I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends

The Go Skate Day Festival on June 21 was a successful event for the community and a good representation of what social capital is.

It showed how, when used on a positive level, social capitol can build stronger relationships within a community and create an infinite level of community development. The skateboard subculture has an amazing grasp on positive forms of social capital, as was demonstrated on Go Skate Day.

Six months before the event, I told the City of Tacoma that my crew and I were going to throw the “Go Skate Tacoma event.” We told them our goals were to end the “no skateboarding law in down town Tacoma,” as well as provide safety equipment for youth, provide career, education, personal development services and have a skate tournament in Tollefson Plaza (Tollefson Plaza is a community gathering location that has struggled as far as keeping people in it but is known to force skateboarders out since its inception). This event would require sound and stage, insurance, ramps, loading trucks, cleanup crew, medical personnel, security, safety equipment, and prize for those in the competition.  After several meetings and explanations of why we wanted to use Tollefson Plaza and how many permits/insurance we would have to acquire, we were told by several event planners that the cost for such an event would be roughly $20,000. The event cost $2,000 dollars when it was all finished.

How did this happen? How did we do something that would cost most events of that size $20,000 and only have to pay 10 percent of the cost? Academics call it “social capital.”

First, I will explain what social capital is, then I will show how it was used.

The term “social capital” has many different definitions and can be viewed as good and bad as far as a how it is used. I will be focusing on social capitol from a productive/positive view point by using examples from a recent skate event in Tacoma.

The simplest definition of social capital is the relationships we have between ourselves and our community, a network of individuals. Community members who trust others are in general good citizens, and those who invest in community are more trusting and more trustworthy(Putnam 137).

According to Dr. DeTray, senior lecturer at University of Washington Tacoma, unlike traditional forms of capital, social capital is not depleted by use, but in actuality is the only form of capital that is strengthened by use and it is based in trust and relationship. David Coleman from the University of Sydney, Australia states that, “Societies that are healthy and functioning are also well stocked with social capital.” Coleman later suggests that social capital is the glue that holds democratic societies together (123). In Robert Putnam’s book, Making Democracy Work (167), he claims that social capital refers to features of social organization such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit. Putnam states “that social capital is a clarion call for a renewed civic engagement in the Western industrialized world”(?), specifically suggesting the United States of America. Putnam defines social capital as the “connections among individuals” social networks and the models of trade and trustworthiness that arise from them (Putnam 19).

According to Portes, in order to possess social capital, a person must be related to others in one form or another, it is the others who are the actual source of his or her advantage (Portes 7). Both Putnam and Coleman agree with Portes stating that unlike other forms of capital that are more financially driven mostly benefit the investor, any investment in social capital will benefit others rather than the individual making the investment of time or energy (Putnam 20 Coleman116). Thought there are social benefits for others within social capital feminist scholar critique this lack of return on investment. Arneil finds it to be problematic when women’s roles are overlooked and there is an expectation for selflessness throughout time, stating that ”the extent to which women are expected to invest in social capital formation in order that their children, husband and communities may benefit is, as will be shown, an underlying and sometimes hidden assumption in the American social capital literature (Arneil 6)”.

All academic writers are right in that the benefits that go to others in the social capital can put expectation to give and never receive on those investing. However, all three academics seem to lack insight into the emotional and spiritual return earned through various investments; they do not seem to consider what the driving force behind the organizers reasons for investing. Putnam, Coleman and Arneil assume or have an understanding that the benefits go to others rather than the individual, if this were true than why would anyone put forth the energy in the first place? I would like to suggest that investing into the network that is related to us provides a capitol of a different sort. The opportunity to have those around you smile and thrive within their environment is an endorphin that is unmatched by any form of financial gain or other form of capital. While I appreciate and agree with Arneils argument in the fact Women have been marginalized and expected to give and not received throughout time, I argue that there are types of return on investment on a spiritual or emotional level. This is a lesson that I learned from my own mother who tirelessly give and help develop our nuclear family hoping that her lessons will sink in. There is a return of capital for those who put in to the system of sorts, perhaps it is too complex for me to explain or to understand myself.

The benefit of social capitol for those who invest and benefit others would most likely be on a spiritual or emotional level. For example, in the Go Skate Tacoma event, many of the local shops who invested in the event were not concerned with advertisement or getting any capital in return for their investment in to the community.

They wanted to invest into the community simply because it was the right thing to do.

Perhaps they remembered themselves as young kids wanting to skate a spot so bad but being unable to because of lack of equipment or police accusing them of criminal activity. The ability to give to others what the investor never had in the first place (or to love others when one possible never received love) is a capital that is immeasurable.

If I am not mistaken, energy cannot disappear; it can only change shape. I would like to suggest that the investors in social capital benefit in what I would call soul capital. Jon (owner of DaddyO’s skate shop) donated 100 helmets and Seth (owner of All A Board skate shop) donated a ridiculous amount of new skate shoes to the event, neither of them asked for anything in return. They both came to the event and smiled watching, while kids benefited from everything they gave to the community that was never given to them. The kids were skating legally with fresh gear while the “investors” spent many days being run off by cops and other members holding beat up skate boards and tattered shoes.

Throughout the event, there were several accounts of generous community members and skate companies that wanted to invest into the skate community. They donated time and energy with no expectation of a monetary return. They saw a group that was worthy of investing in. These investors volunteered time, money, ramps, insurance for the day, gear, over 6,000 dollar value in prizes. By the time the event was over, the investors in social capitol for the skate community took care of $18,000 worth of expenses from the event with no expectation of physical or monetary capital in return. Those who invested asked me if I could throw the event next year so they could do it all over again. It is important to note that those donating time, energy and monetary capital did not receive any physical capital in return. I would like to argue that if those who invest in social capital do not get anything while everyone receives capitol around them, why would they be willing to do it again?

A healthy form of social capital is based in trust. There is a return, but it has been overlooked by those academics before me. There is a return in the investment for now I will label it "soul capitol."

There is a benefit for those who invest in their community in the form of social capital. I disagree with those before me who claim any investment in social capital will often benefit others rather than the individual making the investment of time or energy, over the value of soul capital and the reasons why community leaders invest in social capital and push to renew civic engagement in a western industrialized world. I argue that in a healthy form, social capital is beneficial for all individuals within the system.

The skateboard culture has many who invest in the future of the sport. There will be many good things in the future from the skate culture - a positive example of social capital is only one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjraYkqJCZY&feature=related