1. In their article, “Social Isolation in America: Change in Core Discussion Networks Over Two Decades,” McPherson et al. are hesitant to make any substantial claims concerning the causes of the shrinking discussion networks in the U.S., but they do provide a few suggestions. The most notable trend in the article is the fact that the average number of discussion partners, or confidants, has decreased by almost one person (358). The authors suggest that the demographic characteristics of the country have changed in the past two decades, asserting, “As the population gets older and more racially diverse, we would expect networks to get smaller, since older people and racial minorities have smaller networks, on average” (367). In our earlier readings, Kalmijn also found, “the older people are, the lower the number of friends they report” (241). Lynn Smith-Lovin attributes this trend in aging to the WWII generation of baby boomers, who are reaching the stage in their life cycle when network size begins to decline, causing the mean size for the entire population to drop.
Putnam, on the other hand, suggests “networks are collapsing inward,” due to a decline in civic engagement and membership in voluntary organizations. This suggestion is supported by the McPherson et al. article, which reports a decrease in the number of close core discussion ties from neighborhoods and voluntary organizations. Thus, as the population joins less clubs and organizations and participates less in the community, the opportunity to form non-kin close ties diminishes.
McPherson et al. also note shifts in work, geographic and recreational patterns, which could substantially impact network composition and structure. As we have examined in our readings thus far, there is the trend towards fragmented social networks with highly specialized ties and uni-plex relationships, which could contribute to the decrease in the number of ties with whom you discuss a wide range of important matters. While some authors, including Wellman, suggest that this is largely due to an increase in geographical dispersion. Putnam argues that the rate of geographic moves has not increased in the last two decades; Putnam explains that we are moving less than our parents did, so what else is at work? Privatization? Both Wellman and Putnam suggest that people are privatizing social relationships, meaning that they are moving social interaction out of the public sphere and into the home.
The study also reports a notable increase in the number of people who report discussing important matters with their spouse. While this could be due to a wide range of factors, it is most likely related to the increase in dual income households, which might increase the discussion of important financial matters between spouses. Kalmijn also supports the decrease in the size of social networks of married people, stating, “Among married persons, there is a negative association between duration of the marriage and the size of the friendship network” (233).
2. The article focuses on confidants, which are characterized as a type of close tie. In a study of tie strength and social support, Wellman and Wortely report that this type of tie provides a broad range of social support, including emotional aid, small services and companionship. When a confidant is a parent, which was often the case in the McPherson et al. study, support is broadened to include financial aid and large services, with a decrease in the level of companionship (558). These types of ties are often homophilous, and Granovetter argues that they are not good sources of information and some resources (i.e. getting a job). While ties between similar people tend to be more empathetic and conducive to social support (Wellman and Wortley, 578), homophilous ties often link us to similar others and redundant ties, who have access to the same information that we do. Thus access to new information and a diversity of resources is threatened by densely knit, homophilous networks.
The significant decrease in non-kin confidants may also contribute to an increase in social isolation. McPherson et al. explain, “These [non-kin] ties are the most likely to bridge socially distinct parts of the community structure, since we know that marriage and family are more homophilous on class, religion, race and several other social attributes than ties formed in other ways” (359). Thus solely depending on a spouse or parent cuts a person off from other networks, affecting the types of new ties formed outside of your existing network. This is important in the process of socialization and normative pressures, which are primarily transferred through closely-knit interpersonal networks. Fischer supports this assertion, stating, “Most people affect their society only through personal influences on those around them. These personal ties are our greatest motives for action” (3).
In the radio interview, both Putnam and Smith-Lovin suggest other impacts of these trends, such as an increase in the rate of crime because people feel less safe and have less ties in the community. Putnam also notes a threat to the foundation of democratic institutions, which he argues are based on participation in civic engagement and community structure. There are also several references to effects on mental health and well being, although our readings have not explicitly examined such effects.