The role of women in building social capital in the region

Abstract

The role of women in building social capital in region is topic worthy of ventilation in light of our almost total emphasis on building of human capital through formal education, and importance paid to individual and personal development. In so doing we have neglected importance of social capital with its emphasis on social and cultural networks for betterment of society. The paper will provide clear understanding of concept social capital and provide insights into role of women over time in building on its attributes, including socialization process in home and community in what we call informal education. The emphasis will not be on names and characters and their deeds (that work is yet to be done) but rather general impact on our contemporary social world. Social capital is created when individuals participate in civil society. Putnam (1995, p.67) has defined social capital as the features of social organization as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Fukuyama (1995) defines social capital as trust and thriving civil society. He places emphasis on importance of cultural capital. High trust societies are those, which have cultural traditions of cooperation and trust among non-kin in civil society, which can be transferred to economic institutions. The prevailing orthodoxy is based on theory of human capital (Shultz 1961 and Becker 1964, 1975) and is at heart of globalization process with individuals as only source of sustainable competitive advantage. Karabel and Halsey (1977) have noted that theory was used to explain poverty of nations and communities resulting from under-development of their human capital. It diverted attention from other forms of capital, notably social and cultural. Social and cultural capital with their emphasis on social relationships, shared values, and cultural traditions could very well be major focus of The Open Campus as it seeks to reframe its practice. Coffield (1999) makes point that human capital theory has nothing to say about polarization in income and wealth that is taking place globally. Coffield quotes Manuel Castells (1998,p.l61) who has produced extensive evidence to show how new forms of capitalism are creating sharp divide between valuable and non-valuable people and locales and a fundamental split in societies all over world: on one hand, active culturally self-defined elites, on other hand, increasingly uncertain, insecure, social groups, deprived of informative resources and power, digging their trenches of resistance. A variety of social purpose educators recommend building social-capital as practical way of strengthening civil society, of encouraging civic participation, countering social exclusion and promoting public good. In fact it is felt by some that social capital should take its place alongside physical and human capital in successful and sustainable communities. We are already witnessing that with de-emphasis of social capital in region there is diminished civil society; that sector of public life that is outside political and economic spheres: sphere of voluntary and associations and informal networks in which individuals and groups engage in activities of public consequence (Friedland and Sirarmi, 1995, p. 15). It is about how we live together in communities and work together for common good. Large sums of money have been borrowed by our governments and spent on education but returns have been disappointing. On other hand social problems, poverty, 'brain drain' and growing loss of social identity exist. Reference will be made throughout to concept of informal education that is gaining prominence in educational research. Formal education refers to organized educational activity within established formal system both private and public, as well as specialised programmes offering technical and professional training. …