Community Development Review
The article written by James DeFilippis provides an explanation which exposes specific developmental approaches which influence the human-centered society to a greater extent. In this case, DeFilippis claims that social capital, through its influence, effectuates some of the dominant societal forces which would directly get associated with the socially-centered community. Further, the paper elaborates about early self-efforts achieved within social work, community organization, and government thrust. Overall, the article has significance since it builds the focus where organizations and individuals need to create a better environment.
Social capital primarily relates to the benefits which individuals receive from the established cooperation and social cohesion between or among social institutions and different people living in the society. The established coherence may have considerable significance across distinct social groupings or specific organizations. Through such influences prevailing in the community, the debates whose discussions would get associated with social capital tend to emanate. The importance of the literature related to social capital and the power of its research over the years would get established where necessary.
Through his elaborate argument, James DeFilippis holds that the significance of the term “social capital is overrated. He goes on to assert that, from the context of factors responsible for community development, social capital seems to get misconceived. In the first place, DeFilippis believed that social capital lacked a comprehensive definition. However, most people would use the term as a reference to different types of concepts. This trend prevailed for a longer duration. In 1985, DeFilippis analyzed the idea of social capital as explained by Pierre Bourdieu. DeFilippis research held that Pierre Bourdieu works on the social concept was more practical and more of theory.
Second Article Critique
In most circumstances, research indicates that capital would have no direct connection with people who are community oriented. However, different classes of people, through their established social networks frequently integrate social efforts to create capital. Putnam believes in the power where people work. In his definition, Putman would merge capital with two variables which include power and economy. The argument by Putman would then state that the influence which power and its associated relations create usually constitutes significant factors. In the process, capital, divisions, and social classes form.
James DeFilippis, a liberal critic, dismisses the dominant social capital theories which Putman would postulate. According to James, the scholarly works by some notable researchers, the likes of Foley, Portes, and Skopcol would unleash a significant influence. The argument which Putman creates concerning social capital holds on the general fact that social capital is an amalgam of networks. Moreover, social capital ensures the bonding of individuals in the society. In this case, the nature of association which people create between or amongst themselves leads to the betterment of social capital.
Teams charged with the obligation of steering development usually consider the size of a community’s social capital. However, the argument enforced by Putman regarding the explicit exploitation of social capital would get countered by James DeFilippis. In his argument, DeFilippis hold that the community does not have the power to enjoy the possession of any factor as claimed by Putman. In this case, the society would never possess the quality which would get associated with the social capital. Overall, DeFilippis proposes that the community does not exist primarily because of the product or the influence which most individuals have.
DeFilippis, J. (2001). The myth of social capital in community development. Housing policy debate, 12(4), 781-806.