A sign of the times: To have or to be? Social capital or social cohesion?

• Published in: Social science & medicine (1982) 2016-06, Vol.159, p.127-131
• Main Authors: Carrasco, Maria A., Bilal, Usama
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Community Integration - psychology; Cooperation; Cultural capital; Definitions; Disease; Diseases; Empowerment; Fromm, Erich (1900-1980); Fromm, Erich (1900-80); Health; Health Behavior; Health problems; Health Status; Humans; Imagination; Interpersonal Relations; Operational definitions; Philosophers; Public health; Semantics; Social Capital; Social cohesion; Social Environment; Social factors
• ISSN: 0277-9536; 1873-5347
• DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.012

Among various social factors associated with health behavior and disease, social cohesion has not captured the imagination of public health researchers as much as social capital as evidenced by the subsuming of social cohesion into social capital and the numerous studies analyzing social capital and the comparatively fewer articles analyzing social cohesion and health. In this paper we provide a brief overview of the evolution of the conceptualization of social capital and social cohesion and we use philosopher Erich Fromm’s distinction between “having” and “being” to understand the current research focus on capital over cohesion. We argue that social capital is related to having while social cohesion is related to being and that an emphasis on social capital leads to individualizing tendencies that are antithetical to cohesion. We provide examples drawn from the literature where this conflation of social capital and cohesion results in non-concordant definitions and subsequent operationalization of these constructs. Beyond semantics, the practical implication of focusing on “having” vs. “being” include an emphasis on understanding how to normalize groups and populations rather than providing those groups space for empowerment and agency leading to health. •Social cohesion is often studied as part of social capital.•A theoretical articulation of the consequences of this conflation is lacking.•Fromm’s distinction of “having” and “being” may explain emphasis on social capital.•Subsuming cohesion into capital discourages empowerment strategies leading to health.•Examples of measurement of both concepts show how this conflation is problematic.