Content uploaded by Anita Louise Prest
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anita Louise Prest on May 03, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Action, Criticism & Theory for Music Education
ISSN 1545-4517
A refereed journal of the
Action for Change in Music Education
Volume 15 Number 4
August 2016
Rural Music Education Special Issue
Anita Prest, Guest Editor
Vincent C. Bates, Editor
Brent C. Talbot, Associate Editor
Social Capital as a Framework in
Music Education Research
Anita Prest
Digital Object Identifier
http://dx.doi.org/10.22176/act15.4.127
© Anita Prest 2016
The content of this article is the sole responsibility of the author.
The ACT Journal and the Mayday Group are not liable for any legal actions that may arise
involving the article's content, including, but not limited to, copyright infringement.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
127
Social Capital as a Framework in
Music Education Research
Anita Prest
University of Victoria, Canada
In recent years, an increasing number of researchers have chosen to examine
various sociological dimensions of music education (e.g., inclusion, civic en-
gagement) through the lens of social capital. Yet, there has been no systematic
discussion of the capacity and limitations of this conceptual framework to shed
light on these sociological dimensions. Therefore, one of the main purposes of
this paper is to review the growing body of music education literature that
refers to social capital in order to understand the ways in which music educa-
tion researchers have drawn on this conceptual framework in their studies and
articles, identify whose conception of social capital they employ, and determine
which issues each conception has illuminated. I note critiques of social capital
by scholars in other fields and the ways in which some music education re-
searchers have resolved them. Then, I succinctly demonstrate how the findings
of my recent doctoral study contribute to the aforementioned body of
knowledge, especially in relation to rural music education practice. I conclude
by noting how music and music education are uniquely positioned to facilitate
social capital and why a social capital conceptual framework that highlights
relationships is pertinent to music education practice and research in pluralistic
societies.
Keywords: social capital, music education, rural music education
ocial capital is a framework that provides the vocabulary and creates a
space for music education researchers and others to discuss the personal
and collective benefits derived from specific kinds of relationships.
Woolcock (2010) suggests that social capital has widespread resonance in re-
search across the disciplines, “because it provides a name for an intuitive, trans-
cultural recognition that we are inherently social beings, and that this has
significant consequences for a host of other substantive issues we care about”
(471). However, he also stresses that it is important that researchers who use a
social capital lens be “as precise as possible in articulating … [their] particular
S
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
128
definitions, theoretical moorings, and empirical referents” (Woolcock 2010, 471)
when communicating their ideas in order that their specific epistemological
perspectives, conceptions of social capital, and purposes for viewing the object of
their study through this particular lens are transparent to readers.
In keeping with Woolcock’s (2010) recommendation, in this paper, first, I re-
view the small but growing body of studies in which researchers have investigated
the sociological dimensions of formal and informal music education using a
social capital framework so that I might understand how they have made use of
this framework in their studies, identify whose conception of social capital they
employ (Bourdieu 1980, 1986, 1996; Coleman 1990; Hanifan 1916, 1920; Putnam
2000), and determine which issues each conception has illuminated. Although
some music education researchers also mention other theorists in addition to
those cited above, in this paper I focus only on these four theorists because they
are either historically important (Hanifan, 1916, 1920) or the most cited—and
thus influential—scholars to date in developing this conceptual lens (Bourdieu
1980, 1986, 1996; Coleman 1990; Putnam 2000). Given the recent upswing of
music education research that focuses on sociological issues via a social capital
lens, this analysis is important because it will reveal both the capacity and limita-
tions of this conceptual framework to draw attention to and shed light on socio-
logical factors affecting music education.
Using three databases (EBSCO, ProQuest Theses and Dissertations, and the
International Index to Music Periodicals), I completed a search of all texts from
1990–2015 with the keywords “music education” and “social capital” in their
abstracts in order to locate all articles, theses, and dissertations. Those papers
that mention social capital only in passing or without definition are beyond the
scope of this review.
Second, I note and address various critiques of social capital (Fine 2010;
Portes 1998; Schafft and Brown 2003), describe the ways in which some music
education researchers have attended to them (Coulson 2010; Eastis 1998; Pie-
tersen 2008), and suggest alternatives that move beyond the dichotomies that
such critiques highlight. In the final section of this paper, I discuss the ways in
which some of the findings of my doctoral study, entitled The Growth and Con-
tributions of Bridging Social Capital to Rural Vitality via School-Community
Music Education Partnerships, contribute to our understanding of how a social
capital framework might be useful in music education research. I conclude by
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
129
noting how music and music education are uniquely positioned to facilitate social
capital and why a social capital conceptual framework that highlights relation-
ships is of value to music education practice and research.
Review of the literature
Most contemporary social capital theorists agree that, “Social capital is neither an
individual nor a collective property, but rather a property arising from the
interdependence between individuals and between groups in a community”
(Franke 2005, 2; italics added). That is, “unlike other forms of capital (e.g.,
economic, cultural, human, symbolic1), social capital inheres in the structure of
relations between persons and among persons. It is lodged neither in individuals
nor in physical implements of production” (Coleman 1990, 302; italics added).
Putnam (1993) also affirms that, “unlike conventional capital, social capital … is
not the private property of those who benefit from it” (4).
Bourdieu (1980, 1986), however, conceives social capital differently from his
American contemporaries in that he ascribes a degree of ownership to individu-
als. Bourdieu (1986) states, “the volume of social capital possessed by a given
agent … depends on the size of the network of connections he [sic] can effectively
mobilize” (51; italics added). Whereas individuals embody or possess the eco-
nomic, symbolic, and cultural capital that they derive from the fields of which
they are a part, in Bourdieu’s (1986) view, social capital “ownership” is infused
with a more conditional and temporary quality. Members of a group are provided
with “the backing of the collectivity-owned [social] capital” of that group, a
“‘credential’ which entitles them to credit” (51), but only so long as they actively
maintain membership of that group by participating in a “continuous series of
exchanges” (52) and avoid embarrassing the group through lapses of behaviour.
In a later publication on France’s elite schools, Bourdieu (1996) elaborated
on his conception:
Individuals have their own shares [of social capital] and all members together
have the entire sum … the capital held individually by an individual agent is in-
creased by capital possessed by proxy that depends on the amount of capital
held by each of the members of the groups of which that person is a member as
well as the integration of these groups (family, corps, etc.). (293)
Thus, social capital—similar to other forms of capital—exists and functions in
relation to a field (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, 77). Within a field, one form of
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
130
capital may, with considerable time and effort, be converted to another form.
Moreover, the hierarchy among different forms of capital varies from field to field
(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, 74). For example, in one situation, an individual’s
social capital may be the most efficacious form of capital, whereas, in another
setting, economic capital might be more “valuable.”
Although some sociologists have expressed differing viewpoints as to whether
Bourdieu’s conception of social capital uses individuals (Halpern 2005; Portes
2000) or both individuals and groups (Lin 1999) as units of analysis, Bourdieu’s
conception certainly sheds light on how individuals might accrue social capital
subject to their location in a given field, and regular access to others who hold
various forms and “stocks” of capital in their own right.
The influence of Bourdieu: Social capital in music education—a focus on bene-
fits to individuals
Given Bourdieu’s (1980, 1986) acknowledgement of social capital accruing—in
part—to individuals, his use of individuals as units of analysis to explain class
reproduction at a societal level, and his emphasis on the interconnections among
various forms of capital, it is no surprise, then, that those music education re-
searchers who draw on his conception of social capital discuss it as a resource
accruing to individuals, also noting its relation to economic, cultural, and symbol-
ic capital.
Hampshire and Matthijsse (2010) examined a national community youth
choir program in the UK entitled SingUp! using a mixed-methods approach.
They found that those youth living in poorer neighbourhoods whose friends and
families held different musical tastes to those promoted in the SingUp! choirs,
took greater social risks (e.g., singing classical music) when choosing to partici-
pate in the program and, thus, had fewer positive experiences than their middle-
class counterparts. Hampshire and Matthijsse’s (2010) findings suggest that such
initiatives must take into account and incorporate the values and tastes of the
youth who engage in them and those of their social circle in order for the initia-
tives to enhance their lives.
