公民社會經常被認為是民主政治的社會基礎。公民社會的核心即是托克維爾所謂的「結社的藝術」，亦即是一種由公民所發起的志願結社，解決共同面對的問題。在晚近，新托克維爾主義者Robert Putnam提出了「社會資本」的概念，主張濃密而互信的人際關係是有助於民主體制的運作。在此，本文則指出社會資本的限制。透過一個環境爭議案的深入分析，本文強調，社會資本的凝聚(bonding)與跨越(bridging)作用可能是相互衝突的，因此中產階級保育人士的結社往往排除了地下階級成員的參與。社會資本的概念其實預設了一個更廣大的社群以及社群成員的共享價值，也因此，某一群體的集體行動通常反映了其深植的偏好，有可能與另一個群體產生衝突。從這樣來看，良好的民主體制需要活躍的結社生活，但是反之並不亦然，結社藝術的後果並不一定總是有利於民主。 Civil society is often viewed as the cornerstone of democracy. At its core, civil society is what Tocqueville has called ”the art of association,” or voluntary associations initiated by citizens to cope with their common problems. Recently neo-Tocquevillean theorist Robert Putnam puts forward the thesis of ”social capital” to underscore the proposition that dense and trustworthy interpersonal networks are conducive to the health of democratic regimes. While most literature agreed on the positive functions of civil society, this paper points out its limit. By taking a close look at an environmental controversy, I demonstrate that the bonding and binding function of social capital are frequently at conflict so that the middle-class conservationism often excludes the participation of lower-class members. In addition, the notion of social capital presupposes a larger community with shared values, and thus a particular group's art of association is often the source of social conflicts with other groups. As a result, a healthy democracy needs robust associational life, but the result of association is not necessarily good for democracy.
