In
his "Foundations of Social Theory" educational sociologist
James Coleman stated:
"The major
problem for explanations of system behavior based on actions and
orientations at a level below that of the system is that of moving
from the lower level to the system level. This has been called the
micro-to-macro problem, and it is pervasive throughout the social
sciences."
This
"micro-to-macro" problem according to Coleman relates to
the common failure of social theories to adequately relate theoretical
processes at the individual-level and the social-level.
Within
the model I am presenting, social capital is defined at the micro
level as voluntary uncompensated prosocial behavior, i.e. an individual
level behavior. But I use it to explain social capital formation,
which is a system process, so I have a "micro-to-macro"
issue. In this chapter I'll address this "micro-to-macro"
issue by trying to show logically that social systems sometimes need
voluntary prosocial behavior by individuals to arrive at higher levels
of fairness and efficiency.
Of
course, in reality making this argument hardly seems necessary. Afterall,
probably almost everyone would agree intuitively that social systems
sometimes need people to voluntarily behave prosocially to function
well. Think of Dewey's hypothetical example of the doctor and the
epidemic discussed in chapter three for example. We just know intuitively
that at times uncompensated voluntary prosocial behavior is needed
to overcome pressing social problems. However still it's interesting
to think about why this might be so. So in this chapter I try to make
a logical argument that voluntary prosocial behavior is sometimes
necessary. Also, I'll try to show how the argument I make applies
specifically to the situation where I did my fieldwork in Colonia
La Herencia. The argument that I make in this chapter is based on
the dichotomy between distributive and commutative justice.
According
to St. Thomas Aquinas there are two types of justice. One is "distributive
justice", which corresponds to charity or simply giving what
is needed. The other is "commutative justice", which corresponds
to the justice of a fair trade, or what in economics is known as "an
arms length transaction".
Obviously
for social progress both types of justice are necessary. For example,
commutative systems are very effective for coordinating the needs
of different people within a social system. So normally societies
ought to function based on theories of commutative justice. Societies
as they move ahead normally do so mainly based on commutative justice,
and multiple trades and asset conversions repeated many times in succession.
Fair trades between individuals help both individuals maximize their
utility.
However
commutative systems alone cannot be relied upon to always arrive at
the best forms of social organization. In other words, commutative
justice alone has its limitations. Once a basic injustice is established
within a system, commutative justice alone cannot be counted upon
to overcome it. Because commutative justice involves repeating the
same transactions over and over again, injustices within a society
become perpetuated through the same commutation systems, and they
can be passed down from generation to generation.
Within
the situation dealt with in my dissertation study, for example, based
on commutative systems the social system had reached a point in which
there was an inequitable distribution of access to computer resources
in the area. When I arrived in Colonia La Herencia the situation was
as follows. Many people told me that most of the children in the area
did not have access to computer training and that they did not have
computers at home. I believe this to have been true because when we
finally started our classes I was surprised to see how many of the
children had no idea how to do the simplest operations on a computer
keyboard, such as how to make a capital letter or how to insert a
blank space between words. I also heard that some of the local families
sent their children by bus to computers schools in other parts of
the city, which costs about $140 dollars per month, an amount far
beyond the reach of the typical families of Colonia La Herencia. Other
parents who could afford it paid for their children to go to a local
Café Internet to do school homework. One mother told me she
at times paid up to $20 dollars per week for her kids to go to the
Café Internet to do their homework. These were efforts to increase
computer access grounded in theories of commutative justice. Yet despite
all the money that was being spent on this purpose around the neighborhood,
very many of the children in Colonia La Herencia still did not have
access to computers.
So
access to computer resources in Colonia La Herencia was clearly inequitable.
An important point to realize about situations like the inequitable
distribution of access to computers in Colonia La Herencia is that
these situations clearly arise out of the workings of systems which
basically operate on theories of commutative justice. Thus we can
think of the inequitable distribution of access to computer technology
within Colonia La Herencia as an example of a commutative system which
had reached a plateau or an equilibrium at a sub-optimal level. Although
this is a minor example of social injustice, it shows how commutation
systems sometimes arrive at stasis at sub-optimal levels of fairness
or efficiency. Logically too it shows that once this happens, internal
commutative forces alone are not necessarily adequate to remedy the
injustice and inefficiency within the system.
Government
policies in Mexico also seem to contribute to the lack of access to
computers for school children in Mexico. Colonia La Herencia is very
close to the U.S. border, and many very serviceable computers are
available for donation to schools from the U.S.. It would be quite
easy to bring in a large number of computers from the United States
for schools in Mexico, but the government of Mexico would either forbid
this or would charge such a large importation tax on the donated computers
for schools that it would not be financially viable to import the
computers. I have no idea why Mexican officials won't let nonprofit
organizations bring in good used computers to give to their schools,
but it is a perfect example of how social systems can arrive at states
of equilibrium which are unjust and inefficient.
Another
salient example of a system which is at sub-optimal equilibrium within
Colonia La Herencia is the road system. The roads are terrible, and
this results in the average driver spending a great deal more on vehicle
and tire repair. Actually it would be much cheaper to improve the
roads than for everyone to continue paying these extra costs of vehicle
maintenance in perpetuity. However at the moment no individual has
sufficient incentive to undertake the political effort needed to get
the roads improved. So the road system can be thought of as being
another example of a commutative system which has reached a sub-optimal
equilibrium.
As
these two examples from Colonia La Herencia demonstrate, systems operating
commutatively are liable to go off track and arrive at sub-optimal
equilibrium points in which commutative systems cannot move them further.
If the system is truly deadlocked based on commutation, actions motivated
by distributive theories of justice may be the required corrective
factor needed to correct the errors of the past.
