Leisure, social capital and civic competence

Abstract

Initial enthusiasm over social capital—since the mid‐1990s among the most widely debated concepts in social science—is being tempered by increasing criticism. With some exceptions, this development is not reflected in discussions of leisure and social capital, which remain dominated by Putnam's early formulation of social capital as a combination of cultural norms, generalized trust, social networks. After what may be called the psychological and cultural turns in leisure research, it is not surprising that leisure researchers found Putnam's early formulation attractive. Their continued reliance on it is problematic, however, especially since criticism of its conceptual weaknesses has led Putnam to shift his ground. He now locates the sources of social capital in social networks, not cultural norms. Putnam's shifts reflect central themes in the wider transdisciplinary social capital debate, little awareness of which appears in leisure research. These themes require attention if the relationships among leisure, social capital, and community development are to be clarified. Until then, social capital's value in leisure research remains heuristic rather than explanatory. Social capital illustrates the need for rigorous conceptual and theoretical analysis, directs attention to the significance of social structure, and raises questions about the purposes of leisure research, including its relevance to social policy and action. Ultimately, social capital challenges the field to pursue truly transdisciplinary inquiry, as an excursion into the relationships among leisure, social capital, a resource model of citizenship, and civic competence is intended to illustrate.