“Race and Social Capital”
Page 15 of 20
those of non-Latino attorneys, and even surpass mainstream societal levels” (3). Compared
to other Latinos, the authors discover “levels of civic engagement and trust [that] are far
above those of Latinos generally” (3). In addition to levels of social capital, Chávez and
Fraga also note that “these Latino professionals engage in civic activities both in their ethnic
communities and in their broader communities” (3). This is clearly an advantageous
situation for building bridging social capital. However, the authors conclude that “(d)espite
all of their resources, these professionals are still vulnerable to decisions made by important
gatekeepers” (4).
Much more work needs to be done that employs the concept of gatekeepers. While
the term conjures images of an individual, we would suggest, as Chávez and Fraga do, that it
represents a structural factor that promotes activity for some and inhibits activity for others.
At what points of access are gatekeepers present? How does one’s race, gender, or class
affect when gatekeeping is instituted? What types of social capital implicate the role of
gatekeepers? These are all questions that need to be answered, and incorporated into our
overall understanding of social capital.
Conclusion
We believe that social capital has the potential to be a very useful and important
concept for deepening our understanding of civic engagement in the United States. But, as
it is currently formulated, Putnam’s social capital model underemphasizes what the post-
World War II generation represents within the context of American history. Since World
War II, our nation has moved, for the first time in its history, towards a norm of full social,
economic and political inclusion of people of color and women. We argue that this
constituted a significant break in American political culture, one that we, as a society, have
Convention