associational membership allows for people to be brought nearer together; once they have met,
such as in the group, they can meet again. However, I also confirm that some groups negatively
affect participants’ social network diversity, exacerbating homophily.
Widening the circle, but at what costs? The Homogeneity of Voluntary Associations
Over the past few decades, the study of civic participation has been reinvigorated under
the category of social capital and has spurred much debate and research (Coleman, 1988; 1990,
Edwards, Foley, and Diani, 2001; Putnam 1993; 1995a; 1995b; 2000; Skocpol and Fiorina, 1999;
Wallis, Crocker, and Schechter, 1998). It has been well established that Americans are joiners.
In the Tocquevillean tradition there are normative implications of the role of participation in
voluntary organizations. Within civic associations members learn about the importance of
cooperation and consensus necessary to solve collective problems. That is, voluntary
organizations serve as the free schools where participants learn how to achieve collective ends.
The learning that occurs within civic associations has spillover effects that translate into better
quality communities with citizen participants who feel more efficacious in the end. Their
importance is such that voluntary civic associations are thought to be the key ingredient for
fostering democratic values and attitudes (Maloney et al., 2000:212). But as these groups are
teaching democratic values, we also note that when we socialize with friends or attend civic
association meetings, “we congregate with people like ourselves” (Uslaner 2000:5, Uslaner’s
emphasis).
Voluntary associations are also central in the social capital literature. While the
definitional ambiguity of social capital is problematic (Portes 1998, Durlauf 1999), “social
capital has come to mean the ability to create and sustain voluntary association” (Portes 1996:1).
3
Convention