Kruse (2013) and Lu (2013) both investigated the ways in which immigrant
and minority students’ access to and negotiation of post-secondary institutions
are enhanced by relationships that they and/or their parents have fostered. Lu
(2013) found that Taiwanese-owned community music schools in Flushing, New
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
131
York assisted students and their immigrant parents (from all social classes) to
access cultural capital via the social contacts and information (e.g., social capital)
that the music schools provided, challenging “Bourdieu’s theory that cultural
capital is primarily an individual determinant inherited from the family” (305).
Kruse (2013) conducted a single case study of a third-generation Chicana univer-
sity music student and found that “immigrant students, regardless of generation,
may require additional bridging [social capital] support” when applying to post-
secondary music programs (36). The findings of both studies concur that non-
familial relations via music assist youth in accessing and negotiating post-
secondary education.
Both Cloonan (2004) and Coulson (2010) have identified the ways in which
musicians access employment opportunities, in Scotland and northeastern
England respectively, and how these opportunities might inform music educa-
tion. Cloonan determined that employment training programs that focus on
lifelong learning and human capital development are “successful only when [they
manage] to move beyond that narrow base to embrace social and (sub)cultural
capital” (40). Youth who completed the employment training considered the
networks and relationships that they had developed with the help of the pro-
gram’s coaches as important to their employability as the opportunity to hone
their musical skills. Meanwhile, Coulson (2010) discovered that, “connections
between class background, early music experience and formal education are more
tenuous and complex than in Bourdieu’s analysis” (262). In her view, there is
value in school music educators “exposing young children to as wide a range of
instruments and choice of music-making opportunities as possible” (263) so that
more youth stay involved in music learning (255).
Russell (2006), a university music teacher educator teaching temporarily in
Nunavut, Canada, discusses how she facilitated culturally relevant music educa-
tion by encouraging her Inuit pre-service elementary teachers to tap into their
social and cultural capital—derived from their relationships with extended family
members—when preparing lesson plans for their music classes. Last, Lee (2010)
demonstrates how an African drum master in Hong Kong, through his superior
performance skills (or cultural capital) accrues other forms of capital (e.g., sym-
bolic, social, and economic) as he persuades other percussionists to extend their
knowledge and participate in a new style of drumming.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
132
The figure below summarizes the studies of those music education research-
ers who have employed Bourdieu’s conception of social capital to examine their
topic.
Author(s)
Date
Main Finding or Argument
Cloonan
2004
Study: Young musicians in employment pro-
grams find the social relationships they develop
via the program as helpful in finding employ-
ment as the musical skills they acquire.
Coulson
2010
Study: The development of young musicians’
cultural and social capital is less contingent on
family background (in northern U.K. in the 21st
century) than Bourdieu’s analysis suggests.
Hampshire and
Matthijsse
2010
Study: Community arts programming that seeks
to foster social capital among youth must take
into account their musical preferences for it to
be effective.
Kruse
2013
Study: University students with immigrant and
minority backgrounds may require additional
bridging supports to gain entry to and graduate
from universities.
Lee
2010
Study: African drum master’s cultural capital is
converted to social, symbolic, and economic
capital, while shifting other percussionists’
habitus in a Hong Kong community music
setting.
Lu
2013
Study: Community music schools offer immi-
grant parents and students access to human
capital via the social and cultural capital they
foster.
Russell
2006
Study: Crucial to the creation of culturally
relevant music classes is the opportunity for
Inuit pre-service elementary teachers to draw on
their social & cultural capital.
Figure 1. Studies by Music Education Researchers Who Have Employed Bourdieu’s
Conception of Social Capital to Examine Their Topic
The influence of Coleman: Social capital in music education – a focus on benefits
to individuals and—possibly—collectivities
Coleman’s (1990) conception of social capital differs from Bourdieu’s in several
ways. In his view, “social capital is not the private property of any of the persons
who benefit from it” (315). Whereas for Bourdieu (1980, 1986), individuals derive
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
133
“credit” from their families and/or the exclusive groups to which they belong, for
Coleman (1990), individuals also actively create their own relations with others
and obtain “credit” by doing something for those people, who, in turn, reciprocate
due to locally developed social norms and obligations (306). As well, Coleman
(1990) held that people function as rational actors at all times. By contrast,
Bourdieu (1984) was fundamentally opposed to rational choice theory because he
believed people used “practical logic,” constantly negotiating between their
socially learned dispositions or habitus and the particular context or field in
which they find themselves, rather than exercising rational choice when making
decisions.
Lastly, Coleman (1990) maintained that social capital sometimes benefits
larger groups, especially when the social norm “that one should forgo self-interest
to act in the interests of the collectivity … leads persons to work for the public
good” (311). As we shall see shortly, it is in this regard that Coleman’s (1990)
conception anticipates Putnam’s (1993, 2000) interest in the ways that social
capital might contribute to participatory democracy and civil engagement, poten-
tially enriching societies while simultaneously benefiting individuals’ well-being
(Helliwell and Putnam 2004).
Theorist
Location of
social capital
Derived
from
Actions
Beneficiary
Bourdieu
Individual by
way of family/
group
Familial and
non-familial
Habitual
Individual &
family/group
Coleman
Relationship
Familial and
non-familial
Deliberate
(Rational
Actor)
Individual &
possibly
collective
Figure 2. Two Theorists’ Conceptions of Social Capital: A Comparison of Key Elements
Brimhall’s (2014) literature review focuses on identifying those “teacher
characteristics that promote social capital in students, thereby improving their
ability to succeed [e.g., procurement of a career-aimed or a prestigious occupa-
tion] in society” (1). She found that those teachers who are musically knowledge-
able, reflect regularly, and have a positive rapport (and thus successfully
communicate) with their students, effectively promote social capital in their
students. Her paper is unique among those I reviewed that cite Coleman (1990),
in that it places emphasis on Coleman (1990) and Durkheim’s (1895/1982)
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
134
understanding of norms as primarily sanctions and constraints. Unlike Coleman
(1990), however, she considers social capital an individual resource. For Brimhall
(2014), social capital “suggests a construct for developing teacher-training cur-
riculum that addresses current needs such as greater networking, understanding
of cultures, and music participation that extends beyond school” (5) in order that
secondary music students develop those networks that will help them to procure
prestigious occupations.
Author(s)
Date
Main Finding or Argument
Brimhall
2014
Literature review: Teachers who promote
social capital in students (thereby improving
students’ ability to succeed) are musically
knowledgeable, have a positive rapport,
communicative with students, and reflective.
*Eastis
1998
Study: Musical ensembles’ structures influ-
ence the quantity, quality, and forms of social
capital that are fostered from group interac-
tions
*Langston
*Langston
and Barrett
2009, 2011
2008
Study: Fellowship plays a role in the genera-
tion of social capital in a community choir.
Community choirs may foster social capital
that benefits whole communities.
*Luebke
2010
Study: Parent/staff music ensemble fostered
social capital that enabled teachers to take
horizontal leadership roles and resolve issues
in their school.
*Jones and
Langston
2012
Position paper: Social capital should be a
deliberate goal of formal and informal music
education. Curriculum and pedagogy must be
based on musical ecology of the locality so
that students engage in lifelong music mak-
ing, “engage positively in the world, and
strengthen individuals and communities”
(121).
* Indicates those researchers who refer to at least two conceptions of social
capital in their studies
Figure 3. Studies by Music Education Researchers Who Have Employed Coleman’s
Conception of Social Capital to Examine Their Topic
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
135
The influence of Putnam and Hanifan: Social capital in music education – a
focus on benefits to collectivities (including the individuals that comprise them)
Putnam (2000) defines social capital as “connections among individuals—social
networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that
arise from them”
(19). In this model, social capital enhances civic engagement, and the norms and
trust developed by networks—rather than the networks themselves—produce it.
