Marginalization and Social Capital: A Comparison of Women in Marginal and Non-Marginal Areas of Sari
Subject Areas : urban Issues and marginalizationJavad Feli 1 , Ali Gorji karsami 2
1 - Assistant Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
2 - Ph.D. Student in Social Issues Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
Keywords: women, social capital, social participation, social trust, social cohesion, social relations, marginalized and non-marginalized areas. ,
Abstract :
Marginalization and Social Capital: A Comparison of Women in Marginal and
Non-Marginal Areas of Sari
Javad Feli*
Ali Gorji Karsami**
The current research was conducted with the aim of investigate and comparing marginalization and social capital of women in peripheral and non-peripheral areas of Sari city. A combination of the theories of Putnam, Fukuyama, Ufe and Fuchs was used to investigate this goal. This descriptive research has been applied survey method. The statistical population consists of 143,764 Sari women above 15 years old. Based on the Morgans’ standard sampling table (1970), 384 people have been selected as a sample. A random cluster sampling applied to access the sample. Social capital questionnaire was the data collection tool. The results show that there is a significant difference between social capital and its dimensions (social participation, social trust, social cohesion, social relations) among women in marginal and non-marginal areas of Sari city. Research findings indicate that women in marginal areas have less social capital (social participation, social trust, social cohesion, social relations) than women in non-marginal areas. In order to strengthen social capital in marginalized areas, it is suggested to support independent non-governmental organizations and strengthen the cultural and recreational facilities of these areas.
Keywords: women, social capital, social participation, social trust, social cohesion, social relations, marginalized and non-marginalized areas.
* Corresponding Author: Assistant Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
** Ph.D. Student in Social Issues Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
drali.gorjik@gmail.com
Marginalization and Social Capital: A Comparison of Women in Marginal and
Non-Marginal Areas of Sari
Javad Feli*
Ali Gorji Karsami**
Introduction
Social capital is considered to be a network of relationships, interactions, and the values and norms governing these relationships, which can create the necessary platform for the realization of society's goals by fostering trust, convergence, and proper interaction. To achieve collective goals, relying on and emphasizing social capital—meaning establishing trust, creating a spirit of cooperation, and fostering correct interaction—is essential and precedes other matters. By establishing contact with each other, members of society can cooperate, and social relations and interactions between people are influenced by various social, economic, and cultural changes.
The gathering of immigrants with different cultures in unsuitable living environments, along with unemployment and poverty, leads to the creation of delinquent neighborhoods and various psychological problems. Criminological studies and social psychology have always found their most important subjects in big, dense cities and among immigrants. In underdeveloped countries, urbanization expands along with the growth of services independent of industrial development, leading to decreased production, hidden and open unemployment, and the rise of urban crimes. Marginalization and its consequences can be seen as social damage and problems. It should not be overlooked that, in addition to the negative aspects of marginalization in the social structure and spatial construction of cities, this environment also has negative consequences for the marginalized themselves. These include the presence of crime and delinquency in these areas, an inappropriate social, economic, and cultural environment for children and teenagers, a sense of insecurity, and the lack of welfare, cultural facilities, and necessary amenities for youth and teenagers to spend their free time. This creates a poor way of life for these people.
The main problem of the research is whether there is a significant difference in the amount of social capital among women in marginal and non-marginal areas of Sari city.
Methodology
This research employed a field-based survey method and was practical in purpose. The statistical population comprised 143,764 women over 15 years old in Sari. Based on Krejci and Morgan's standard sampling table, 384 participants were selected as the sample. To access the sample, a cluster random sampling method was used. Marginalized areas in Sari city, including Koi-e- Shahid Chamran, Ghafari neighborhood, and Azadi neighborhood, were randomly selected, while Farhang Street, Javadiyeh area, and Beasath area were chosen from non-marginalized areas. The data collection tool was a social capital questionnaire. The social capital measured in this research was divided into four dimensions: social participation, social trust, social cohesion, and social relations, each with 32 items across these four dimensions. The four dimensions of social capital were theoretically and operationally defined. The validity of the questionnaires was established through expert opinions, and the reliability, as measured by Cronbach's alpha, was 0.84 for the social capital questionnaire and for each component: social participation (0.74), social trust (0.91), social cohesion (0.83), and social relations (0.87). Data analysis used the Levene test, which showed a significance level (sig) of 0.114, greater than 0.05, indicating the use of the assumption of equal variances.
Findings
The research findings indicated that the average levels of social capital (99.63), social participation (23.36), social trust (27.24), social cohesion (27.38), and social relations (21.63) were higher among residents of non-marginal areas compared to the average levels in marginalized areas: social capital (74.87), social participation (16.37), social trust (19.27), social cohesion (24.46), and social relations (14.75). Therefore, it can be concluded that the type of residence—whether marginalized or non-marginalized—affects the amount of social capital.
