In the below guest post, Tanja Paneva summarizes an article that she has authored and that has been included in a recent UNDP publication.

Volunteer work and solidarity
-“We” works in networks-

Introduction

Today I helped an elderly person in carrying the bags from the market, you dedicated your time and effort in making bird feeders for the public park, and our neighbor took care for the greenery in front of our building. Each of us strengthened the thread of our networked community. Although some of us were maybe not aware of the formal labeling of our actions, we still made it since it is the way we do it in our community. Countless examples of this type we do and perform daily while unconsciously creating social ties and enhancing the sense of togetherness. More of these actions build stronger communities meaning more vocal communities that urge for accountable and responsive public institutions. Therefore, it is important to recognize activities and initiatives that do not formally fall within the realm of structured volunteerism, civic engagement, or activism, yet contribute to a large extent to establishing social networks based on trust, empathy and solidarity.

Definition of volunteer work

Before understanding the types of volunteer engagement, it is good to start with defining volunteering. Namely, volunteering is any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group or cause (Wilson, 2000, p. 215) motivated by multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Motives can be altruistic, mirrored in the selfless dedication to the well-being of others; instrumental, as in the case of young people that strive to learn new skills and gain work-related experience (Smith et al., 2010, p. 69); or simply expressed in the need to connect with the community and establish relationships with a certain degree of familiarity (Degli Antoni, 2009, p. 361). In aim to be effective and nurture the sense of belonging, the outcomes of volunteer work should produce the value of mutual trust and support based on the willingness to contribute to the common good even in cases when one’s personal material gain is absent. This, on the other hand, does not preclude volunteers from benefiting from their work (Wilson, 2000, p. 215). On the contrary, benefits of volunteer work are two-fold, referring both to the individual and the community. Individual benefits are found in enhanced academic performance, personal skills improvement and developed sense of civic responsibility  (Astin & Sax, 1998, as cited in Smith et al., 2010, p. 69); as well as in positive effects on mental health relying upon the integrative role of volunteering that increases self-esteem, self-confidence and overall life satisfaction (Wilson, 2000, p.215). In other words, well-developed individuals create strong communities and vice versa, strong and resilient communities have the ability to support individuals.

Types of volunteer work

When it comes to the types of volunteer work, individuals can take part in structured, formal volunteer activities provided by either public or private organizations, or non-formal volunteer activities performed directly without intermediaries. Both volunteering types can advocate for community projects of manifold areas (e.g., environmental protection, gender equality, inclusive sports and education, animal welfare, disaster relief, charity work, etc.) that foster social inclusion and encourage networks formation. The first type, formal volunteer work, refers to activities implemented by associations and organizations driven by a common goal or interest (see more in Wilson, 2000; Smith et al., 2010). In that context, formal volunteers usually have a membership or express an affiliation to a certain organization or association. Non-formal volunteer activities, on the other hand, establish direct, people to people, people to environment or people to community relationships that strengthen community networks. These activities often occur when conditions require prompt citizens’ action for questions of significant importance in their immediate surroundings. Although there is no organization in the role of mediator between the volunteer and the activity, still, non-formal volunteering does not exclude group formation driven by a common public goal as an end purpose. At the same time, these activities have a very strong impact on building networked communities as its constituents, feeling seen and heard, become directly involved into the decision-making process. Additionally, the effect of a commonly achieved goal strengthens the sense of trust and belonging, and the mutual interaction improves the community - public institutions communication (see more in Putnam, 1995; Luoma-aho, 2009).

Social capital conceptualization

People’ connections to others create opportunities for economic and political participation, enable access to resources that might otherwise be out of reach, strengthen social ties and personal well-being (Bourdieu, 1984; Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1995 as cited in Helsper and van Deursen, 2017, p. 701). Those connections, social networks based on the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness, represent the formation base of social capital (Putnam, 1993). In its earliest conceptualizations, dating back to the work of Marx, Durkheim and Weber, social capital has been understood in different meanings, as capital from a social point of view; resource of the community; social commonwealth and peoples’ social condition (Coppe et al., 2022, p. 4). More recent studies differentiate between individual social capital made from the point of view of the actors engaged in certain social relations in pursuit of their interests (Bourdieu, 1984; Coleman, 1988) and collective social capital acknowledged through the stance of larger societal impacts (Putnam 1993; 1995). This individual-collective dichotomy corresponds to the two overarching conceptualizations of social capital that differentiate between individual social capital (network-based social capital), understood as a potential benefit for individuals embedded in social interactions; and collective social capital (also called civic capital) understood as a collective good shaped by the sum of individual behaviors and rooted in the shared culture of a collectivity (Coppe et al., 2022, p. 2). Encouraging the ability and raising the importance of individuals to build networks (individual social capital) that are not only quantitative in their nature, but produce mutually shared values as trust and support (collective social capital) brings both views at the intersection of social participation. Moreover, in the work of Putnam (1993) the concept of social capital expresses the sociological essence of communal vitality that has three components: moral obligations and norms, social values with emphasis on trust, and social networks with emphasis on voluntary associations.