He states, “social capital can … be simultaneously a ‘private good’ and a ‘public
good’” (5). Reciprocity may be specific (two individuals who do each other a
favour) or generalized, in other words, “I'll do this for you without expecting
anything specific back from you, in the confident expectation that someone else
will do something for me down the road” (5–6). Putnam (2000) has popularized
Gittell and Vidal’s (1998) notions of bridging (inclusive) and bonding (exclusive)
forms of social capital and notes the importance of bridging social capital net-
works because they “encompass people across diverse social cleavages” (22). Like
Coleman (1990), Putnam (2000) considers social capital a by-product of social
activity, rather than its end goal. Much of Putnam’s own work (1993, 2000) has
investigated the role of social capital in enhancing civic engagement at regional
and national levels.
Putnam (2000) makes reference to Lyda Hanifan (1916, 1920), a state
su-
pervisor of rural schools in West Virginia who, influenced by Dewey’s educational
philosophy, promoted schools as sites for social centers that facilitated community
engagement through shared activities. Hanifan (1916) defined social capital as
“that in life which tends to make these tangible substances [real estate, personal
property, and cash] count for most in the daily lives of a people, namely, good-
will,2 fellowship, mutual sympathy3 and social intercourse among a group of
individuals and families who make up a social unit, the rural community, whose
logical center is the school” (130; italics added).
Thus, for Putnam (2000) and Hanifan (1916, 1920), groups, associations, and
other social hubs are sites for social capital creation, whether through trust and
reciprocity (Putnam), or sympathy, goodwill, and fellowship (Hanifan). It makes
sense, then, that music education researchers who reference Putnam and/or
Hanifan in their studies have examined how, and to what extent, musical groups
have fostered trust and/or fellowship among members, thus enhancing social
capital. They have identified social capital as an important outcome of music
participation for the individual members of New Horizons bands for seniors
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
136
(Dabback 2008), drum-corps (Zdzinski 2004), community choirs (Langston
2009, 2011; Langston and Barrett 2008), and community bands (Jones 2010).
For example, Zdzinski (2004) determined that “drum corps alumni found the
social aspects of participation to be the most interesting, enjoyable, yet frustrat-
ing aspect of their corps experience” and noted that “the musical, social, and
personal benefits of participation cited by the drum corps alumni are similar to
results of studies of choral and band participants, both for public school and
adult populations” (55).
In keeping with Putnam’s (2000) and Hanifan’s (1916) emphasis on the ben-
efits of social interactions for communities, some of these same researchers have
also studied the broader implications of fostering social capital in music educa-
tion by examining “the capacity of groups and organizations to use the contribu-
tion of individual members to achieve collective benefits” (Franke 2005, 12,
italics added). For example, Dabback (2008) determined that as trust grew
among Rochester New Horizons Band members, it facilitated “further interac-
tions that benefit both individuals and the program” (103). Langston (2011)
sought to understand how social capital manifested itself in a community choir
by examining participants’ “interactions within the community choir as individu-
als and the interactions of the community choir with community members and
other community groups” (168). For Langston (2011), Hanifan’s (1916) notion of
fellowship, or “that feeling of trust, camaraderie, togetherness, friendship,
warmth, support, and deep appreciation of the feelings and needs of members”
(178), is key to understanding how a community choir fosters social capital and
group cohesion. He also noted that “choirs and similar organizations are strong
community resources, crucial in the creation of social capital that benefits the
whole community” (179).
In a different vein, Luebke (2010) observed that the parent/staff steel drum
ensemble in an ethnically diverse elementary school in the Western United States
fostered “social connections across the school/community divide and for the
staff, better integrate[d] their lives at work with interests outside of work” (73). In
her view, the social capital created in the parent/staff music ensemble facilitated
dialogue and relational capacity that “withstood difficult conversations and
differences of opinion on many issues” (73), also affording the elementary spe-
cialist teachers the opportunity to develop their informal leadership potential,
and ultimately benefiting all facets of their school, including music education.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
137
Eastis’ (1998) study of two choral ensembles adds complexity to the examina-
tion of social capital facilitated by music groups. She noted that a musical ensem-
ble’s structure influences the quantity, quality, and forms of social capital that are
fostered from group interactions. Her examination of two disparate ensembles’
recruitment strategies and modes of interaction reveals that an elite, auditioned
university chamber choir fostered bonding social capital among its members,
while a large, inclusive community chorus promoted bridging social capital
among participants.
Last, with regards to university faculty, Wing (1996) has offered that music
education researchers might foster social capital in the university music educa-
tion community by deliberately reaching out to each other while engaging in
research.
Author(s)
Date
Main Finding
Dabback
2008
Study: Individuals within the New Horizons Band
and the community at large benefit from the social
exchanges derived from the band’s activities.
*Eastis
1998
Study: Musical ensembles’ structures influence the
quantity, quality, and forms of social capital that
are fostered from group interactions.
Jones
2010
Position paper: Call for music teachers to foster
social capital via music engagement in order to
nurture student disposition for civic engagement
and intercultural understanding.
*Jones and
Langston
2012
Position paper: Social capital should be a deliberate
goal of formal and informal music education.
Curriculum and pedagogy must be based on musi-
cal ecology of the locality so that students engage in
lifelong music making, “engage positively in the
world, and strengthen individuals and communi-
ties” (121).
*Langston
*Langston and
Barrett
2009,
2011
2008
Study: Fellowship plays a role in the generation of
social capital in a community choir. Community
choirs may foster social capital that benefits whole
communities.
*Luebke
2010
Study: Parent/staff music ensemble fostered social
capital that enabled teachers to take horizontal
leadership roles and resolve issues in their school.
Pietersen
2008
Study: Community music programs contribute to
sustainable rural communities in western Australia
and may promote social justice.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
138
Wing
1996
Position Statement: Call for music education
researchers to reach out to each other when con-
ducting research.
Wright
2012
Position paper: Call for music teachers to foster
social capital via music engagement in order to
revive community and effect social transformation.
Zdzinski
2004
Study: Social aspects of drum corps participation
are the most important for members.
* Indicates those researchers who use at least two conceptions of social capital.
Figure 4. Studies by Music Education Researchers Who Have Employed Putnam’s
Conception of Social Capital to Examine Their Topic
The influence of Hanifan (and Dewey): Social capital in music education – a
focus on benefits to communities
Hanifan (1916)—unlike Coleman (1990) and Putnam (2000)—posited that
social capital might be nurtured deliberately “towards the general improvement
of the community well-being” (131). He later explained how this might be
achieved in his book entitled The Community Center (published by Silver,
Burdett and Company in 1920), a practical manual for rural school superinten-
dents and educators teaching poor and rural students. In the manual, he de-
scribes the many ways teachers might promote those community activities that
contribute to rural life, including intergenerational dramatic, agricultural, musical,
and debating clubs. With regards to music, Hanifan (1920) stated, “the power of
community singing on community life and its wholesome effects on individuals
are well known. If a community sing together, they will more likely work together
on any plan of community improvement” (165). In a later chapter, Hanifan (1920)
specifically refers to the social capital that facilitates this process:
The programs suggested under ‘entertainments’ are intended primarily for enter-
tainment or recreation. If skillfully directed, while serving this purpose they will
also help to establish a spirit of community social life and neighborliness. In oth-
er words, the community will have had an opportunity to accumulate sufficient
social capital to begin community building. (181)
Theorist
Location of
social capital
Derived
from
Actions of
individuals
Beneficiary
Bourdieu
Individual by
way of fami-
ly/group
Familial and
non-familial
Habitual
Individual &
family or
group
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
139
Coleman
Relationship
Familial and
non-familial
Deliberate
(Rational
Actor)
Individual &
possibly
collective
Putnam
Relationship
Non-familial
Deliberate
(Private &
Public Good)
Individual,
collective, &
society
Hanifan
Relationship
Non-familial
Deliberate
(Public Good)
Individual,
collective,
and society
Figure 5. Four Theorists’ Conceptions of Social Capital
In his book, Hanifan (1920) refers to Dewey several times. Although Dewey
did not define social capital in his writings, he used the term in four texts (1900,
1909, 1915, 1934) relating to education and schooling, sympathy, work, and
growth (Farr 2004, 2007). For example, in his 1909 address to the National
Negro Conference (immediately prior to the formation of the NAACP of which he
was a founding member), Dewey spoke of social capital as a positive force linked
to human potential, existing in the social realm and held in common, that could
be unleashed through education and opportunity (Dewey 1909). Thus, it is
evident that both Dewey’s (1900, 1909, 1915, 1934) and Hanifan’s (1916) con-
ceptions of social capital were infused with notions of social justice.
