Social Capital and the News Media

P. Norris
{"title":"Social Capital and the News Media","authors":"P. Norris","doi":"10.1177/1081180X0200700101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many writers have long emphasized the importance of civic society and voluntary associations as vital to the lifeblood of democracy. Interest in this perennial topic has been revived by Putnam’s theory of social capital, which claims that rich and dense associational networks facilitate the underlying conditions of interpersonal trust, tolerance, and cooperation, providing the social foundations for a vibrant democracy. Groups and new social movements have traditionally been regarded as agencies for expressing and aggregating interests. But what is most striking about modern theories of civic society is the claim that typical face-to-face deliberative activities and horizontal collaboration within voluntary associations far removed from the political sphere, such as sports clubs, agricultural cooperatives,or philanthropic groups, promote interpersonal trust, fostering the capacity to work together in the future, creating the bonds of social life that are the basis for civil society and democracy. Organized groups not only achieve certain instrumental goals, it is claimed, but in the process of doing so they also create the conditions for further collaboration, or social capital. For Putnam (2000), social capital is defined as “connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 19). Most important, this is therefore understood as both a structural phenomenon (social networks) and a cultural phenomenon (social norms). But what is the relationship between social capital and the news media? In particular, in Bowling Alone, Putnam (2000) presented the most extensive battery of evidence that civic society in general, and social capital in particular,has suffered substantial erosion in the postwar years in America. Putnam considered multiple causes that may have contributed toward this development, such as the pressures of time and money. But it is changes in technology and the media, particularly the rise of television entertainment as America’s main source of leisure activity, that Putnam fingered as the major culprit responsible for the erosion of","PeriodicalId":145232,"journal":{"name":"The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics","volume":"145 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"26","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X0200700101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 26

Abstract

Many writers have long emphasized the importance of civic society and voluntary associations as vital to the lifeblood of democracy. Interest in this perennial topic has been revived by Putnam’s theory of social capital, which claims that rich and dense associational networks facilitate the underlying conditions of interpersonal trust, tolerance, and cooperation, providing the social foundations for a vibrant democracy. Groups and new social movements have traditionally been regarded as agencies for expressing and aggregating interests. But what is most striking about modern theories of civic society is the claim that typical face-to-face deliberative activities and horizontal collaboration within voluntary associations far removed from the political sphere, such as sports clubs, agricultural cooperatives,or philanthropic groups, promote interpersonal trust, fostering the capacity to work together in the future, creating the bonds of social life that are the basis for civil society and democracy. Organized groups not only achieve certain instrumental goals, it is claimed, but in the process of doing so they also create the conditions for further collaboration, or social capital. For Putnam (2000), social capital is defined as “connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 19). Most important, this is therefore understood as both a structural phenomenon (social networks) and a cultural phenomenon (social norms). But what is the relationship between social capital and the news media? In particular, in Bowling Alone, Putnam (2000) presented the most extensive battery of evidence that civic society in general, and social capital in particular,has suffered substantial erosion in the postwar years in America. Putnam considered multiple causes that may have contributed toward this development, such as the pressures of time and money. But it is changes in technology and the media, particularly the rise of television entertainment as America’s main source of leisure activity, that Putnam fingered as the major culprit responsible for the erosion of
社会资本与新闻媒体
许多作家长期以来一直强调公民社会和自愿协会的重要性,认为它们是民主的命脉。帕特南的社会资本理论重新唤起了人们对这个长期话题的兴趣,该理论声称,丰富而密集的联系网络促进了人际信任、宽容和合作的潜在条件,为充满活力的民主提供了社会基础。团体和新社会运动历来被视为表达和聚集利益的机构。但是,现代公民社会理论最引人注目的是,它声称,典型的面对面的协商活动和远离政治领域的志愿协会(如体育俱乐部、农业合作社或慈善团体)内的横向合作,促进了人际信任,培养了未来合作的能力,创造了社会生活的纽带,这些纽带是公民社会和民主的基础。它声称,有组织的群体不仅实现了某些工具性目标,而且在这样做的过程中,它们还为进一步合作或社会资本创造了条件。对于Putnam(2000)来说,社会资本被定义为“个体之间的联系——社会网络以及由此产生的互惠和信任规范”(第19页)。最重要的是,这既是一种结构现象(社会网络),也是一种文化现象(社会规范)。但是,社会资本与新闻媒体之间是什么关系呢?特别是,在《独自打保龄》一书中,普特南(2000)提供了最广泛的证据,证明公民社会,特别是社会资本,在战后的美国遭受了严重的侵蚀。帕特南认为,可能有多种原因导致了这种发展,比如时间和金钱的压力。但帕特南指出,技术和媒体的变化,尤其是电视娱乐的兴起,成为美国人休闲活动的主要来源,才是造成这种侵蚀的罪魁祸首
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信