Chapter 1
Race, Social Relations, and
the Study of Social Capital
Lisa García Bedolla
ew social scientists ever generate the attention or controversy that
Robert Putnam has since he first made his social capital argument
in 1993.1 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 regions. In recent work, Putnam applies this social capital model
to the United States; he argues that declines in social capital go a long
way toward 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.2 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 for this
decline lies in the 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.3 Yet, even these critics still, to a large
extent, use Putnam’s model as their point of departure. For that reason,
it is useful to consider Putnam’s work on its own terms. In so doing, we
make two assumptions. First, that Putnam is correct: that social capital
as a whole is declining in the United States. Second, that the social capital model is useful: that increasing community-level social capital may
F
J. Jennings (ed.), Race, Neighborhoods, and the Misuse of Social Capital
© James Jennings 2007
8 RACE, NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THE MISUSE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL
serve as a way to increase people’s civic engagement and counteract the
negative effects of low socioeconomic status. The latter could be especially useful when considering the civic engagement of members of marginal groups.
So the question becomes: if we accept these two factors, is there any
way to improve Putnam’s model? We argue that there is. Our basic argument is that Putnam’s individual-level focus ignores the role social relations play in the structure and function of social capital in the United
States. How Putnam addresses the role of race, in particular, highlights
the larger theoretical problem underlying his analysis.
What do we mean by social relations? Emirbayer defines the study of
social relations as analysis that focuses on trans-action versus interaction. He argues that in a relational analysis, “the very terms or units
involved . . . derive their meaning, significance, and identity from
(changing) functional roles they play within that transaction.”4 As a
result, he says, “things” can only exist in relation to one another and can
never be treated as “given” in isolation.”5 Thus, “individual persons . . .
are inseparable from the transactional contexts within which they are
embedded.”6 Emirbayer goes on to argue that one of the problems with
standard statistical models in social science is that they assume that
independent variables remain fixed and unchanging as they “bounce”
off one another.7 In these models it is assumed that the independent
variables “act upon” the dependent variables but that none of the factors
are actually changed or affected by that interaction. More importantly,
the larger sociohistorical context within which the entire interaction is
embedded is often not present or accounted for in such models. While
these limitations are a problem for all social science research, they are
especially problematic within the context of studies of social capital, and
their effects are most visible when considering the issue of race.
Race, Social Relations, and Social Capital
Putnam defines social capital as “features of social life—networks, norms,
and trust—that enable participants to act together more effectively to
pursue shared objectives.”8 He emphasizes the connected aspect of social
capital, that it refers to “social connections and the attendant norms and
trust” and therefore is about our “relations with one another” and people’s
“connections with the life of their communities.”9 His argument presumes
that “the more we connect with other people, the more we trust them,
and vice versa.”10 So, for Putnam, what matters are those activities that
lead people to develop deeper and more meaningful relations with one