Social with a capital $

This week as part of my MA Social Media course we have been looking at the notion of social capital – what it is, whether it actually exists at all and if so what bearing this has for social media.

This alone is a sizeable task and something that I have been writing notes on all week but we have also been asked to consider who are ‘social media capitalists’.

It’s late, I’m tired and my brain isn’t working too well so I think I need to break this into bite-sized chunks…

First of all a definition of social capital:

This largely depends on your point of view and so tends to be highly questionable. However, as a theoretical viewpoint social capital operates on the assumption that,

Social networks have value. Just as a screwdriver (physical capital) or a college education (human capital) can increase productivity (both individual and collective), so do social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups.

Putnam, Robert. (2000), “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community” (Simon and Schuster).

I have previously alluded to the fact that it seems a lot of grandiose statements made about the advent of social media are simply old ideas wearing new clothes (or carrying the latest gadgets). For example in my previous post I talked about social media being the modern incarnation of telling stories round a campfire.

Similarly, as Portes claims,

Some theorists have questioned whether ‘social capital’ is, indeed, little more than a new term for an old idea, namely that civic and community involvement can have positive consequences for individuals and society more generally

Portes,1998: 2

So my first point is that I’m not sure whether social media is a ‘new movement’ or simply a new set of tools that allow age-old human behaviour to be played out on-line.

And if we take this point and apply it with what we are concerned with here I can see two diametrically opposed positions in the consideration of any concept of social media capitalism…

The first is that it is an empowering force that enables people to group together and help themselves. The second, that it is a mechanism of control that promotes individualism and hands the keys of power to a detached ruling elite – not exactly a new paradigm just the digital interpretation of an old one.

 

Harnessing Social Capital with Digital Tools

Social Media are the digital tools that can harness social capital whilst simultaneously have the power to convert social capital to economic capital. This means they can equally be used to liberate or enslave depending on how the user (corporate, individual, shared-interest group, etc) chooses to use them.

And the paradoxes don’t end there – on the one hand social media is fiercely individualistic, encouraging people into narcissistic practices of presenting a digital profile to the world. On the other hand it offers collaboration, a sense of shared experience and an opportunity to precipitate social change.

It can sit in these two seemingly polar positions quite simply because the common denominator is people and people are motivated by different things. Social media is an extension of self, albeit digital self. If you are naturally self-interested this will shape the way you use social media. If you are socially motivated, this will nurture your online behaviour.

The likes of the social media giants such as Twitter and Facebook will use their platforms to further their own means – they are multi-billion dollar corporations that behave like multi-billion dollar corporations. Why would they do or be expected to do anything else?

The bigger, and for me more interesting question is about the root behaviour of people – how will they choose to use these platforms?

So is social media truly social or does it just bring together lots and lots of individuals all managing their own profile, all building their own micro-celebrity empires.

The simple answer is that the social web is whatever the person interacting with it decides they want it to be. You can choose to be aware of the motives of whoever you are communicating with online – are they trying to persuade, befriend, sell, gain approval, build reputation? Or you can be oblivious to it and just use it to chat with your mates.

Similarly you can use it to promote your business, market your products or just as easily to form  a group around an issue you care about then organise; mobilise and overthrow the ruling elite (well, at least give them a damn good piece of your mind in a quintessentially British stiff upper lip, non revolutionary way!)

Social media allows all and a myriad of other things to happen. Surprise, surprise, it’s a bit like the off-line world, should that come as any great shock?

If there is real silver lining in all this it seems that currently social media does in some ways level the playing field. Anyone from individuals (unknown or celebrity), shared-interest groups, social enterprises, small businesses, large corporations can share the same space and largely at the same cost (at least at an entry-level). So maybe right now we can all build capital and all be social media capitalists – if that’s what we choose to be.

In days gone by people like Lord Alan Sugar built a business empire from nothing using a traditional sales model and an incredible work ethic. Already we have social media capitalists like Zuckerberg sitting on fortunes that dwarf the Lord Sugars of this world. Similarly we have examples where lives have been enriched by the generation of social capital.

Again nothing has changed because whether individual or social the common factor is people. Social Media could offer an opportunity to build social capital (we keep hearing about the Big Society) however, it may only be a matter of time before the race to dominate social media puts control firmly in the hands of the old world order.