Society

Am I just social capital?

Walter Humes

One indication of the pervasiveness of our consumerist culture is the way in which economic metaphors are now applied to areas of life which were previously described in other ways. Take the term 'capital' for instance. It no longer just relates to money or possessions that represent financial assets (such as property). The phrase 'human capital' refers to the skills, qualifications, training and experience of individuals and groups, attributes which can be further developed and exploited for economic benefit. The unique individual qualities of human beings are thus reduced to a cost/benefit calculus of their potential contribution to monetary growth.
     Then again, consider the political popularity of the term 'social capital'. This is used to describe the capacity of individuals and communities to collaborate in a spirit of trust and respect, to communicate through networks that bring mutual benefits, and work towards goals that build confidence and promote civic activism. These seem admirable aims but it is no accident that the ascendancy of social capital as part of political discourse has coincided with the decline of references to poverty and inequality. These latter terms have negative associations of a kind that expose the failures of the political class: by switching the focus to building 'social capital' part of the responsibility is transferred to other people.
     'Capital' appears in other guises as well. 'Intellectual capital' refers not just to the mental resources of individuals but is increasingly applied to organisations and codified into 'intellectual property rights' which have a market value. Intelligence and creativity are thus converted into figures on a balance sheet – a debasement of what it means to be human.
     Again, 'psychological capital' seeks to identify those emotional qualities which provide individuals with a secure sense of identity: assurance, self-esteem, resilience in the face of adversity. These are characteristics which, in moderation, are entirely desirable but, if hyped up in the manner of advertising and public relations, can easily lead to the kind of pushy, boasting assertiveness evident on television programmes such as 'The Apprentice' and 'Dragons' Den'.
     The latest, and perhaps most absurd, application of this economic metaphor is signalled by the phrase 'erotic capital'. A sociologist at the London School of Economics, Catherine Hakim, has coined the term to describe those qualities which, she argues, are important not only in personal relationships but also in employment and career advancement. She states: 'Erotic capital is just as important as human and social capital for understanding social and economic processes, social interaction and upward social mobility'.
     Leaving aside her clumsy use of the word 'social' four times in the same sentence, what does this amount to? She elaborates her theory with reference to beauty, sexual attractiveness, liveliness and presentational skills. One sceptic summed up the formula by saying: 'in other words, dress smartly, smile nicely and you will make a good impression. My mother told me that 40 years ago'.
     For a few frivolous moments I reflected on how I might enhance my own 'erotic capital' – rather a tall order for a man in his sixties, you might well think. I concluded that even with a hair transplant, a face lift, and a sartorial makeover under the guidance of the TV style guru, Gok Wan, my chances of transforming myself from a dull academic into an exciting commercial prospect were rather slim. My reaction was one of relief rather than regret – no doubt indicating a shortfall in my psychological as well as my erotic capital.
     What does all this reveal about modern culture? At one level, it simply demonstrates the shallowness of much of our way of life, in which appearance is regarded as more important than substance, and a veneer of insincere niceness is seen as a legitimate way of getting what one wants. At a deeper level, however, it shows that the 'greed is good' philosophy, which characterised the 1980s, is still with us, albeit transmuted into less crude terminology. But perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that academic analysts, who ought to be interrogating dominant discourses, have bought into the metaphor of 'capital' to the extent that they have entirely lost sight of its sinister subverting of the values that any decent society should aspire to.

Walter Humes is research professor in education at the University of the West of Scotland