . Our research with families on small farms illustrates interactions with community systems for exchange of resources in using and creating social capital. We did intensive case studies over two-and-a-half years with three families who moved to farms at a field research station of Michigan State University as part of a research-demonstration program. In one facet of our research we obtained information about contacts the families made with systems in their environments through records and construction of ecomaps in which families identified various external systems with which they interacted and had exchanges. Systems were classified on a continuum of formality based on characteristics of structure and control with highly formal systems such as businesses, schools, and government agencies at one end and at the other informal relationships with relatives, friends, and neighbors. In between were semiformal systems with varying degrees of structure such as food and child care cooperatives, neighborhood and community clubs, and other interest groups. Some systems, such as local extension staff or clubs, were allied with formal systems but had more autonomy and flexibility. Exchanges were classified on the basis of the Foa and Foa (1974) framework in which it is proposed that six classes of resources account for the basic needs of human beings: money, goods, services, information, love/affection, and status. These are transmitted through interpersonal behavior interpreted as an exchange. Of particular significance for understanding social capital were findings related to informal and semiformal systems. Since the families had moved to a new community, many miles away from their extended families, establishing relationships with neighbors and making new friends became especially important as sources of friendship, status, information, and services. Locating or helping to create semiformal systems, including cooperatives and agricultural-interest groups such as sheep farmers or organic growers were also important, especially for getting and giving information about agricultural practices the families were trying out, such as organic farming for which, at that time, formal systems (e.g. the University) had little information to provide. Semiformal systems also provided friendship and status and served as places for barter, and sometimes sale, of goods and services. Systems of this nature play a unique role in what Flora and Flora (1993) propose as the kind of social infrastructure necessary for community development. By this is meant the “group level, interactive aspect of organizations or institutions” that can facilitate the flow of resources, particularly information. This type of infrastructure is essential for the development and flow of social capital. The family is an integral player in such an interdependent system for creating and using social capital.