Author(s)
Date
Main Finding or Argument
*Jones and
Langston
2012
Position paper: Social capital should be a deliber-
ate goal of formal and informal music education.
Curriculum and pedagogy must be based on
musical ecology of the locality so that students
engage in lifelong music making, “engage posi-
tively in the world, and strengthen individuals
and communities” (121).
*Langston
*Langston
and Barrett
2009,
2011
2008
Study: Fellowship plays a role in the generation of
social capital. Community choirs may foster social
capital that benefits whole communities.
*Luebke
2010
Study: Parent/staff music ensemble fostered
social capital that enabled teachers to take hori-
zontal leadership roles and resolve issues in their
school.
* Indicates those researchers who refer to at least two conceptions of social
capital in their studies.
Figure 6. Studies by Music Education Researchers Who Have Employed Hanifan’s
Conception of Social Capital to Examine Their Topic
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
140
Interestingly, three researchers (Jones 2010; Pietersen 2008; Wright 2012)
who reference only Putnam’s (2000) conception of social capital also indirectly
echo Hanifan’s (1920) submission that music education might foster social
capital for broader social justice goals beyond the music ensemble. Jones (2010)
argues that “music educators and community musicians can and should purpose-
fully foster the development of … social capital as goals to their musicking pro-
jects,” in order that their students may learn the “skills and dispositions for civic
engagement and intercultural understanding” that are vital in our era of globali-
zation (292).
In her examination of community music practices in rural Western Australia,
Pietersen (2008) notes the significance of community music making with regards
to fostering greater equity:
Not only do such [community music] groups develop musical skills in individu-
als, they build active and sustainable communities based on mutual respect and
trust. Such relationships can empower residents to change power structures
where there are social justice issues and remove the barriers that prevent people
from participating in the issues that affect their lives. (151)
Wright (2012) also promotes the “vital role music education might play in re-
viving community in contemporary society” leading to “social transformation”
(12) through fostering social capital in music ensembles. Jones (2010), Pietersen
(2008), and Wright (2012) all urge music educators to foster social capital via
music making in order to enact social change in the broader community, presag-
ing some of the findings of my own study.
Summary
From this literature review, it is evident that the majority of studies using social
capital as a lens to examine sociological factors in music education have involved
Community Music learning environments. Only three studies apply to a formal
educational setting (Brimhall 2014; Kruse 2013; Luebke 2010). Also, no re-
searcher in any of these papers or dissertations has referenced all four theorists—
that is, Bourdieu (1980, 1986, 1996), Coleman (1990), Hanifan (1916, 1920), and
Putnam (2000)—in their literature reviews of social capital. Researchers have
cited either Bourdieu (1980, 1986, 1996), or one or more of the American theo-
rists. The diagram below illustrates how music education researchers to date have
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
141
linked a particular conception of social capital to a specific unit of analysis (indi-
vidual, group, or community).
Figure 7. Conceptions of Social Capital and Corresponding Units of Analysis in Music
Education Research to Date
In reality, the boundaries between these conceptions are somewhat porous.
Thus, the overlapping concentric circles illustrate those ideas held in common by
some theorists. For example, although Putnam’s (2000) conception of social
capital lends itself to macro-level analysis at a societal level, most of the research-
ers using his conception studied social capital in the group and/or community
context. Additionally, the concentric circles visually demonstrate that social
capital at the community level also affects the individuals within those communi-
ties. What is less obvious in this diagram—and so brilliantly outlined by Bour-
dieu—are the ways in which an individual’s social capital enhances and is
enhanced by the sum(s) of capital accruing to that person’s group(s), thereby
contributing to the reproduction of inequality at the societal level.
———
Bourdieu:
Unit-
Individual
Coleman: Unit-Individual
and possibly collectivity
Putnam:
Unit-Individual & Collectivity
Hanifan (from Dewey):
Unit-Community
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
142
Discussion
The preceding social capital overview and literature review reveal substantial
differences in how Bourdieu (1980, 1986, 1996), Coleman (1990), Putnam
(2000), and Hanifan (1916, 1920) have articulated and inferred the intended
purposes and desired ends of social capital. Teasing out the differences among
these conceptions and noting the ways in which music education researchers
have used these various conceptions of social capital to interpret their findings
clarifies the strengths and limitations of each approach. Later in this paper, I will
explore the confluence in these theorists’ ideas and how we might arrive at a
more holistic conception of social capital, but first, in this section, I note the
limitations of each theorist’s perspective.
For example, Bourdieu argues that individuals’ practical logic (derived from
the embodied, habitual, and unconscious strategies and capital that they have
accumulated in their respective fields) informs their relationships with others. In
his view, practical logic ultimately determines (and limits) the choices and oppor-
tunities that individuals derive solely from their relationships. Coleman’s concep-
tion draws from a rational actor model, whereby individuals always act
deliberately and consciously for their personal gain, only inadvertently creating
social capital. This conception limits possibilities for altruism. Putnam’s empha-
sis on the ways in which volunteer efforts at the community level facilitate social
capital while also enhancing civic engagement draws attention away from the
very structures that might delimit success. Therefore, researchers who draw on a
specific conception of social capital may be restricted by the limitations of their
chosen theorist’s standpoint unless they recognize and query those positions. For
this and other reasons, some economists and sociologists have articulated sub-
stantial critiques of social capital as a term and/or concept.
Addressing critiques of social capital
Researchers have expressed concern about 1) the use of an economic term (capi-
tal) to describe a social phenomenon (Fine 2007; Navarro 2002; Smith and
Kulynych 2002), 2) the redundancy they claim is inherent in the term, as capital
is always social because relationships are fundamental to any transaction
(Dowling 2008; Fine 2007; Koniordos 2008), 3) its multiple definitions (Portes
1998), and 4) its focus on agency, which “risks obscuring and bypassing more
critical analyses of how resources, power, and privilege are embedded within
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
143
dynamic, historically developed power structures” (Schafft and Brown 2003,
330).
Last, within the field of music education itself, Schmidt (2008) cautions that
we must attend to the contextual factors of our educational practices when
considering social and other forms of capital as they pertain to those practices. As
Eastis (1998) notes, the structures of some music ensembles promote primarily
bonding social capital, which, while helping to forge a tightly knit group, also
clearly excludes others. Furthermore, such exclusion via music making may take
on even more sinister overtones (Brown and Volgsten 2006; Fast and Pegley
2012; Johnson and Cloonan 2009; O’Connell and Castelo-Branco 2010; Street
2012; Urbain 2008). As Hebert and Kertz-Welzel (2012) point out, “we must also
acknowledge that all forms of music can be used for an array of purposes, includ-
ing even ironic or sarcastic ones” (2). It follows, then that bonding social capital
fostered by music and music education might be used deliberately to ostracize
individuals or groups, or for other unethical purposes.
These critiques bear consideration. In my view, critiques of social capital of-
fer music education researchers the opportunity to consider how they might
improve social capital’s efficacy as a framework when examining the sociological
dimensions of music education. I will address each critique in turn, and wherever
possible, use the music education literature cited in this paper to illustrate my
points.
