Today I wrote in my dissertation...'Social capital is defined by (Fukuyama 1999) as “an instantiated informal norm that promotes cooperation between two or more individuals”'.
How can this be linked to the theory of self? Self exist whether the self is aware that it does, it ceased to exist when it is 100% biologically dead. However due to existence of cultural norms, tradition, religion, it is easy to just be following the norm that surrounds us, whatever that is. A person can live without a full 100% awareness, the question I would like to ask is, how many % aware are we most of the time? 20% or 50% ? (btw norms are good, it makes us efficient and saves energy)
A silly question maybe, but think again. Do we know what we are doing, do we know why we make that decision, are we aware all the time? Biologically, the human body is perfectly efficient in regulating the daily routine and needs (eating, sleeping etc and even working).
Why is this question important? Yes it is, awareness is a starting point if we want to write a narrative of self. No, if we don't care at all. Awareness alone is not enough, action must follow. Discipline is the result of sustained continous awareness and action. Habit is when there is no longer a need to sustained the change as it has been internalised. End of cycle, this is called learning. Then we are back to square one which is the state where we do not need to be aware.
In a way, searching for the narrative of self is like a scientist doing a lab experiment. There is a hypothesis and will be confirmed only if it is tested and proven yes or otherwise.
Back to the first question, how is self linked to social capital? I don't know, haven't found the answer yet for this.
I had an idea, I will ask the wise man.