We here bring together two different traditions of thinking about social capital. One, the Tocquevillian, looks to associations and group memberships as the core of social capital. The other, the Colemanian, looks to interpersonal networks as the core of social capital. We argue that the most common way of articulating how humans use these types of relationships in different ways—the distinction between “bridging” and “bonding” social capital—is epistemically unstable. What might be possible, however, is to use the insights developed by Ronald Burt regarding tie non-redundancy to study associational social capital. We do this by drawing on the insights of the approach consistently adopted and developed by John Mohr, which emphasizes duality and diversity, to develop measures of group affiliation-based social capital. We accordingly, for both Tocquevillian and Colemanian social capital, distinguish measures that focus on the mass of social capital from those that focus on its diversity. To illustrate, we use de-identified data from 77 Million U.S. Facebook Groups users to measure their degree of all resulting types of social capital. We show that our understanding of who has the most social capital varies greatly by whether we are considering Tocquevillian or Colemanian capital, and whether we are focusing on mass or diversity.

我们在这里汇集了两种不同的社会资本思考传统。一是托克维尔主义者，将协会和团体成员资格视为社会资本的核心。另一个，科尔曼主义者，将人际网络视为社会资本的核心。我们认为，表达人类如何以不同方式使用这些类型关系的最常见方式——“桥接”和“结合”社会资本之间的区别——在认识上是不稳定的。然而，有可能的是使用 Ronald Burt 发展的关于领带非冗余的见解来研究协会社会资本。我们通过借鉴 John Mohr 一贯采用和开发的方法的见解来做到这一点，该方法强调二元性和多样性，制定基于群体从属关系的社会资本的措施。因此，对于 Tocquevillian 和 Colemanian 社会资本，我们区分了关注社会资本大众的衡量标准和关注其多样性的衡量标准。为了说明这一点，我们使用来自 7700 万美国 Facebook 群组用户的去识别化数据来衡量他们的所有社会资本类型的程度。我们表明，我们对谁拥有最多社会资本的理解因我们是考虑托克维尔资本还是科尔曼资本，以及我们关注的是大众还是多样性而有很大差异。