Further conceptualizing Virtual Capital
So I’m finally ready to start working with this earlier notion I had regarding the concept of “virtual capital“. Dianne and I were talking about it a bit today, as I have been knee deep in literature on social capital, online social relationships, and the digital divide as I assist her in the task of drafting the Introductory chapter for the Equity and Technology book.
After discussing the (somewhat surprising) turn that my conference paper has taken, I bring up virtual capital again.
“But what is it?” she asks.
“Well, I’m not quite sure yet… but I think it takes elements of social, cultural, human and identity capital and relates it to an online context.”
Then, after we are in agreement as to what each of these terms mean, she asks, “And how is virtual capital not just another form of social capital?”
“Well, because it occurs in virtual environments… it’s abstracted one step further?” (Note the question in my voice because I am thinking about the questions as I am answering them… really I’m just making it up as I go along) ”I think that if it is anything, it would more likely result in the generation of social capital rather than economic capital. That’s what it’s convertible into…”
“Yes but how is that different? Is it simply because it’s taking place online? And if so… can you say the same thing of the telephone?” (She is very good at playing my devil’s advocate).
I told her I’d think about it some more and I’d get back to her.
So I’ve been thinking about it. Particularly in comparison to the notion of social capital. Is it merely a form of social capital? A different set of resources but essentially the same thing? Or is it qualitatively different? And if so, what makes it different? And here’s what I’ve come up with so far…
In order to answer these questions we must first decide if online relationships and real-life relationships can be treated equally. As contexts where the same rules of interaction and reciprocity apply. If we accept that online social organisation and real-life social organisation share the same features and that they facilitate the same kind of reciprocity and access… then perhaps virtual capital is simply a type of social capital.
But collectively we (as in “we” - the community of people who concern themselves with things like social capital) haven’t accepted that. Or at least some of us don’t believe that this is true. Some of us believe that relationships which are formed and/or maintained online are qualitatively different than real-life ones.
I have seen research that convincingly “proves” that the virtual can enhance existing ties. I have also seen research which shows that virtual relationships are thought to be lacking in their substance… missing a certain something that a hug or a handshake can compensate for.
So I guess we have to go a bit further down the rabbit hole and ask… What makes virtual relationships different than real-life ones? It’s not simply that the relationship is technologically mediated different, because ”going virtual” is thought to do something to the relationship in the process… either make it better or take something away from it. So what is it?
Well, I guess that has to do with the perception of the individual experiencing the relationships. But does the individual really differentiate the real and the virtual in terms of how (s)he negotiates a relationship within each of them? What are those differences?
In addition to being mediated by technology, there is also the question of the nature of the access and resources being exchanged… and the purposes for existing and interacting in a virtual context. All of which, I would argue, are substantially different in online contexts because they are (in large part) only relevant within those online contexts. For example… resources could be thought of as the “rating” one might have, or the avatar you choose, or your ability to manipulate the code on your profile.
While some of these resources could be interpretively tied to social capital (rating), some of them could also be considered identity capital resources (avatar) and cultural capital resources (presentation).
While it’s true that virtual capital, in terms of networking, can generate forms of social capital, virtual capital is so much more than this. It is different because it is a concept that attempts to unify the psycho-socialist capitalist trifecta (that is… social, cultural, identity capital) for analysis of going virtual and being online… where fractal type network formations exist as a bundle of social interactions.
I have to think about this futher… and do some more reading. As always… recommendations and thoughts will be greeted with enthusiasm 
Never even heard of Virtual Capital…
Thanks,
Anthony
I think virtual capital is/will be different, because with networked and collectively intelligent groups, we leave both the market and the institutions paradigms behind. So, what is going on in that space? Kinship, solidarity, authority ranking, collective ownership of “goods”….as we incorporate technology more, the entire division between off-line and online, between carbonverse and metaverse will become blurry. In fact the blurring has already begun, also in terms of virtual capital. My son, 10 years old, plays runescape avidly, which means establishing, maintaining and enhancing a social network, where a virtual monetary system is involved, but where rank is fully tied to social skills: being a good clan leader, being astute at starting and maintaining relationships and friendships. In fact, runescape players as all multuiplayer gamers do this across a variety of media and platforms: meeting up, chatting on IRC, IM, on forums and, almost as an afterthought, within the game itself…
There is definitely a willful consent towards moving social relations online. Whether it’s simply the novelty or because of something that it does to our brain is yet to be decided.
As we shed our paradigms, we also shed our symbols and tokens (a la Giddens), but those structures don’t disappear… they emerge in new forms.
This paradigm shift, however, is unique, in that the structures and forms of legitimation appear to be collectively agreed upon. At the same time though, this shift is not unique, because the existing institutions yield so much power and can change the rules of the game in the middle of it.
It’s yet to be seen whether Wikilaity (reality by consensus) will end up being any different than it’s carbon-based host.
I just published a book chapter applying virtual capital concepts in a collection on the political economy of art and culture (Codell 2008) and would be interested in joining this conversation.
My first comment is that one needs to look at the original conceptions of SC (Coleman, Lin etc) and consider how a social (capital) network “represents” value and how those material/moral values can be measured n ways appropriate to more complete and interrelated conceptions of capital ( fixed, fictional etc ).