GENDER AND SOCIAL CAPITAL – NORRIS 4/16/2003 9:38 PM 1 Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart Kennedy School of Government Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138 Institute for Social Research University of MichiganAnn Arbor, Michigan, 48106-1248F: (617) 495 8696 E: [email protected] www.ksg.harvard.edu/people/pnorris F: (313) 764 3341E: [email protected] Synopsis: Recent years have seen renewed interest in social capital, and the way in which civic associations and personal trust, by affecting individual life-chances and societal well-being, generate both private and public goods. Yet associational membership can be vertically and horizontally segmented for women and men, and this study examines alternative explanations for these differences. Structural accounts stress the way that the social cleavages of gender, age, and class are closely related to the unequal distribution of civic resources including time, money, knowledge, and skills. Cultural explanations emphasize the attitudes and values that women and men bring to social engagement, including their prior motivational interests and ideological beliefs. Agency accounts focus upon the role of informal mobilizing mechanisms generated by family, friends, and colleagues. In short, these explanations suggest that women participate less in associational life because they can’t, because they won’t, or because nobody asked them. We examine these propositions and consider their implications for the social networks of women and men, as well as for the well being of our communities. For the conference on Gender and Social Capital, St. John’s College, University of Manitoba, 2-3 May 2003. For more details see Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris ‘Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Worldwide’ Cambridge University Press, 2003. Gendering Social Capital: Bowling in Women’s Leagues?GENDER AND SOCIAL CAPITAL – NORRIS 4/16/2003 9:38 PM 2 Social capital theories have stimulated renewed interest in the world of voluntary associations and community associations. The core claim of Putnam's account is that typical face-to-face deliberative activities and horizontal collaboration within voluntary organizations far removed from the political sphere – exemplified by sports clubs, agricultural cooperatives, and philanthropic groups - promote interpersonal trust. In turn, trust is seen as cementing the bonds of social life, as the foundation for building social communities, civil society, and democratic governance. Participation in associational life is thought to generate individual rewards, such as career opportunities and support networks, as well as community goods, by fostering the capacity of people to work together on local problems. If associational life carries certain benefits, is membership distributed equally across society, including among women as well as men? We can draw a useful distinction between two main types of inequality at work here: vertical segmentation refers to differences in the density of associational memberships held by women and men; horizontal segmentation means contrasts in the type of associations involving women and men. The earliest studies of political behavior in Western Europe and North America established gender as one of the standard variables routinely used to explain the extent of activism within voluntary organizations and community groups, as well as in political participation1. Horizontal segmentation is also well-established, for example, twenty years ago McPherson and Smith-Lovin demonstrated that American men usually belonged to core economic organizations, providing access to information about possible jobs, business opportunities, and chances for professional advancement, while American women belonged to organizations which focused primarily upon domestic and community affairs, giving them networks in the domestic realm2. Moore found that men’s personal networks included more co-workers, advisors and friends while women’s networks were usually more family-related, even after controlling for work status, family and age3. Given the substantial changes transforming women and men's lives in America, gender differences in associational life might be expected to have diminished in recent decades. Yet in fact, as we shall demonstrate later, organizational membership remains segmented by sex in the United States, as well as in most nations4. The greatest contrast is less in the total number of clubs, groups, and organizations that men and women join, but rather in the horizontal divisions within associational life. Today in many countries certain types of organizations remain disproportionately male, including political parties, sports clubs, the peace movement, professional groups, labor unions, and community associations (see Table 1). By contrast women continue to predominate in associations related to traditional female roles, including those concerned with education and the arts, religious and church organizations, and those providing social welfare services for the elderly or handicapped, as well as women's groups. This matters if horizontal segmentation into same sex-related bonding groups has positive functions for members, and yet may generate negative externalities (reinforcing gender divisions) for society as a whole. In a perfectly sex-segmented society, the problem is not that women are not bowling, but rather that they are bowling in women’s leagues5. This study examines alternative explanations for these patterns. Structural accounts stress the way that the social cleavages of gender, age, and class are closely related to the unequal distribution of civic resources, including time, money, knowledge, and skills, which facilitate participation in voluntary associations. Cultural explanations emphasize the attitudes and values that motivate people to join associations, including their interests and ideological beliefs. Agency accounts focus upon the role of mobilizing networks and the informal ties generated by family, friends, and colleagues. In short, these explanations suggest that women participate less in associational groups because they can’t (“No time!”), because they won’t (“Not interested!”), or because nobody asked them (“Come along to a meeting?”). Part I of this paper lays out the analytical