According to the t-statistic results (t = 25.41, sig = 0.000 for the first hypothesis; t = 29.25, sig = 0.000 for the second hypothesis; t = -9.29, sig = 0.000 for the third hypothesis; t = 19.94, sig = 0.000 for the fourth hypothesis), at a 95% confidence level (α = 0.05) and (df) = 384 - 2, which is greater than the critical t-value (t = 1.64), the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected. The research hypothesis is strongly supported by the data, with 95% confidence, indicating a significant difference between the views of women from marginalized and non-marginalized areas of Sari regarding the four components of social capital. Both groups of women recognize a significant difference in the status and level of these components in their respective areas.
Additionally, the overall t-statistic (t = 24.963, sig = 0.000 for the main hypothesis), at a 95% confidence level (α = 0.05) and (df) = 382, is greater than the critical t-value (t = 1.64), leading to the rejection of the null hypothesis (H0) and strong confirmation of the research hypothesis. Therefore, we conclude with 95% certainty that there is a significant difference between the views of women in marginalized and non-marginalized areas of Sari regarding the status and amount of social capital.
Conclusion
The findings suggest that the type of residence—marginal or non-marginal—affects the amount of social capital. According to Putnam's theory, suburbanization or marginalization is a factor in reducing social capital. Coleman also identifies migration and relocation of families as influential in decreasing social capital. Ofe and Fuchs consider living in suburbs or marginalized areas as affecting social capital levels. Putnam's theory indicates that marginalization limits people's opportunities to interact, as they must allocate more time to daily tasks and less to socializing. This situation impacts all indicators of social capital.
Social cohesion is higher in non-marginal areas. According to the theory of social disorganization, factors such as reduced efficiency of social institutions like family and kinship restrictions, which act as informal forces to control social norms, are consequences of industrialization, urbanization, and increasing immigration. Marginal residents, many with less than eight years of peripheral experience, have not had the opportunity to form new relationships. Moreover, immigrants from diverse regions and cultures disrupt existing kinship and family ties.
The results also reveal a significant difference in trust levels between marginalized and non-marginalized areas, with non-marginalized residents showing higher trust. Marginal residents often experience mistrust towards government organizations due to indifference from officials and poor conditions in marginalized areas. Social inequalities and unfair income distribution further contribute to this mistrust. Additionally, rising crime rates and lack of cooperation in addressing these issues reduce public trust.
In conclusion, the social capital of marginalized women in Sari differs significantly from that of non-marginalized women. This difference is influenced by social, cultural, and economic contexts, as well as the cross-sectional perspective of urban decision-makers. Erosion of social capital in marginalized regions affects their resilience in risk management and crisis situations.
* Corresponding Author: Assistant Professor, Department of Social Sciences, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
** Ph.D. Student in Social Issues Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran.
drali.gorjik@gmail.com
احسانی¬فر، محمد و علی گرجی کرسامی (1398) «تأثیر حمایت سازمانی بر عملکرد نوآورانه با نقش میانجی سرمایه اجتماعی کارکنان معاونت آماد و پشتیبانی»، فصلنامه توسعه مدیریت منابع انسانی و پشتیبانی، سال چهاردهم، شماره 52، تابستان، صص 109-136.
احمدی، حبیب (1384) جامعه¬شناسی انحرافات، تهران، سمت.
ازکیا، مصطفی و غلامرضا غفاری (1383) توسعه روستایی با تأکید برجامعه روستایی ایران، تهران، نشرنی.
اکبری، امین (1383) نقش سرمایه اجتماعی در مشارکت، بررسی تأثیر سرمایه اجتماعی بر مشارکت سیاسی- اجتماعی، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی، دانشگاه تهران.
امیرکافی، مهدی (1399) «بررسی وضعیت سرمایۀ اجتماعی در محلات محروم (مطالعۀ موردی: شهر کرمان)»، دوفصلنامۀ جغرافیای اجتماعی شهری، سال هفتم، شماره 1، صص 125-150.
امینی، مرتضی و دیگران (1399) «بررسی تأثیر توانمندسازی مناطق حاشیهنشین در افزایش سرمایه اجتماعی (مطالعه موردی: شهرستان پاکدشت)»، فصلنامه جغرافیا (برنامه¬ریزی منطقهای)، دوره دهم، شماره 40، آذر، صص 595-610.
باقری، ربابه (1389) «بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر وقوع جرم در بین افراد حاشیهنشین شهر تبریز»، اولین همایش ملی مهاجرت، نظم و امنیت پایدار و نقش آن در توسعه ایران اسلامی.
پاتنام، رابرت (1384) جامعه برخوردار، سرمایه اجتماعی و زندگی عمومی، در: پژوهش و سیاستگذاری (سرمایه اجتماعی؛ اعتماد، دموکراسی و توسعه)، به کوشش کیان تاج¬بخش، ترجمه افشین خاکباز و حسن پویان، تهران، شیرازه.
