Approaches to the downside of social capital

The idea that social capital has a 'dark side' is well established in the heterodox literature. However, interpretations of social capital based on the work of Robert Putnam and James Coleman have only started to engage with the potential negative outcomes and processes that can be involved in networks and associated norms. Recent attention to social capital's downsides justifies a review of the concept that reasserts the validity of a heterodox approach. The main benefit of this approach, most frequently associated with Pierre Bourdieu, is the construction of social capital as a value-neutral, individual level resource. I argue that Bourdieu's contribution to the understanding of social capital has been marginalized, and this framework is better placed than Robert Putnam's theories to examine questions of social and political exclusion, and the reproduction of disadvantage. Although not without limitations, as a starting point for the exploration of social capital's 'downsides', Bourdieu's framework provides the opportunity to explore processes Putnam's theories cannot engage with. Bourdieu allows an understanding of how social capital is unevenly distributed, and can only be understood contextually; embodied practices, geographical, historical, economic, social and cultural factors are critical to any understanding of social capital, particularly its 'downside'.