Volunteer work and social capital formation: Networked communities

Dense networks of interaction, according to Putnam (1995), probably broaden participants’ sense of self, developing the “I” into the “we” or, in other words, enhancing the participant’s taste for collective benefits. However, this transformation of the “I” into the “we” does not necessarily have to mean transferring individual into collective freedoms, or accommodating individual choice for the sake of the collective choices, but it can mean cultivating the need to freely and voluntarily choose to dedicate part of our free time to a communal cause. Moreover, the solution to the problem of common action and opportunism presupposes the development of voluntary collective action, and it is connected to the inherited social capital in the community (Putnam, 1993 as cited in Siisiäinen, 2000, para. 2). Therefore, more research nowadays is being conducted on the capacity of volunteerism to produce social capital understood in the meaning of cooperative network of relations. Findings suggest that formations of social capital in relation to volunteering depend on the intrinsic and extrinsic volunteer motives, and the extent till which ones’ motivation (functional benefits) has been fulfilled (Stukas, 2005, p. 16; Degli Antoni, 2009, p. 368). In that regard, intrinsic motivations, in terms of ideal motivations, enable people to create relations characterized by a significant degree of familiarity measured by the activities which characterize the relations started through associations; by contrast, extrinsic motivations, and in particular the decision to join an association in order to increase the number of acquaintances or friends, promote the creation of networks from a quantitative point of view, with the absence of relations created on a particular degree of confidence (Degli Antoni, 2009, p. 368). In practical terms, strong social networks, in terms of quality and higher levels of social capital established on trust, enable the creation of mechanisms that can result in better governance, efficient public services provision and overall sustainable social development.

Conclusion

Volunteer work is driven by the selfless motivation to achieve a common goal, to support a cause or to participate in activities of mutual communal benefit. When based on altruistic motives, volunteering advances social connections, encourages networks formation, supports accumulation of social capital and facilitates the process of building trust within the community. The motivation for this article is to serve as a reminder for all of the forms of non-formal volunteer engagement and situations in which one does not need to wait on intermediaries to take action or to move things of common interest forward. Knowing that every time we initiate a process, individually or collectively, from building shelter houses for animals without a home; organizing a fundraiser with homemade products; to simply visiting elderly neighbors to support them in keeping up with the latest technology developments, we contribute to a more resourceful, resilient and sustainable communities as an end result. And it is not something we do because of expecting anything in return or just because we are in more powerful position, but because of the mutual benefits that are multiplying through more interactions in the created trustworthy and dense networked connections. Establishing a community with a strong civic base would make our communities stronger in our position to communicate with local or central government bodies, adding to sustainable and healthy personal and communal development. Of course, in the long-term volunteer work should not be considered solely as an activity that repairs systems imperfections, but should be recognized as citizens’ contribution to organization of public life. This may eventually lead to wider networks of public-private-people partnerships that support sustainable development.

Through repeated patterns of joint action we can start changing the mindset from “what is not mine is not of my concern” to development of communal awareness and protection of questions of our common interest. Can we?

Link to full article:

National Compendium on Solidarity: From Overcoming Crisis to Sustainable Development. Publication commissioned by the UNDP country office in North Macedonia. May, 2023.

https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2023-05/Solidarity%20-%20From%20Overcoming%20Crisis%20to%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf (pp. 105-115)

References:

1. Coppe, Thibault & Thomas, Laura & Froehlich, Dominik & Pantic, Natasa & Sarazin, Marc & Raemdonck, Isabel. (2022). ‘The Use of Social Capital in Teacher Research: A Necessary Clarification’, Frontiers in Psychology. 13. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.866571.
    
2. Degli Antoni, Giacomo. (2009). ‘Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivations to Volunteer and Social Capital Formation’, Kyklos, 62. 359-370. 10.1111/j.1467-6435.2009.00440.x.

3. Helsper, Ellen and Deursen, Alexander J.A.M. (2017). ‘Do the rich get digitally richer?’, Quantity and quality of support for digital engagement. Information, Communication & Society. 20. 700-714. 10.1080/1369118X.2016.1203454.

4. Luoma-aho, Vilma. (2009). ‘On Putnam: Bowling together - applying Putnam's theories of community and social capital to public relations’, Public relations and social theory: Key figures and concepts. 231-251.
    
5. Putnam, Robert, D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
    
6. Putnam, Robert,. D. (1995). ‘Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital’, Journal of Democracy, 6 (1), 65-78.
    
7. Siisiäinen, Martti. (2003). ‘Two concepts of social capital: Bourdieu vs. Putnam’, International Journal of Contemporary Sociology. 40. 183-204.
    
8. Smith, Karen Holmes, Kirsten & Haski-Leventhal, Debbie & Cnaan, Ram & Handy, Femida & Brudney, Jeffrey. (2010). ‘Motivations and Benefits of Student Volunteering: Comparing Regular, Occasional, and Non-Volunteers in Five Countries’, Can J Nonprofit Soc Econ Res. 1. 10.22230/cjnser.2010v1n1a2.
    
9. Stukas, Arthur & Daly, Maree & Cowling, Martin. (2005). ‘Volunteerism and the creation of social capital: A functional approach’, Australian Journal on Volunteering. 10. 35-44.
    
10. Wilson, John. (2000). ‘Volunteering’, Annual Review of Sociology. 26. 215-240. 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.215.