In particular, political scientists have characterized social capital as the crowning glory of a liberal society; it is also supposed to be the engine that makes a society democratic as well as liberal. Putnam suggests that America's social capital is declining—as evidenced by a decrease in voter participation, declining membership in groups, declining levels of trust, and neighbors not knowing neighbors. The concern is that declining social capital poses a major threat to the continued maintenance of democracy. Thus, more social capital is good for democracy; less of it may spell trouble.

But is this the whole picture? Is the relationship between social capital and democracy as straightforward as some of the literature indicates? The articles in this symposium show that both the causes and the effects of social capital, especially in the American context, are far more complicated and morally ambiguous than a simple celebration would suggest. Does social capital sometimes move our nation farther away from the democratic ideal rather than closer to it? Provocative question. Difficult question. Critically important question.

The two articles in this symposium were written independently of each other, but both papers—one by economists (Dora Costa and Matthew Kahn), the other by a political scientist (Rodney Hero)—consider questions of heterogeneity or diversity in social-capital research. While neither one denies that social capital is important for democracy and civil society, both show that if you cut into the concept of social capital from a different angle—that of racial and ethnic heterogeneity—suddenly it is no longer the case that all good things come in a bundle. High levels of social capital possibly cause, or possibly affect, or at least are associated with, certain types of inequality. The articles push us to look much more critically at the effect of race and the racial dynamic on the relationship of social capital to democracy and democratic ideals.

Costa and Kahn examine how community heterogeneity negatively influences the production of social capital. Their research, along with that of other economists, leads to the conclusion that civic engagement is lower in more heterogeneous communities. They and other economists whose research they review treat race as a community attribute, just like income, education, and poverty levels, and conclude that racial diversity, as a collective attribute, does not bode well for a community's level of civic engagement. The consistency of the negative finding of more heterogeneity with less social capital leads them to ask, “If homogeneity increases civic participation, why are so many in our society pushing for diversity in the workplace and in communities?” But I sense that they are troubled by the implication of their findings— segregation is good for the production of social capital— because they pose another question at the end of the article that seems to plead for additional research: “Can diversity ever increase civic engagement in community organizations that cut across ethnic, racial, or income divisions?”

Hero examines differential racial outcomes of social capital on key dimensions of equality. He views race not simply as a community attribute, but as a context within which racial minorities (and majorities) live and interact with American society. He argues that most analyses of social capital do not confront the conditions or contingencies associated with race—understood either as an attribute of individuals or as a context within which all individuals live—and do not recognize that what might be positively related to social capital for whites may in fact be negatively related for blacks.

He suggests that the extent to which social capital is associated with better, more-equal patterns of civic life, one must ask, “Better for whom?” If I may be so bold as to presume, Hero's response to Costa and Kahn's troubled question (why push for diversity when research shows that it is associated with the lower production of social capital?) might be that in a liberal democratic society, there are values significantly more important, such as racial equality and equality of access. If there is a tradeoff, maybe it is worth the price.

Despite their different orientations and conclusions, both papers agree on one thing—more interaction with scholars of social capital from other disciplines or nontraditional perspectives will provide for a richer and more intellectually stimulating take on the effects of social capital. Costa and Kahn begin their article by saying that economists do bowl with political scientists and sociologists on the question of social capital, but they do so in different lanes. Hero perhaps implies that diversity among scholars can provide new analyses of old, presumably settled, questions. As the conclusions of this symposium suggest, in order to develop our research on social capital more fully, perhaps we need to create mixed-discipline teams with varied perspectives, and bowl in the same league.