**3. Social capital and equity of relationships**

Theories of social capital contribute significantly to assess the relevance of housing as being a part of the social infrastructure, even though the idea of capitalizing on social relations is questionable [12]. Definitions of social capital are different in scale and incorporated values, but they all emphasize its meaning in social network relations. Bourdieu [13, p. 248] defines social capital as "[…] the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition". Since resources are incorporated into actors, his utilitarian perspective primarily focuses on the nodes of the networks. The values are given by solidarity, reciprocity, and trust expressed as network connections.

Coleman [14, p. 302], in contrast, accounts for assigning value to the edges, thus relations, of a social network: "Social capital is defined by its function. It is not a single entity, but a variety of different entities having two characteristics in common: They all consist of some aspect of a social structure, and they facilitate certain actions of individuals who are within the structure". Though different in their focus on social networks, both definitions share a common understanding of the preconditions – resources and social structure – necessary to trade social capital and of the selective mechanisms of exclusion and inclusion that emerge with the quantity and quality of social capital recognized and appreciated in particular social networks. In order to explicate those different forces within and between social networks that are responsible for social inequalities, it is worth referring to Woolcock's [15, p. 10] distinction of "bonding", "bridging", and "linking" social capital [16].

Even though we take into consideration that the value units of social capital derive from societal sources that lay outside social networks – "trust, reciprocity, moral, or attitudes will be reproduced and modified in social networks, but not exclusively produced" [12, p. 11] – we are able to recognize the relevance of social capital in community building and participation, notwithstanding. The home serves as one, albeit not a single spatial node of their residents' social networks. The

#### *Sustainable Housing*

home functions as the material source for creating and exchanging the ingredients social capital is made of, irrespective of the intensity of its use and the social status, ethnic background, or any other discrimination of its inhabitants. Any social interaction needs to be embedded into a local context to be recognized and accumulated as a potentially valuable contribution of belongingness and inclusion. Social capital is, therefore, one core concept to strengthen the social housing function against other concurrent functions.

A second core concept is given with the equity or justice of relationships [6]. The requirement for equal relationships arises from the insufficient applicability of equal opportunities in capitalistic societies. The relational equity principle does not claim to represent a utopian counter-program against the free-market liberal paradigm but to propose a realistic attempt of prioritizing social prosperity over individual justice of achievement. None of the concepts of equal opportunities – be it legal, institutional, instrumental or radical – aim for a comprehensive reduction of social inequality, nor do they fairly value individual success (or failure) against societal achievements. Furthermore, they largely fail to offer satisfactory suggestions to the range of legitimate inequality, a just redistribution of wealth or a commonly accepted poverty level [6, p. 286ff., 17].

According to Rosanvallon, social inequality rests, at least, upon three causes: (i) the privilege of social origin, that correlates with unevenly distributed capabilities among people; (ii) the growing commodification of life, that jeopardizes social and ecological well-being; (iii) the social-spatial segregation, that threatens social cohesion due to limited possibilities of mutual recognition and communication across these segregated areas.

Individual and social functions of housing suffer from economically preferred individual justice of achievement and social inequalities. Against these problems, Rosanvallon proposes a relational justice that satisfies three conditions: firstly, 'singularity' appreciates the mutual recognition of human beings. It does not qualify individual autonomy and liberty as a state but as a relational property. Social rights derive from unconditional access to societal institutions, including housing markets. Mutual recognition is particularly committed to less privileged and/or less affluent people struggling to articulate their rights in economic relationships. Secondly, it claims equal participatory rights of co-produced goods and services, as well as commonly shared values, referred to as 'reciprocity'. This relates to commons, not to trade and exchange. Needs are anticipated and shared democratically. In our context of housing functions, reciprocity accounts for the globally claimed human 'right to housing' and the targets addressed by the Sustainable Development Goals, such as affordability, basic protection of tenants against disproportionately rising rents or displacement. The third condition of relational justice refers to 'communality', which avoids the creation and maintenance of communities to be realized by socio-cultural ascriptions. These discriminations imply a commodification of the person, with which inclusion and exclusion – and asymmetrical power relations that derive from these processes – are established. Residential segregation is one of the results, reproduced and seemingly legitimated by those discriminations. Communality urges all people to strengthen local democratic relationships and local social spaces [6]. It can be understood as a synthesis of singularity and reciprocity criticizes contemporary processes of gentrification because they discriminate against humans socially and reward economic Darwinism.

## **3.1 In a nutshell**

Theories of social capital and relational equity/justice are two approaches that delineate common principles of establishing and preserving social communities.

*The Impact of Contemporary Housing Functions on Its Social Sustainability DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99277*

Other approaches not explicitly considered in this contribution are sociological and social geographical theories, such as actor-network theory [18], system theory [19], theory of structuration [20], and theory of action [21], as well as social- and political-philosophical theories like, for example, the theory of justice [22]. Social capital and relational equity theories take a relational perspective on communities and highlight the functions of relational structures. In so doing, they enable a critique of current housing policies from a sustainability's perspective. Social capital theories exhibit the principles of social relationships, the mechanisms on which social networks of different size, quality, and hierarchy develop and differentiate, and the roles, positions and power relations that emerge due to capital allocation. Theories of relational justice set out alternative norms of collective participation and engagement. Priority is entitled to an equitable status of community members against individually justifiable inequalities.
