The ability for social capital to be harnessed for both positive and negative purposes is especially apparent in the discussion of the “urban crisis.” The issue was brought to the forefront during the 1950s and 1960s during a period when black families began moving into historically white neighborhoods. Homeowners’ associations, community groups, and other neighborhood-based organizations, which seem to be benign groups promoting positive social capital, are criticized by some scholars such as Thomas Sugrue as insidious organizations designed to impose racial order. He argues that racism and aggression, using the negative social capital of white homeowners’ organizations, is the cause of the urban crisis because it forced black homeowners …show more content…
Coupled with the phenomenon of “white flight,” neighborhoods, which were not diverse to begin with, became less so. Robert Samson notes that homogeneous minority neighborhoods have significantly higher incidence rates of violent crime. Those who argue that social capital is the major factor at play might argue that these communities suffer from a lack of bridging social capital, caused by the extreme animosity of the white homeowners’ associations. Many of the studies cited by Sampson show, however, that once socioeconomics and family structure are controlled, race becomes a far less salient factor in violence within communities. This would suggest that, while bridging social capital is important and has the potential for creating growth within communities, it might not have been responsible for the initial decline. Instead, the data points to high levels of poverty as the cause of …show more content…
There is a clear relationship between the departure of factories in cities and the increasing levels of poverty among those who live there. Lacking steady incomes, families became increasingly transient as they struggled to find affordable housing and work. As transience increased, social mobility decreased as economic factors prevented them from moving to areas where they could obtain steady employment or higher wages. A combination of these factors resulted in the decline of the community. In addition to poverty’s direct effects on the community, its indirect effects, including less connected neighborhoods, parents participating less in their children’s education, and acceptance of gang culture by unemployed youth, have taken a toll on urban areas. Here, the precipitating factor that caused the erosion of social capital within urban communities seems to be changes in industrial manufacturing and the economy. In this case, the most relevant form of social capital was the bonding social capital lacking within the community, rather than the historical effects of white organizations harnessing social capital for abhorrent