For
example, commutative justice was not going to resolve the inequitable
distribution of computer resources in Colonia La Herencia. Prior to
the study, a certain amount of access was available, and individuals
who could afford it did have access. But many individuals did not
have access to computers, and it did not seem likely that actions
based strictly in theories of commutative justice were likely to yeild
this access any time soon. If it had been economically or politically
expedient for all the children in Colonia La Herencia to have computer
access, it would have already happened prior to the time of my study.
However if the start-up costs can be overcome, greater levels of efficiency
and social justice can be achieved. People will develop trust in the
new system, see its advantages, and afterwards the new system becomes
the norm. But in order to arrive at the new system there are start-up
costs or entry barriers. Thus distributive justice is needed at times
to help reorganize systems which cannot progress based on commutative
systems.
According
to this theory, each type of justice serves a particular role in social
progress. Commutative systems are needed to coordinate the needs of
different people within a social system, so normally societies ought
to function based on theories of commutative justice. When societies
operating commutatively go off track, charity is the corrective factor
which corrects the egregious errors of the past. Charity is the consciousness
that let's us see something is wrong, and if we don't have it then
we are forced to inherit the errors of the past.
On
the other hand, whereas distributive justice is necessary at times,
it also has it's limitations. As Adam Smith said in "The Wealth
of Nations", no one wants to have to depend on charity. The reason
for this of course is that there are a lot more needs than there are
willing donors. Every person in the world has different ideals about
the way things should be and the physical world simply cannot accommodate
the ideal worlds of each of us. There aren't enough village greens,
so to speak. Therefore a world run strictly on charity could never
work. Also, every time you give something to someone you in effect
are taking it from someone else, so distributive justice is a zero-sum
game.
Thus
the primary role of distributive justice is seen within this model
as to transform commutative systems, rather than to take the place
of commutative systems.
Based
on this analysis, I theorize that social capital, (which we pragmatically
defined in the second chapter as voluntary, uncompensated prosocial
behavior), has a special role to play in system level social capital
formation, although this role is often misunderstood and there are
some things social capital can't do. I theorize that the role of social
capital primarily ought to be to support transitions between various
systems which are operated basically based on theories of commutative
justice. Thus I see the micro-to-macro relationship between social
capital and social progress as follows. In order for an entrenched
inefficient social system to move to a more efficient organization,
an infusion of social capital, (i.e. uncompensated voluntary prosocial
behavior), will at times be needed, precisely to develop the new institutional
environment which is the embodiment of the automatization of the relationships
between the people, i.e. that which coordinates their actions more
efficiently. In other words, the theoretical function of prosocial
behavior is conceptualized as necessary to overcome the "start-up
costs", (often underestimated costs by the way), of going from
the old customary and accepted ways of doing things to better, more
efficient and more enlightened commutative systems of social organization.
This
relationship is seen as a general relationship which applies in any
particular situation or context. The social system reorganization
which is being made may be a very big change, such as a national civil
rights movement or agricultural reform, or more commonly it will need
to be something minor, such as installing a needed drinking fountain,
but whether big or small in scope the role of social capital in development
is conceptualized within this model as always the same, and social
capital is always needed for the same purpose. It bridges the gap
to promote change where the existing equilibrium, i.e. the economic
or political forces in commutation within a given context are not
sufficient in and of themselves to bring about a positive social change.
Conceptually,
this movement from a legacy system to an improved organization is
equated with social capital formation at the level of the social system,
assuming that the new system really becomes established. Normally
once the new system has operated for awhile, if the new system is
truly an improvement and once people see its benefits, they would
not wish to return to the old system. At that point the system won't
backslide. However people first need some experience working with
the new system. Based on this experience with the new system they
will adjust their expectations and trust levels. When this happens
the new system is truly established, and at this point the system
participants themselves will resist any effort to go backwards to
the old commutative - system because they can see the new system is
better. However the new system must also be commutative, because resources
to support the transition between systems are always limited.
As
with the example of setting up the community computing center in Colonia
La Herencia, making the transition between old and new forms of social
organization involves cost, and these costs are not necessarily going
to be compensated from within the system. As I said above, if it had
been economically or politically expedient for all the children in
Colonia La Herencia to have computer access, it would have already
happened prior to the time of my study. However if the start-up costs
can be overcome, greater levels of efficiency and social justice can
be achieved.
If
the change is indeed to a better organization, once it is established
people will not want to return to the old system. Within our small
project in La Herencia, the new system is far more efficient than
the old form of organization for many reasons. First of all, since
the computers and the Internet access is shared, a small number of
computers can be shared by hundreds of people. This is inherently
more cost effective than for each family to buy a computer for their
homes. And practically speaking most of the families who use our center
could not have afforded to purchase a computer for their homes, whereas
at our center they and their children have access to the use of new
computers and the Internet for free. At the center we have many active
volunteers from the community teaching not only computers but other
subjects as well. In addition to reducing the costs this helps to
build community and provides a practical experience in civics education
for the young people who help out with the work. The center is in
a community space which is available for the community rent free.
In many ways this new form of organization is more efficient than
the prior system which only provided computer access to a lucky few.
More importantly the new system represents a greater degree of social
justice, because so many more people have access to computers now
than prior to when we set up our center. Of course ours was a very
small project. But I believe the basic relationship, as illustrated
by our project in Colonia La Herencia, reflects the general "micro-to-macro"
relationship of voluntary prosocial behavior to social capital formation.
In general this relationship is seen as follows:
In
instances where the legacy system has developed inequities and inefficiencies
which cannot be resolved through commutation, voluntary prosocial
behavior based on theories of distributive justice may be needed to
support the transition to an improved system also to be operated essentially
based on theories of commutative justice.
This
basic micro-to-macro relationship is seen as applying whether a project
under consideration be big or small.