تاج¬بخش، مرتضی (1392) «بررسی میزان سرمایۀ اجتماعی بین حاشیهنشینان شهر ایلام»، مطالعات جامعه¬شناختی شهری، سال سوم، شمارۀ 9، زمستان ، صص 97-124.
توسلی، غلام¬عباس (1381) جامعه¬شناسی شهری، دانشگاه پیام نور.
تولایی، نوین و مریم شریفیان ثانی (1384) «نقش سرمایه اجتماعی در برنامهریزی برای رفاه اجتماعات محلی»، مجموعه مقالههای نخستین سمپوزیوم سرمایه اجتماعی و رفاه اجتماعی، تهران، دانشگاه علوم بهزیستی و توانبخشی.
فعلی، جواد و همکاران (1397) «بررسی تأثیر سرمایه اجتماعی بر امنیت اجتماعی»، پژوهش نظم و امنیت انتظامی، سال یازدهم، شماره سوم (پیاپی 43)، پاییز، صص 29-56.
فوکویاما، فرانسیس (1384) پایان نظم: سرمایه اجتماعی و حفظ آن، ترجمه غلام¬عباس توسلی، تهران، حکایت قلم نوین.
قدوسی، حامد (1384) «رابطه سرمایه اجتماعی و توسعه اقتصادی از منظر نهادگرایی»، مجموعه مقالههای نخستین سمپوزیوم سرمایه اجتماعی و رفاه اجتماعی، تهران، دانشگاه علوم بهزیستی و توان¬بخشی.
گرجی کرسامی، علی (1395) بررسی رابطه بین ابعاد سرمایه اجتماعی و امنیت اجتماعی در بین شهروندان ساری (با تاکید بر محلات حاشیه نشین و غیر حاشیه نشین شهر ساری)، پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد جامعه شناسی ، دانشگاه پیام نور تهران غرب.
محمودی، امیر و زهرا نیکخواه (1391) «بررسی مقایسهای سرمایه اجتماعی در مناطق حاشیننشین و غیرحاشیهنشین شیراز»، چهارمین کنفرانس برنامه¬ریزی و مدیریت شهری، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.
ملاحسنی، حسین (1381) «بررسی رابطه میزان سرمایه اجتماعی و نوع دین¬داری در بین دانشآموزان سال سوم دبیرستان در استان گلستان»، پایان¬نامه کارشناسی ارشد رشته جامعهشناسی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس.
ناطق¬پور، م و فیروزآبادی (1384) «بررسی سرمایه اجتماعی و عوامل مؤثر بر شکلگیری آن در تهران»، مجله جامعه¬شناسی ایران، دوره ششم، شماره 4، صص 51-95.
نقدی، اسدالله و صادق زارع (1391) «فرسایش سرمایه اجتماعی و مدیریت بحران در مناطق حاشیهنشین (مورد مطالعه: زنان حاشیهنشین شهرک سعدی شیراز)»، دومین کنفرانس ملی مدیریت بحران، سازمان مدیریت بحران تهران.
ولکاک، مایکل و دیپا نارایان (1384) «سرمایه اجتماعی و تبعات آن برای نظریه توسعه»، در پژوهش و سیاست¬گذاری (سرمایه اجتماعی؛ اعتماد، دموکراسی و توسعه)، به کوشش کیان تاج¬بخش، ترجمه افشین خاکباز و حسن پویان، تهران، شیرازه.
Ahmad shah. A, Khan. A, Ullah. A, Alotaibi. B (2024) The role of social capital as a key player in disaster risk comprehension and dissemination: lived experience of rural communities in Pakista, Natural HazardsAims and scopeSubmit manuscriptA, Volume 120.
Danesh , Parvaneh,nazook tabar, Hossin nazoktabar ,Gorji karsami, Ali (2016) The survey of the social capital status in Sari citizens, The Social Science, Medwell Journals, 11 (27), 2016 The Social Science.
Jun. H, (2022) The reciprocal relationship between social capital and community development in a Korean Chinese enclave: the case of Daerim 2-dong in Seoul, International Journal of Urban Sciences Volume 27, Issue 3.
Laishram. Ch, Haokip. Kh, (2023) Implications of Social Capital on Life satisfaction in a Stratified Society: Gendering the Bonding, Bridging, and Linking framework using representative samples of India, Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript, Volume 57.
Perez. G, Duffy. R (2023) Social Mobility and Vocational Outcomes: A Psychology of Working Perspective, Journal of Career Assessment, Volume 31, Issue 4.
Putnam. R (2000) Bowling alone: American's De clining social capital. Jornal of democracy, Vol 6.
Uekusa, SH (2020) The paradox of social capital: A case of immigrants, refugees and linguistic minorities in the Canterbury and Tohoku disasters, International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, Volume 48, September 2020, 101625.
