Both civil society and social capital have proven useful heuristics for drawing attention to neglected nonmarket aspects of social reality and constitute a needed corrective to narrowly economistic models. However, both break down, although in different ways, when treated as the basis for elaborating testable hypotheses and further theory. Civil society is most useful in polemical or normative contexts, but attempts to distinguish it from other sectors of society typically break down in unresolvable boundary disputes over just what constitutes civil society and what differentiates it from “state” and “market.” Work by Robert Putnam and others has assimilated social capital to the civic culture model, using it as just another label for the norms and values of the empirical democratic theory of the 1950s. This strategy undermines the empirical value of James Coleman and Pierre Bourdieu's useful social relational concept.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Almond, G. , & Verba, S. (1987). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1963)
2.
Becker, G. S. (1993). Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 101(3), 385-409.
3.
Booth, J. A. , & Richard, P. B. (1998). Civil society and political context in Central America. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 33-46.
4.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital (R. Nice, Trans.). In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York: Greenwood.
5.
Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
6.
Brehm, J. , & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 999-1023.
7.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, s95-s1120.
8.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
9.
Crowley, J. E. (1997, August 28-31). Separate but unequal: Class segregation in American civil society. Paper prepared for delivery at the 1997 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
10.
Dalton, R. , & Kuechler, M. (Eds.). (1990). Challenging the political order: New social movements in western democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
Diani, M. (1997). Social movements and social capital: A network perspective on movement outcomes. Mobilization, 2(2), 129-148.
12.
Eastis, C. M. (1998). Organizational diversity and the production of social capital: One of these groups is not like the other. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 66-77.
13.
Edwards, B. (1995). Organizational style in middle-class and poor people's social movement organizations: An empirical assessment of new social movements theory. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI.
14.
Edwards, B., & Foley, M. W. (Eds.). (1997). Social capital, civil society, and contemporary democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5).
15.
Fals Borda, O. (1992). Social movements and political power in Latin America. In A. Escobar & S. E. Alvarez (Eds.), The making of social movements in Latin America (pp. 303-316). Boulder, CO: Westview.
16.
Foley, M. W. , & Edwards, B. (1996). The paradox of civil society. Journal of Democracy, 7(3), 38-52.
17.
Garreton, M. A. (1989). Popular mobilization and the military regime in Chile: The complexities of the invisible transition. In S. Eckstein (Ed.), Power and popular protest: Latin American social movements (pp. 259-277). Berkeley: University of California Press.
18.
Greeley, A. (1997). Coleman revisited: Religious structures as a source of social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 587-594.
19.
Heying, C. (1997). Civic elites and corporate delocalization: An alternative explanation for declining civic engagement. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 657-668.
20.
Hodgkinson, V. , & Weitzman, M. (1989). Dimensions of the independent sector: A statistical profile (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: The Independent Sector.
21.
Jackman, R. W. , & Miller, R. A. (1996a). Renaissance of political culture?American Journal of Political Science, 40, 632-659.
22.
Jackman, R. W. , & Miller, R. A. (1996b). The poverty of political culture. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 697-716.
23.
Lipsett, S. M. (1996). American exceptionalism. New York: Norton.
24.
Melucci, A. (1989). Nomads of the present. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
25.
Minkoff, D. (1997). Producing social capital: National social movements and civil society. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 606-619.
26.
Muller, E. , & Seligson, M. (1994). Civic culture and democracy: The question of causal relationship. American Political Science Review, 88(3), 635-652.
27.
Newton, K. (1997). Social capital, civil society, and contemporary democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 575-586.
28.
Oliver, E. (1997, August 28-31). Civic involvement in suburbia: The effects of metropolitan economic segregation on participation in local civic affairs. Paper prepared for delivery at the 1997 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.
29.
Pelczynski, Z. A. (1988). Solidarity and “the rebirth of civil society.” In J. Keane (Ed.), Civil society and the state (pp. 361-380). London: Verso.
30.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
Putnam, R. D. (1995a). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
32.
Putnam, R. D. (1995b). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS, 28(4), 664-683.
33.
Salamon, L. M. , & Anheier, H. K. (1992a). In search of the nonprofit sector. I: The question of definitions. Voluntas, 3(2), 125-161.
34.
Seligman, A. B. (1992). The idea of civil society. New York: Free Press.
35.
Smith, J. (1998). Global civil society? Transnational social movement organizations and social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 93-107.
36.
Stolle, D. , & Rochon, T. R. (1998). Are all associations alike? Member diversity, associational type, and the creation of social capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 47-65.
37.
Uphoff, N. (1993). Grassroots organizations and NGOs in rural development: Opportunities with diminishing states and expanding markets. World Development, 21(4), 607-622.
38.
Van Til, J. (1988). Mapping the third sector: Voluntarism in a changing social economy. New York: The Foundation Center.
39.
Verba, S. , Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
40.
Warren, M. R. (1998). Community building and political power: A community organizing approach to democratic renewal. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 78-92.
41.
Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences (E. A. Shils & H. A. Finch, Trans,). New York: Free Press.
42.
Whittington, K. E. (1998). Revisiting Tocqueville's America: Society, politics, and association in the 19th century. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 21-32.
43.
Wood, R. L. (1997). Social capital and political culture: God meets politics in the inner city. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(5), 595-605.
44.
Wuthnow, R. (Ed.). (1991). Between state and markets: The voluntary sector in comparative perspective. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
