Creative and Social Capital: Concepts, Problems and Contradictions

Abstract

Creative and Social Capital: Concepts, Problems and Contradictions. The article deals with creative and social capital (SC) in the light of creative society. SC has both positive and negative aspects. The first are trust, economic development, ecological consciousness, etc. The latter are intolerance for certain individuals, stagnant relations, depression of the initiatives, etc. The negative aspects have been connected with the lack of creative aspirations within a social group. There is a dialectical relation between social and creative capital (CC). Although creative workers need certain support from their social environment, creativity does not only use social ties to spread creative results, but also ignores them by appealing to a new creative community. The comparison of SC and CC opens very different approaches towards society. In the case of SC, we still have the privileged classes who consolidate the whole society. Even in the case of the creative class we face the relics of (Post)Marxist economic approach if we correlate the activity of so called creative class with economic prosperity of a region. In the case of creative society, we have very different approach. If every person is more or less creative, we do not have the creative classes or parties as holders of CC any more. This (neo)liberal approach means also the dissemination of any form of capital, as well as elimination of attitude formed by economic priority in our societies.

Interconnections of Creative and Social Capital

“…Despite the fact that social capital has many advantages, it also has a negative side in some cases. As noted by Kačerauskas (2019) as well as Szara and Mazurkiewicz (2018), due to social capital in communities, such a phenomenon as suppression of individual creative aspirations can occur. The blocking of technological development is associated with too strong social ties (Kačerauskas 2019), contributing to stagnant economic activity and leading to negative consequences from an economic point of view (Gannon, Roberts 2020; Kačerauskas 2019).…”

“…It is noted that communication networks are not inherited, nor are they a social given - Bourdieu (1986) argues that 'networks' are the result of endless efforts, and these efforts are necessary to create long-term or short-term relationships that create benefits. Kačerauskas (2019) observes that 'the more diverse communities make up society, the greater the need to accumulate social capital' (Kačerauskas 2019: 236). In other words, the differences between people help to create the most diverse connections, make acquaintances; therefore, it contributes to the growth of social capital.…”

Political Communication of Creative Society: The Aspects of Public Policy

“…The concept of creative society is ambiguously assessed by various authors (both foreign and Lithuanian). The authors analyse different aspects of creative society: creative society features and creative class (Kacherauskas, 2017;Kačerauskas, 2015Kačerauskas, , 2017Kacerauskas, 2020;Mažeikis, 2015;Stasiulis, 2015aStasiulis, , 2015bStasiulis, , 2015c, creative economy and creative industries (Kačerauskas, 2018;Kačerauskas et al, 2021), creativity (Diržytė et al, 2021;Kačerauskas, 2016aKačerauskas, , 2016cKačerauskas, , 2019, creative city (Betlej & Kačerauskas, 2021;Kačerauskas, 2016b;Landry, 2008). Rather successful attempts for political aspect research could be investigation of creative bureaucracy (Landry & Caust, 2017); academic focus of renowned urban expert Landry (2019) recently moved from creative city to creative bureaucracy (Landry, 2020a(Landry, , 2020bLandry & Ellis, 2021) -best illustrated by his annual Creative Bureaucracy Festival.…”

Disadvantaged Children – Between Poverty and the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…If the situation permits, they are helped to return to their family. Complexities of being a disadvantaged child are refl ected in the approach perspective: explaining the deprivation in the socio-economic family by lack of social cohesion and social capital in the society, community, and family ( Bynner, & Ashford, 1994;Kačerauskas, 2019;Ŝkobla, 2016), or by theories of stress that analyze the eff ects of the disadvantaged socio-economic family and environment on the mental health of adults and children, as well as on the balance of family life ( Creasey, & Reese, 1996;Deater-Deckard, 2004). In the case of children in welfare and social protection institutions among the most common approaches are those that focus on the relationship between the crisis response of benefi ciaries and particularities such as the age at which they entered the system, the period of time spent in the system, the reasons why they were institutionalized.…”