Not always the relational capita is also a "social" capital. Often, this type of capital tough composed of bonds and interactions, appears nonetheless as a capital which is profoundly unsocial.
This happens in two cases: either when the laces do not bind to each other, or when they bind well between them but do not bind to the wider society in which they are also inserted. It presents itself then, as a capital that binds but not as one that unites, which connects but not that which integrates. It is the capital of linkages and of small groups, which however do not amalgamate into larger forms of cohesion. The illustrative image may be that of many small aggregations that do not however make a single large network. It is the capital of narrow ties rather than relations which are broader and inclusive.
Or it is the case of strong ties and closure forms of pseudo-community. In this case that we speak of capital which bonds rather than which bridges, to use an expression which is dear to the dominant literature on the subject . For these reasons, it ends up making more for the convenience "of" the society, than “for" the society and therefore social cohesion and amalgamation are clumped into many small social circles and just for very exclusively selected affinities.
The hypothesis that in these pages we intend to support is that the unsocial capital is the product of "certain forms" of relational particularism, which produce a patronage degeneration of power. At question therefore is not relational particularism "in itself", but rather relational particularism "under certain conditions" or "with certain characteristics" which are able to mark a continuum between unsocial capital and forms of patronage (but also nepotistic or familistic) of power. The story of the power of Rome can help us to grasp some of these unexpected relational consequences
