Socially just social capital : do we assume too much?

The confusion which accompanies the definition, meaning and measurement of social capital does not appear to have affected the enthusiasm with which it has been taken up by scholars, policy makers and social commentators. Part of this confusion concerns the purpose of social capital, which is being described in terms consistent with social justice outcomes. Clarification and articulation of the differences in the 'mutual benefit' offered in social capital and the 'social good' defined by social justice is needed. These two may not be mutually exclusive, but they are certainly not synonymous. For social capital to be able to produce socially just outcomes it must, first and foremost be a resource available to all in society, including those at the bottom of the power hierarchy. It cannot vest unequally across groups, as by definition this would mean that some people will be excluded from the benefits accruing to 'all in society'. A socially just social capital needs to enable structural change that redistributes resources across society and does not act to reinforce the status quo or existing power relations. Finally a socially just social capital must involve a role for the state that encourages political engagement of all sections of the society and which is committed to redistributive policies. What is described by such a set of conditions is simply not consistent with current conceptualisations of social capital. Social capital in itself is clearly not about the 'good of all in society'. We assume too much when we assume that social capital is necessarily socially just.