Social capital or group style? Rescuing Tocqueville’s insights on civic engagement
Social capital or group style? Rescuing Tocqueville’s insights on civic engagement
复制标题
社会资本还是团体风格？拯救托克维尔关于公民参与的见解
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Paul R. Lichterman
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Paul R. Lichterman
社会资本已成为研究公民关系的首要概念，但它无助于我们评估它们的含义、制度性质或社会能力的潜力。亚历克西斯·德·托克维尔对公民关系的这三个特征的见解继续具有极大的影响力，流行的社会资本概念声称具有强烈的托克维利亚传统，但系统地忽略了托克维利的想象力所阐释的东西。美国中西部城市志愿者团体的场景展示了团体风格的概念是如何理解公民纽带的不同含义、惯例和社会能力的。团体风格也阐明了公民团体在团体之外建立“桥梁”纽带的过程。在不完全拒绝社会资本概念的情况下，我强调了社会资本会忽视或误解的研究问题和发现。结束性的讨论引出了对民主理论的影响，并为未来公民团体风格的研究勾勒出了一个议程，在超越托克维尔自身局限的同时，充分利用了托克维尔的见解。
Social capital has become the preeminent concept for studying civic relationships, yet it will not help us assess their meanings, institution-like qualities, or potential for social capacity. Alexis de Tocqueville’s insights on these three features of civic relationships continue to be highly influential, and the popular social capital concept claims a strongly Tocquevillian heritage while systematically missing what a Tocquevillian imagination illuminates. Scenes from volunteer group settings in a midwestern US city show how a concept of group style apprehends the varying meanings, routines, and social capacities of civic ties. Group style also illuminates the process by which civic groups create “bridging” ties beyond the group. Without rejecting the social capital concept entirely, I highlight research questions and findings that social capital would ignore or misapprehend. A concluding discussion draws out implications for democratic theory, and sketches an agenda for future research on civic group style that makes good on Tocquevillian insights while moving beyond Tocqueville’s own limits.