Creating social capital: The issue of scale

The most important point of clarification I would like to add to our dicsussion on the origins of social capital deals with the issue scale: What is the size of the group being studied? When we talk about the top-down formation of social capital, we are often referring to an entity of some authority which enables association by either establishing a framework of rights and privilieges, or simply by being the embodiment of the group’s aspirations. In this scenario, would the father in a patriarchal society be deemed the "top" of the family unit, granting privilieges and facilitating the functioning of the family unit? Would a pastor be deemed the "top" of a congregation? If a leader is necessary for the formation of social capital, how do we define the leader?

I'm someone who understands things best by thinking of them from a fundamental perspective. When speaking of human relationships in terms of fundamentals, you have to look to anthropology and the origins of the human proclivity for socialization. Evolution doesn't allow for the existence of complex adaptations if they're not fundamental to the survival of an organism. The rich palette of emotions that humans have evolved is one such fundamentally necessary adaptation, and that's because forming social ties is a matter of survival for humans. Where other social animals congregate to leverage the security of large groups, humans do so as a matter of identity. Casual observation shows that humans will seek acceptance and affiliation wherever they can, and the means they have to navigate these complex social waters is the rich set of emotions and behaviours they have evolved over the millenia.

What does all this mean to our class on social capital? Well, along with this proclivity for social association comes a need for social order. How many expressions are there to the effect that "too many cooks spoil the broth," or "too many chiefs and too few indians"? These expressions describe undesirable situations where a lack of order or direction affect a group's performance. What I believe this indicates is that, in addition to affiliation or belonging, humans also need order. We need to know where we stand. I've lived through experiences where groups of individuals who do not know one another and where a hierarchy did not exist from the outset go through a phase of jostling: individuals jockey for position, and tensions are apparent until every member has found his/her post. For these and many other reasons, I believe that the formation of social capital requires an act of leadership, even if only symbolic, to prepare the group for further synergistic gains.