The term “social capital”
Some researchers have questioned the use of the word capital in social capital in
order to express the metaphorical value of relationships (Fine 2007; Navarro
2002; Smith and Kulynych, 2002). Smith and Kulynych (2002) submit that
social capital is a term that is consonant with economic imperialism, or “the use
of methods and concepts rooted in neoclassical economics to understand a wide
range of political and social relations” (152). Their assertion—that in a consumer
society focused on the accumulation of all forms of capital, amassing “social
capital becomes more important than the ends to which that capital is to be put”
(164)—is compelling. However, Bourdieu (1998) argues that in order to challenge
authoritatively the prevailing ideas of those in power, one must use their lan-
guage and ways of knowing:
The only effective way of fighting against national and international technocracy
is by confronting it on its own preferred terrain, in particular that of economics,
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
144
and putting forward, in place of the abstract and limited knowledge which it re-
gards as enough, a knowledge more respectful of human beings and of the reali-
ties which confront them. (27-28)
Dewey used a similar strategy. Farr (2004) explains, “despite criticizing the
negative consequences of capitalism, Dewey [also] appropriates its own vocabu-
lary to bring “social” and “capital” together for rhetorical and critical effect” (16).
Thus, those music education researchers who use a social capital framework in
their studies and employ the term capital rhetorically are able to demonstrate the
relational value that music education provides to individuals and communities,
and, moreover, that this value informs an infinitely richer conception of the term
than the narrower economic view.
Some researchers have stated that the term social capital is redundant, as all
forms of capital contain a social element (Dowling 2008; Fine 2007; Koniordos
2008). However, many fields single out the specific social value of relationships
stemming from exchanges. For example, this value is clearly delineated in busi-
ness and accounting practices. Goodwill (e.g., reputation, location, customer and
supplier relations) is an intangible but quantifiable asset of a firm, separate from
those assets that are tangible, such as property and products. Although, in light of
Hanifan’s (1916, 1920) use of the term, one might justifiably consider the quanti-
fication of goodwill inappropriate in the context of music education, it is evident
that a critique of the concept social capital based solely on redundancy in termi-
nology is misleading.
Multiple definitions
Some theorists suggest that social capital’s multiple definitions may diminish its
usefulness as a lens with which to examine a particular issue (Portes 1998).
However, in this paper, I have attempted to demonstrate that these multiple
definitions, in fact, offer an opportunity to examine the impact of social relation-
ships at various levels of analysis—micro, meso, and macro (Franke 2005;
Halpern 2005). I also submit that understanding the geographical and historical
contexts in which these varied conceptions were conceived and interpreted may
be a first step towards developing and using an informed hybrid configuration.
Bourdieu (1999) explains the challenges inherent to importing conceptions from
elsewhere:
Many misunderstandings in international communication are a result of the
fact that texts do not bring their contexts with them … The fact that texts circu-
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
145
late without their context, that—to use my terms—they don’t bring with them
the fields of production of which they are a product, and the fact that the recipi-
ents, who are themselves in a different field of production, re-interpret the texts
in accordance with the structure of the field of reception, are facts that generate
some formidable misunderstandings and that can have good or bad conse-
quences. (221)
It is in understanding the contextual foundations of differing conceptions of
social capital that we then may begin to apply social capital as a conceptual lens
deliberately and knowledgably when examining the objects of our studies, also
noting which conception—or perhaps informed combination of conceptions—is
most suitable to our specific context. As Coulson (2010) has demonstrated, we
might also assess which specific aspects of that conception may not be repre-
sentative of our context.
Acknowledging power and agency
Bourdieu’s (1980, 1986, 1996) conception of social capital facilitated his critical
examination of the ways in which both structures and dynamic social relations
served to replicate power and class in France, while in the United States, Hanifan
(1916, 1920), Coleman (1990), and Putnam (2000) focused on the agentic quality
of social relations that promote opportunities for individuals and groups. Critics
of social capital have rightly pointed out the tensions that exist between these two
approaches, which were conceived in very different contexts.
I propose two ways to move beyond this tension between power and agency
when using social capital as a conceptual framework in music education research.
These strategies draw on both the unique strengths of each perspective and the
confluence among them. One way might be for researchers to acknowledge both
power and agency, noting the constraints of educational and social structures—
which are determined, in part, by those with a vested interest in their perpetua-
tion—while also envisioning possible actions via music participation that might
contribute to change for individuals or groups. As Farr (2004) argues, “criticism
must be attended by construction” (15). Such a way forward is evident in some of
the studies I reviewed.
For example, Cloonan (2004), Coulson (2010), Kruse (2006), and Lu (2013)
all used Bourdieu’s conception of social capital in their studies, noting its connec-
tion to human and cultural forms of capital. However, they all found that musi-
cians and students benefited from the social capital they “accrued” from non-
familial and non-exclusive relationships, disrupting Bourdieu’s (1980, 1986,
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
146
1996) focus on perpetuation of power via family and other ties that foster exclu-
sivity and homogeneity.
Likewise, Eastis (1998), Luebke (2010), and Pietersen (2008) attended to
Bourdieu’s (1986) emphasis on context (without referring to him) while employ-
ing Putnam’s (2000) notion of bridging social capital existing in and emerging
from new relationships forged between diverse people. In this way, they were
able to demonstrate the ways in which music engagement in the particular set-
tings they described fostered civic engagement that brought about consensual
change in community music, schools, and rural communities.
Interestingly, Putnam (2015) has recently noted the constraints of social
structures. His most recent research on how class in contemporary America
restricts or enhances youth opportunities for the future reflects his increasing
awareness of the limits of agency. In Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis,
he argues that working class and poor youth (and their families) have fewer weak
and strong ties to provide them with the social, material and informational
support that leads to “social mobility, and educational and economic advance-
ment” (208). Compared to sixty years ago, contemporary poor and lower class
adolescents in the United States do not have the same degree of “equal oppor-
tunity” as wealthier youth. “Like financial and human capital, social capital is
distributed unevenly,” he states, and “differences in social connections contribute
to the youth opportunity gap” (207). Thus, Putnam’s current conception of social
capital acknowledges that class structures limit agency and is more closely
aligned with Bourdieu’s emphasis on the role of context and class in determining
social capital creation.
A second way forward that also acknowledges the interrelation between pow-
er and agency may be the critically pragmatist stance inherent to Dewey’s (1900,
1909, 1915, 1934) and Hanifan’s (1916, 1920) conception of social capital. I
submit that a critically pragmatic or Deweyan approach to social capital illumi-
nates the conditions of inequality highlighted by Bourdieu, while also promoting
the agentic capacity of humans to foster bridging social capital through inclusive
group activities. It supports improved individual well-being through societal
change, thus linking the micro-level of analysis to the macro-level. This stance is
in accordance with Dewey’s and Bourdieu’s categorical rejection of dualisms (e.g.,
agency/power, individual/community), which, according to Bourdieu (in Bour-
dieu and Wacquant, 1992), is one of several viewpoints that he and Dewey held in
common (122).4
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
147
These suggestions are the result of my extensive reflections on the studies
outlined in the literature review and the findings of my doctoral study. In the next
section, I give a synopsis of the study and those findings specifically related to
social capital, which made evident the relationship between various forms of
social capital at micro-, meso-, and macro-levels.
My Study
My study, entitled The Growth and Contributions of Bridging Social Capital to
Rural Vitality via School-Community Music Education Partnerships, focuses on
music education in rural British Columbia, where school music programs are
sometimes limited in scope or non-existent. Yet, in the rural community in which
I lived and worked for sixteen years, the school-community music education
partnership that community members and I organized (a music education festi-
val) brought greater recognition and support to its school music program and
positively influenced community vitality.
Over a ten-year period, the festival fostered much goodwill in the community,
generating myriad social, cultural, and economic benefits (Prest 2011). My expe-
riences as a festival organizer and participant over this extended period eventual-
ly propelled me to study the ways in which goodwill—one of Hanifan’s (1916)
social capital indicators—is fostered by school-community music education
partnerships and how it contributes to rural vitality and conceptions about the
value of music and music education. Scholars have noted “that social capital is
higher in smaller settings … the more extensive interchange that is possible in
smaller groups makes it possible to discover unexpected mutuality in the face of
difference” (Putnam and Feldstein 2003, 275-276).
