“Race and Social Capital”
Page 1 of 20
Abstract
Social capital theory, particularly the work of Robert Putnam, has received a great deal of
scholarly and popular attention. We argue that Putnam’s formulation ignores the ways in
which race is fundamental and constitutive to the structure and function of social capital in
the United States. We suggest an alternative framework, one that focuses on the effects of
social relations. Such a framework: (1) treats race as more than an independent variable; (2)
addresses the structural factors underlying social capital development; and (3) includes the
role of gatekeepers in the process. This approach would allow us to have a more accurate,
and nuanced, understanding of how social capital operates in the United States.
Introduction
Few social scientists ever generate the attention, or controversy, that Robert Putnam
has since he first made his social capital argument in 1993 (Putnam 1993). In Making
Democracy Work, Putnam argued that political differences between northern and southern
Italy could be explained by differences in political culture, particularly social capital, between
the two areas. In recent work, Putnam applies this social capital model to the United States,
arguing that declines in social capital went a long way towards explaining increasing voter
apathy and decreasing civic engagement among Americans. This article raised a stream of
controversy and political debate, much of which Putnam responded to with his book, Bowling
Alone (Putnam 2000). While Putnam addresses his critics in this work, the central argument
remains the same: since the mid-1960s, political trust, social connectedness and civic activity
has declined precipitously in the United States, and that the root explanation is generational
differences between Americans born after World War II and those born before.
There have been many criticisms of Putnam’s argument, the bulk of which we will
not get into here (Portes 1998; Skocpol and Fiorina 1999; Baron, Field and Schuller 2001;
McLean, Schultz and Steger 2002; Skocpol 2003). Some of these scholars have expanded
Putnam’s model, or argued for the inclusion of other variables in social capital frameworks.
Yet, even these critics still, to a large extent, use Putnam’s model as their point of departure.
Convention