The Outsiders: Other Social Network Collectives

Abstract

This final chapter in Part II, summarizes findings from the interviews with Delhi farmers triangulated with other supporting evidence. It describes social networks and access to resources organized by relational collectives: the different types of people farmers might interact with as part of their livelihoods. In this chapter, relations with other people are described and explored. Other relations included anyone not already discussed in the interview. Other people included peripherals to livelihood sustainability including healthcare, education, and various NGOs and government officials. In this study, other relations provided access to livelihood assets through various forms of human, social, financial, and physical capitals. Power relations with other people relations are contextualized against larger social-political contexts and an attempt is made to quantify power relations. In terms of characterizing the other relations social network, households could: withdraw human, social, physical or financial capital through other relations. Human capital was withdrawn by interactions with others (information) and through health care (wellness). Social capital was withdrawn by interactions with others (relationship building). Physical capital could be withdrawn when households had ID cards and was withdrawn through disaster relief. Financial capital could be withdrawn when households had ID cards. Barriers to household power occurred when “no one comes,” households did not have ID cards, or had applied for ID cards and had not received them, or there was a barrier to applying for ID cards. Other relations provided the potential for households to access a variety of capitals. The ideal other relations social network provided access to multiple capitals. The majority of households (n = 95; 79%) gave enough detail to evaluate network power through other relations. More than one-quarter of households interviewed (n = 27; 28%) were evaluated to have strong network power through other relations: they were able to influence and access various livelihood assets through other people with whom they interacted. But a majority (n = 68; 64%) had weak network power through any relations other than those already discussed during the interview.