For my doctoral research, I sought to examine how those aspects of goodwill,
trust, agency, and sympathy among diverse groups of people—in other words, the
bridging social capital—that had been generated by my community’s school-
community music education partnership, had unfolded in other rural communi-
ties that had also developed music education partnerships. In examining the
experiences of others in multiple and distinct settings, I would broaden my
understanding of the process while also shedding light on the concept of bridging
social capital itself.
My main research question was: How and to what extent does the bridging
social capital created by a rural school-community music education partnership
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
148
influence community identity, agency, and vitality, and thereby shift community
members’ conceptions of the value of music and music education?
Methods
I selected three rural BC communities: Nelson, Powell River, and Qualicum
Beach for this multiple case study (Stake 1995, 2006) based on their size (each
fewer than 15,000 people), their diverse geographies, histories, and constituent
populations, plus their residents’ commonly held commitment to school-
community music education partnerships. I sought to understand social capital
process; therefore, I used qualitative methods (document analysis, personal
interviews, and focus groups) in each community to acquire an understanding of
the specific circumstances, dynamics, and structures that influenced social capital
growth via school-community music education partnerships and its ensuing
contributions.
Findings related to social capital
My research indicates that those who define social capital as an individual re-
source stemming mostly from familial and elite institutional relationships (Bour-
dieu 1980, 1986) and those who understand it as an asset existing in a variety of
relationships (Coleman 1990; Hanifan 1916; Putnam 2000) are both correct.
Bridging social capital was the most significant in effecting changes in communi-
ty life, but, at the outset of the partnerships, bonding social capital (familial and
group ties) was instrumental in opening some doors; also, acquaintances, or
weak ties (Granovetter 1973), proved invaluable to partnership organizers in
facilitating new ventures. Likewise, linking social capital (mostly vertical rela-
tionships to institutions and people higher up the chain of command) proved to
be important to project longevity, especially as the partnerships matured.
Reciprocity, trust, goodwill, norms, and sympathy were present in all set-
tings. I also found that reciprocity gives rise to social capital at the collective level
only when, in addition to a simple exchange, it entails a sincere recognition of
effort (e.g., moving beyond traditional rational actor or habitual behaviour to
conscious and deliberate altruism). In keeping with Hanifan’s (1916, 1920) claim,
the research findings also suggest that social capital may be effectively cultivated
as a deliberate goal, and that fostering bridging social capital via music education
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
149
partnerships may be an important means to actuate social change based on
shared values arrived at through public discussion (Sen 2009).
This was most evident in one community, where the school-community mu-
sic education partnership—a biennial international choral festival—engaged in
cultural collaborations with the local First Nation community, over time contrib-
uting to closer social, cultural, and political relationships between the rural
municipality and the First Nation community (Prest in press). Thus, these find-
ings concur with Jones and Langston’s (2012) assertion that a social capital
framework calls attention to “music’s inherently social nature, which can help
people engage positively in the world and strengthen individuals and communi-
ties” (121). Finally, I found that there may be an inherent structural weakness
that works against sustainable social capital when a school-community music
education partnership is located in a school district or institution whose primary
mandate is not music education and whose changing power brokers may demon-
strate differing levels of support for various reasons.
The following dynamic representation of social capital as it functioned in the
school-community partnerships I examined illustrates three aspects. First, the
foundation of prior relations on which the partnership rests—often familial and
other institutionalized group relations (Bourdieu 1980, 1986, 1996)—are crucial.
Deliberate (Coleman 1990) and habitual (Bourdieu 1980, 1986, 1996) actions
feature in these relationships. Second, bridging and bonding social capital (Put-
nam 2000), through their ongoing use, sustain the community-oriented (Hanifan
1916, 1920) project (and are, in turn, sustained), also supporting the creation of
cultural (musical), and economic capital (see Prest in press for more detail).
Third, institutional (or linking) social capital acts as a stabilizer that anchors the
dynamic interchange between bonding and bridging social capital, and the
partnership. The partnership, which is dependent on positive social interactions,
becomes more secure over time as greater amounts of bridging and linking social
capital are utilized and as a generalized form of social capital develops, which, in
turn, affects social values and builds institutional support.
The model below illustrates how a partnership, like a spinning top, is poised
on a foundational surface. Bridging and bonding social capital swirl around the
partnership, maintaining its equilibrium. Linking capital further supports the
partnership. Without ongoing bridging, bonding, and linking social capital, the
partnership falls over on its side and collapses.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
150
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ↗!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
←!Porous
Bridging and
relationship
bonding
between social
social capital ↗
capital &
support the partnership.
partnership
↙ Linking social
capital supports
the partnership.
Figure 8. Social Capital as Dynamic and Interactive Support for Rural School-
Community Music Education Partnerships (Prest 2014)
This model depicts the ways in which different conceptions of social capital
intertwine in real life, which is a messier system than a theoretical construct. It
illustrates the importance of attending to different conceptions of social capital so
as to take into account the multiple intentions, dimensions, and outcomes of
relationships. In visually representing how these various conceptions interact, the
model points to how we might move towards a more holistic understanding of
social capital.
This graphic also calls attention to the crucial and central role that relation-
ships play in creating and maintaining rural school-community partnerships.
This role may be more easily noted and studied in rural settings because, as rural
places usually have fewer structural and institutional resources than metropoli-
tan centres, residents must rely on each other. Bourdieu (1992) anticipates this
situation by observing that the value of a given form of capital varies from field to
field (74). In rural places, where economic, cultural, and human capital in the
form of institutional structures, services, and expertise are not as prevalent as in
metropolitan areas, social capital may be more abundant and its value height-
ened. Likewise, in the field of business management, Burt (1997) found that
social capital is more valuable to “managers working across significant bounda-
ries within or around the firm” including those who “work at remote plant loca-
Bedrock: Original individual networks
School-
community
music educa-
tion partner-
ship:
Cultural,
human, and
economic
capital
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
151
tions” (353). Burt’s (1997) finding mirrors the experience of rural music educa-
tors who, wishing to provide myriad opportunities for their students, must often
consciously reach out, develop, and maintain relationships with individuals and
groups at a distance in order to facilitate those endeavours.
Final thoughts
Elliott and Silverman (2015) have recently noted that “interpersonal, empathetic,
and ethical relationships are at the core of social capital” (383) and that such
values and music education are intricately connected. This is because music and
music education, by their very nature and structure, hold the capacity to promote
social capital. Music making, similar to relationships, occurs through time and is
the result of concerted effort. As many of the studies cited in this paper have
indicated, such effort often promotes cooperation and trust among music makers,
be they students in formal educational settings, adults in community settings, or
an intergenerational hybrid of both.
Moreover, cognitive
scientists have discerned that musicking, whether sing-
ing, playing, dancing, or actively listening, has the capacity to biologically “couple”
people’s brains, producing physiologically synchronous effects (Benzon 2001),
thus preparing participants physiologically to cooperate (Cross 2009; Freeman
2001; Levitin, 2006; Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Gallese, and Fogassi, 1996). Music mak-
ing is known to be an important means of fostering empathy (Rabinowitch,
Cross, and Burnard 2012; Turino 2008). Such cooperation and empathy via
music making may lead to an unleashing of the imagination, enabling us to see
from the perspective of others (Bateson, 1972; Dewey and Tufts 1932/2008;
Greene 1992). Importantly, Laurence (2008) reminds us that key to fostering
empathy that is derived from the physiologically induced “feelings of unity aris-
ing during shared musical experience” (20) is an accompanying “framework of
consciousness, stated and thoughtful intent, and arguably, a keen awareness of
the kind of relationships which prevail, or are being established and … explored”
(22, italics added).
Fostering an empathic disposition via musicking for the intended purpose of
mutual understanding is certainly beneficial to students in the classroom setting.
