Social Capital, Crime, and Human Nature

• Author: Satoshi Kanazawa,Joanne Savage
• Published date: 01 May 2002
• Date: 01 May 2002
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1043986202018002005
• Subject Matter: Articles

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / May 2002Savage, Kanazawa / SOCIAL CAPITAL

Social Capital, Crime, and Human Nature

JOANNE SAVAGE

American University

SATOSHI KANAZAWA

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

In the present article, a reinterpretation of the concept of social capital is forwarded that incorpo-

rates the principles of evolutionarypsychology. The authors propose that social capital, from the

evolutionary psychological perspective, is any social relationship that, directly or indirectly,

helps an individual maximize reproductivesuccess through promoting survival, the acquisition

ofresources, mating, or the promotion of offspring to sexual maturity. The evolutionary psychol-

ogy–informed construct of social capital is applied to several theoretical domains in the fieldof

criminology to demonstrate how this perspectivecan bridge theories on the proximate causes of

crime with the “ultimate” causes of human nature and human behavior.

The concept of social capital, as described in the scholarly literature, is

incomplete. In the present article, we propose that to fully understand

what constitutes social capital and to understand why some relationships are

desirable as “capital” and others are not, we must incorporate an understand-

ing of human nature in our conceptualization of this construct. The principles

of evolutionary psychology are used here to supply a basic understanding of

human nature and to expand the concept of social capital. The broader under-

standing of social capital, informed by evolutionary psychology,is then used

to describe how some theories of criminal activity can be stated with more

depth—bringing us closer to the ultimate rather than the proximate causes of

antisocial behavior.

WHAT IS SOCIAL CAPITAL?

Coleman (1988) and Bourdieu (1980, 1986) are normally credited with the

introduction and promotion of the defined concept of social capital. They

188

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice,Vol. 18 No. 2, May 2002 188-211

© 2002 Sage Publications

built on an earlier literature that had identified physical capital and human

capital. Although there has been some disagreement about the definition of

social capital (e.g., Lin, 2001; Paxton, 1999), some elements are quite consis-

tent. Social capital is generally treated as a resource gained by social relation-

ships with other human beings that can be used for a variety of benefits. Sev-

eral dimensions thought to be associated with one’s levelof social capital are

the overallnumber of relationships and the type of associations. According to

Paxton (1999), relationships must be reciprocal and trusting and involvepos-

itive emotion. Granovetter(1973), however, generated a long line of research

and debate on the value of “weak ties”—relationships that involveless time,

emotional intensity,intimacy, and reciprocity than “strong ties.” Granovetter

suggested that strong ties provide us with largely redundant information that

might be of little use when we are trying to find a job, for example.

The levelof social capital is also thought to be associated with the nature of

the “contact” person. In research on social networks, relationships with high-

status contacts have important benefits. Bourdieu (1986) proposed a multi-

plier effect between the size of network connections and the volume of eco-

nomic, cultural, and symbolic capital possessed by each person in that net-

work. Bourdieu also explored other intriguing dimensions that have largely

been ignored in subsequent literature—for example, that relationships may

be “capital” by the application of a common name (mere association with a

prestigious group) and that social capital is never completely independent of

the economic and cultural capital possessed by a given agent.

Importantly, social capital, likeother forms of capital, is a commodity that

can be used to achieve one’sends. This functionality is central to the original

definition provided by Coleman and, in fact, is the focus of Lin’s (2000)

redefinition of social capital as “investment and use of embedded resources

in social relations for expected returns” (p. 786).

There is also an enormous literature that assesses the effects of social capi-

tal on good life outcomes. Many studies have found beneficial effects of

social capital on school attainment (e.g., Coleman, 1988; Furstenberg &

Hughes, 1995; Teachman, Paasch, & Carver, 1996), status attainment (see

review by Lin, 1999), emotional aid (Wellman & Wortley, 1990), and so

forth. Important for our purposes here, there is a burgeoning literature, so far

focused primarily in the area of employment and status attainment, that

acknowledges that social capital may mean different things and/or have dif-

ferent effects for different people. Its effect on good life outcomes may vary

as well.

There is some evidence that women’s social networks are subtly different

than men’s.Various authors cite evidence that the social or businessnetworks

of men and women are of similar size—or, where different, men’s networks

are larger. Although sex differencesin the character of social networks have

Savage, Kanazawa / SOCIAL CAPITAL 189