more recent usages such ascivil society, as well as the older idea of acivic
culture.
Basically social capital is that set of expectations, almost of social habits,
which make it possible for governments to rely on public support at times of
stress, or to call forth great public effort or periods of stoicism. Traditions of
mutual help and neighbourliness, for example, a strong commitment to public
service on the part of educated e ́lites, even extensive collection for charity can
turn into vital social capital in this way. The problem with the concept is that its
advocates seem to think that the government or state should, and could, act to
create or increase the ‘stock’ of social capital. Not only is it unclear how this
could be done, but it is arguable that any such artificially created social patterns
are both invasions on privacy and unlikely to be very effective. When all is said
and done, social capital is little more than an attempt to describe in political
science terms the characteristics of a tight-knit community. There is also the
analytic point that such patterns of loyalties are indeed social, and appertain
more frequently to sub-cultures rather than to states, which may not easily
utilize them even where they exist. For example, it may be that in both the
United Kingdom and Germany during the Second World War huge reserves of
social capital existed and helped the inhabitants of heavily bombed cities to
continue working and living. But in both countries these tended to be
attributes of tight working-class communities existing more despite of rather
than because of the state.
Social Contract
Social contract theory was especially important around the time of the
EuropeanEnlightenment, the most famous exponents being Hobbes,
LockeandRousseau. The main purpose of these theories was to provide a
sound logical base for the particular polity most favoured by the individual
theorists on the basis of an appeal to the rational self-interest of ordinary
people. Historically the tradition arose because, with the Enlightenment, the
possibility of justifying a political system by reference to tradition or to some
theological argument in terms of God’s will or thedivine rightof kings
vanished. The basic argument always took the same form: assume that people
are living without any government at all. That is, they are free and autonomous
individuals, but also subject to all the difficulties and dangers of living in a state
of anarchy. Would such free people wish to have a government? What sort of
government would they wish to see set up, and under what conditions would
they give up just what proportion of their independence for the benefits of
such a government? The answers which come out of this particular thought-
experiment depend very much on the description of the anarchical set-up
(usually called thestate of nature) put in. Hobbes, for example, painted the
Social Contract