著者

細見 佳子

出版者

日本法哲学会

雑誌

法哲学年報 (ISSN:03872890)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.2003, pp.193-202,227, 2004-10-20 (Released:2008-11-17)

参考文献数

29

---

Robert Putnam, who introduced the concept of social capital into political thinking, insists that this is crucial for “Making Democracy Work”. According to Putnam, “social capital refers to connections among individuals social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.” The Neo-Tocquevillean Putnam proposes that it is through contact with neighbors and active participation in community groups or voluntary associations that people learn to communicate, to become interested in the public affairs and then to participate in politics. If an adequate stock of social capital is created through interpersonal connections, he argues, it is unnecessary to rely on laws, courts and enforcement by the state the rule of law. Certainly, if all people were virtuously tolerant and never abused or harmed by others, demands for the rule of law would be less cogent. History tells us, however, that in spite of Putnam's ideal, human beings, especially majorities, are highly fallible. The rule of law is a last resort which encourages us to aim at universality, objectivity, stability and neutrality. Furthermore, we need to recall accurately the views of Alexis de Tocqueville himself, who was swayed by misgivings that democracy might decline into standardization. He expressed anxiety that people would regard every new theory as dangerous, every innovation as onerous, and consequently cease to pursue ideals. It should be permissible for a person to be alone and to remain apart from the community in order to pursue higher aims. Nevertheless, there is some truth in Putnam's thesis that social capital, incorporated in such things as trust, norms, and networks, makes democracy and our institutions work. Although “Making Social Capital Work” seems inadequate and risky on its own, we should make the best possible use of it.