It is also relevant to music making in community public spaces, which bring
together diverse audience members who might otherwise not socialize with one
another. Impromptu conversations with strangers, renewed acquaintances, and
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
152
friends in public spaces created by music making contribute to the density and
quality of social interactions that are significant to collective social capital
growth. It is in these public spaces that diverse peoples may begin to have con-
versations about which values are important to them as a community.
Thus, music educators who carefully plan their music activities are able to
draw on their curricular subject’s inherent relational quality in order to support
their students, reach out to the communities in which they live, and create a
public space through the fostering of empathic musical encounters that may
provide a forum for the discussion of common values in a pluralistic society. In
this way, music education activities foster social capital that supports both indi-
vidual students and the greater community. Jones and Langston (2012) affirm
that a relational approach to music education should be at the forefront of teach-
ers’ efforts and that music educators should facilitate bridging social capital in
their ensembles in order to foster intercultural understanding and civic engage-
ment, necessary skills in an era of internationalization.
School offerings should be created with developing social capital in mind in
terms of curriculum and pedagogy. Curriculum should connect students to the
musical ecology in which the school is situated … A curriculum can be designed
that connects students to musical opportunities that already exist in the com-
munity, creates music opportunities within the community, and helps students
develop the expertise to organize their own musical experiences. (129–30)
A place-conscious and relational approach to music education that engenders
musical knowledge while also fostering bridging relationships within the class-
room and the community becomes more relevant to and inclusive of more people.
Inclusivity and relevance contribute to the healthy state of school music pro-
grams in all geographic settings, but they are fundamental to the continued
existence of music education opportunities for rural youth, which are inherently
more fragile. Moreover, in fostering inclusivity and relevance within their pro-
grams, music educators may engender greater cross-cultural understanding in
their particular locations (Prest in press).
Given music and music education’s capacity to foster social capital, both the
effects of social capital and the conditions that foreground its manifestation are
important phenomena for music education researchers to study. Furthermore, a
nuanced and informed social capital framework provides researchers with a
relational approach that highlights music education’s relevance to people at
individual, community, and societal levels. Last, it is a lens that may be familiar
to policy makers, especially those with a broad social science background. Such
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
153
familiarity may facilitate their understanding of how music is meaningful in the
lives of citizens, both in small communities where infrastructure and resources
may be limited, and in cities where issues of inclusion and exclusion may be more
complex. Consequently, they and other political actors may more readily give
credence to and act on the findings of such research, turning music education’s
“special interests” into public knowledge and concern in all geographic settings,
including the rural.
About the Author
Dr. Anita Prest is Assistant Professor of Music Education in the Department of
Curriculum & Instruction at the University of Victoria (British Columbia, Cana-
da). Prior to her appointment, Anita taught K-12 music for 20 years in rural and
metropolitan settings. Her doctoral research at the University of British Colum-
bia focused on the growth and contributions of bridging social capital to rural
vitality via school-community education partnerships. Her current research
interests include understanding the ways in which music educators in British
Columbia, in conjunction with First Nations and Métis community members,
facilitate the integration of local Indigenous knowledge, pedagogy, and cultural
practices in music classes, schools, and the broader community. Anita has pre-
sented/lectured in Canada, Denmark, Greece, Japan, the United Kingdom, and
the United States.
References
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthro-
pology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. San Francisco: Chandler
Pub.
Becker, Gary. 1964. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with
special reference to education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Benzon, William. 2001. Beethoven’s anvil: Music and mind in culture. New York:
Basic Books.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1980. Le capital social: Notes provisoires. Actes de la recherche
en sciences sociales 31: 2–3.
———. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
———. 1985. The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society 14:
723–44.
eory and Society 14 (1985) 723-744
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
154
———. 1986. Forms of capital. In Handbook of theory and research for the soci-
ology of education, edited by J.C. Richards, 241–58. New York: Greenwood
Press.
———. 1996. The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
———. 1998. Acts of resistance: Against the tyranny of the market, trans. Richard
Nice. New York: The New Press.
———. 1999. The social conditions of the international circulation of ideas. In
Bourdieu: A critical reader, edited by R. Shusterman, 220–28. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
———, and Loïc Wacquant. 1992. An invitation to a reflexive sociology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Brimhall, Jennifer. 2014. Characteristics of music teachers who effectively pro-
mote social capital: A literature review. Update: Applications of Research in
Music Education 33 (1): 1–7.
Brown, Steven, and Ulrik Volgsten. 2006. Music and manipulation: On the social
uses and social control of music. New York: Berghahn Books.
Burt, Ronald S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative
Science Quarterly 42 (2): 339-365.
Cloonan, Martin. 2004. A capital project? ‘The new deal for musicians’ in Scot-
land. Studies in the Education of Adults 36 (1): 40–56.
Coleman, James. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: The
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Coradini, Odaci Luiz. 2010. The divergences between Bourdieu’s and Coleman’s
notions of social capital and their epistemological limits. Social Science In-
formation 49 (4): 563–83.
Coulson, Susan. 2010. Getting ‘capital’ in the music world: Musicians’ learning
experiences and working lives. British Journal of Music Education 27 (3):
255–70.
Dabback, William. 2008. Exploring Social Networks, Reciprocity, and Trust in a
Senior Adult Band. In CMA XI, Projects, Perspectives, and Conversations:
Proceedings from the International Society for Music Education (ISME)
Seminar of the Commission for Community Music Activity, ed. D. Coffman,
104-113. Rome, Italy.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
155
Dewey, John. 1900. The elementary school record. Chicago: University of Chica-
go Press.
———. 1909. Address. Proceedings of the National Negro Conference, 71–3. New
York.
———. 1909/1933. How we think. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company.
———. 1915/1990. The school and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
———, and James Tufts. 1932/2008. Ethics. In John Dewey: The later works
1925–1953, edited J. A. Boydston, Vol. 7. Carbondale, Illinois: South Illinois
University Press.
———. 1934. A great American prophet. Common Sense 3: 6_7.
Dowling, Martin. 2008. Fiddling for outcomes: traditional music, social capital,
and arts policy in Northern Ireland. International Journal of Cultural Policy
14 (2): 179_94.
Durkheim, Émile. 1895/1982. The rules of sociological method, trans. W. D. Hall.
London: MacMillan.
Eastis, Carla. 1998. Organizational diversity and social capital. American Behav-
ioral Scientist 42 (1): 66–77.
Elliott, David, and Marissa Silverman. 2014. Music matters: A philosophy of
music education. 2nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Farr, James. 2004. Social capital: A conceptual history. Political Theory 32 (1):
6–33.
———. 2007. In search of social capital: A response to Ben Fine. Political Theory
35 (47): 54–61.
Fast, Susan, and Kip Pegley, eds. 2012. Music, politics, and violence. Mid-
dletown, Conn: Wesleyan University Press.
Fine, Ben. 2007. Eleven Hypotheses on the Conceptual History of Social Capital:
A Response to James Farr. Political Theory 35 (1): 47–53.
———. 2010. Theories of social capital: Researchers behaving badly. New York:
Pluto Press.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
156
Franke, Sandra. 2005. Measurement of social capital: Reference document for
public policy research, development, and evaluation. Canadian Policy Re-
search Initiative. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/PH4-27-
2005E.pdf
Freeman, Walter. 2001. A neurobiological role of music in social bonding. In The
origin of music, eds. N. L. Wallin, B. Merker, and S. Brown, 411–23. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fulkerson, Gregory, and Gretchen Thompson. 2008. The evolution of a contested
concept: A meta-analysis of social capital definitions and trends (1998-
2006). Sociological Inquiry 78 (4): 536–57.
Gittell, Ross, and Avis Vidal. 1998. Community organizing: Building social
capital as a developmental strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Granovetter, Mark. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociol-
ogy 78 (6): 1360-1380.
Greene, Maxine. 1992. Releasing the imagination. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Halpern, David. 2005. Social capital. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hampshire, Katherine, and Mathilde Matthijsse. 2010. Can arts projects improve
young people’s well-being? A social capital approach. Social Science and
Medicine 71 (4): 708–16.
Hanifan, Lyda. 1916. The rural school community center. American Academy of
Political and Social Science LXVII, 130–38.
———. 1920. The community center. Boston: Silver, Burdett & Co.
Hebert, David, and Alexandra Kertz-Welzel, eds. 2012. Patriotism and National-
ism in Music Education. Abingdon, U.K.: Ashgate Publishing Group.
http://www.ebrary.com
Helliwell, John, and Robert Putnam. 2004. The social context of well-being.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London. Series B, Biological
Sciences 359: 1435–46.
Johnson, Bruce, and Martin Cloonan. 2009. Dark side of the tune: Popular
music and violence. Farnham: Ashgate.
Jones, Patrick. M. 2010. Developing social capital: A role for music education and
community music in fostering civic engagement and intercultural under-
standing. International Journal of Community Music 3 (2): 291–302.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
157
———, and Thomas Langston. 2012. Community music and social capital. In The
Oxford Handbook of Music Education, eds. G. McPherson and G. Welch, Vol.
2, 120–37. New York: Oxford University Press.
Koniordos, Sokratis. 2008. Social capital contested. International Review of
Sociology: Revue Internationale de Sociologie 18(2): 317-337. doi:
10.1080/03906700802087993
Kruse, Adam. 2013. “I always had my instrument”: The story of Gloria Ramires.
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education 195: 25_40.
Langston, Thomas. 2009. The importance of being Henry. In Narrative inquiry
in music education: Troubling certainty, eds. M. S. Barrett, and S. L. Stauf-
fer, 63_80. New York: Springer.
———. 2011. It’s a life support, isn’t it? Social capital in a community choir. Inter-
national Journal of Community Music 4 (2): 163–84.
———, and Margaret Barrett. 2008. Capitalizing on community music: A case
study of the manifestation of social capital in a community choir. Research
Studies in Music Education 30 (2): 118–38.
Laurence, Felicity. 2008. Music and empathy. In Music and Conflict Transfor-
mation: Harmonies and Dissonances in Geopolitics, ed. Olivier Urbain, 13–
25. NY: I. B. Tauris & Company.
Lee, Hung Kun. 2010. The rise of African drumming among adult music learners
in Hong Kong. International Education Studies, suppl. Special Issue: Theo-
rising and Reflecting on Lifelong Learning 3 (4): 86–93.
Lin, Nan. 1999. Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 22 (1):
28–51.
Lu, Wei-Ting. 2013. Confucius or Mozart? Community cultural wealth and up-
ward mobility among children of Chinese immigrants. Qualitative Sociology
36 (3): 303–21.
Luebke, Linda. 2010. The specialist in communities of practice: Lessons in
leadership for elementary general education. PhD diss., Gonzaga University.
Spokane, WA.
Navarro, Vicente. 2002. A critique of social capital. International Journal of
Health Services 32 (3): 423–32.
O’Connell, John, and Salwa El-Shawan Castelo-Branco, eds. 2010. Music and
conflict. Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
158
Pietersen, Joan. 2008. Community Music Life in Western Australia: Creating a
Social Capital of Partnership and Trust. In CMA XI, Projects, Perspectives,
and Conversations: Proceedings from the International Society for Music
Education (ISME) Seminar of the Commission for Community Music Activi-
ty, ed. D. Coffman, 147–53. Rome, Italy.
Portes, Alejandro. 1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern
sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1–24.
Portes, Alejandro. 2000. The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum
15 (1): 1–12.
Prest, Anita. 2011. Widening the boundaries of music education in a small rural
B.C. town: A case study. In Widening the boundaries of music education
symposium III, eds. B. Bolden, and M. Kennedy, 21–32. Friesen Press.
———. 2014. The growth and contributions of bridging social capital to rural
vitality via school-community music education partnerships. (Doctoral Dis-
sertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Can-
ada). UBC repository. http://hdl.handle.net/2429/51362
———. In press. Cultural bridging: The contributions of bridging social capital to
cross-cultural understanding via school-community music education part-
nerships in rural British Columbia. In Proposing a new music education
view through non-European sound practices, edited by T. Imada. Hirosaki,
Japan: Hirosaki University Press.
Putnam, Robert. 1993. The prosperous community. The American Prospect 4
(13): 1–11.
———. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
———. 2015. Our kids: The American dream in crisis. New York: Simon & Schus-
ter.
———, and Lewis Feldstein. 2003. Better together: Restoring the American
community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rabinowitch, Tal-Chen, Ian Cross, and Pamela Burnard. 2012. Long-term musi-
cal group interaction has a positive influence on empathy in children. Psy-
chology of Music 41 (4): 484–98.
Russell, Joan. 2006. Inuit student teachers’ agency, positioning, and symbolic
action: Reflections from a “Qallunaat” in music teaching in the Canadian arc-
tic. International Journal of Music Education 24 (3): 231–42.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
159
Schafft, Kai, and David Brown. 2003. Social capital, social networks, and social
power. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy 17
(4): 329–42. doi:10.1080/0269172032000151795
Schmidt, Patrick. 2008. Time, the Untimely and “It’s about Time”: Creating
Community Music’s Capital. In CMA XI, Projects, Perspectives, and Conver-
sations: Proceedings from the International Society for Music Education
(ISME) Seminar of the Commission for Community Music Activity, edited
by D. Coffman, 154–72. Rome, Italy.
Sen, Amartya. 2009. The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Smith, Stephen, and Jessica Kulynych. 2002. It may be social, but why is it
capital? The social construction of social capital and the politics of language.
Politics & Society 30 (1): 149–86.
Stake, Robert. E. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
———. 2006. Multiple case study analysis. New York: The Guildford Press.
Street, John. 2012. Music and politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Turino, Thomas. 2008. Music as social life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Urbain, Olivier, ed. 2008. Music and conflict transformation: Harmonies and
dissonances in geopolitics. New York: I. B. Tauris & Co.
Wing, Lizabeth. 1996. Studying ourselves through qualitative lenses: A caution,
an observation, and a possibility. Bulletin for the Council of Research in Mu-
sic Education, 116–18.
Woolcock, Michael. 2010. The rise and routinization of social capital, 1998-2008.
Annual Review of Political Science 13: 469–87.
Wright, Ruth. 2012. Music education and social transformation: Building social
capital through music. Canadian Music Educator 53 (3): 12–13.
Zdzinski, Stephen. 2004. Contributions of drum corps participation to the quality
of life of drum corps alumni. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music
Education 159: 46–57.
Action, Criticism, and Theory for Music Education 15 (4)
Prest, Anita. 2016. Social capital as a framework for music education research. Action, Criticism,
and Theory for Music Education 15 (4): 127–160. doi:10.22176/act15.4.127
160
Notes
1 For Bourdieu (1985, 1986, 1996), economic capital refers to financial resources;
cultural capital refers to education, cultural goods, and disposition; and symbolic
capital refers to prestige, reputation, and renown. Becker (1964) defined human
capital as educational attainment. For Bourdieu (1996), Becker’s conception does
not consider that the ability to study is “also the product of an investment in time
and cultural capital” (275). Similar to meritocracy, educational attainment is, in
part, the result of a priori factors that have little to do with an individual’s auton-
omous ability. According to Bourdieu (1996), Becker’s “definition of ‘human
capital’ … despite its ‘humanist’ connotations, remains entrenched in economism
and disregards the fact that the economic and social returns on academic stock
depend on the social capital (also inherited) that may be put to its service” (276).
Therefore, Bourdieu (1986, 1996) subsumed educational attainment under the
term cultural capital.
2 The notion of goodwill is central to my use of the term social capital in my
dissertation (see p. 23).
3 The term empathy did not enter the English lexicon until 1909 and was not
used widely for several years. In the 19th and early 20th century, the word sympa-
thy had several meanings, including the more neutral term understanding that
we currently ascribe to empathy.
4 Bourdieu (in Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992) also pointed out the similarities
between his term habitus and the pragmatist notion of habit-taking (122).
