1) There are several contributing factors to the shrinking and collapse inward of our core discussion networks. Smith-Lovin alludes to the increase of time spent outside of the home as a major contributor to the decline of our core discussion networks. Being that more women have entered the workforce and expectations have heightened in terms of work time commitment, anywhere from 10-29 hours per week have been redispersed among commuting, work, and other familial commitments (taking kids to ballet, food shopping etc.) This marked change is especially prominent in the better educated, higher income families who are those normally fueling community involvement and voluntarism. Technologies like cells phones and instant messengers are hypothesized by McPherson and Smith-Lovin to make up for this gap in time which in the past was spent with friends and family but is currently spent either alone or actively engaged in work commitments. It is also possible that this time that has been redistributed per week contributes to less multiplexity of relationships outside of kin, due to the fact that there is a decreased ability to cultivate these strong non-kin ties. Granovetter attaches several qualities to the definition of a strong tie which include emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocity. With limited resources (like time) there is no way to achieve this level of confiding with someone outside of the familial circle. The Hill article from this week also alludes to cognitive constraints on network size, which could explain the hierarchical nature of personal social networks. This also implicates that stronger ties drain more resources and are more likely to upset cognitive balance. Perhaps losing a close tie has resulted in more pleasurable relationships. This change could reflect a more favorable shift towards healthier cognitive balance and less normative pressure from these small dense groups.
Another possibility is that as a culture we have evolved towards valuing more weak ties at the expense of cultivating strong ties. Though the advantages of having strong ties are clear through increased social support, emergency aid, and counseling support; it is known that from this weeks readings of McPherson that our core discussion networks tend to be quite homophilus. There is decreased diversity of information flow which can lead to isolation. Perhaps Americans now devote time to cultivating their bridging ties which lead to more diverse information and resources as well as great contacts for future opportunities. With a paid labor force that is more dispersed geographically, and constraints on time, Americans have moved towards a network hierarchy where only the most socially beneficial kinship ties are honed and weak ties are more specialized to the benefits they provide.
2) These changes in network structure may result in ideal levels of both counseling support and access to diverse information and new opportunities. I hypothesize that the stress of maintaining cognitive balance in more extensive homophilus groups is not favorable to us, and for this reason there is a marked decrease in the size of our core discussion groups. Perhaps kin are ideal for forming our strongest ties due to the fact that they are more inclined to accept one’s choices and points of view unconditionally due to multiplexity and life-long connection. For this reason smaller kinship core discussion networks work optimally especially given the decreases in free time over the last 20 years. Perhaps the non-kin tie that was lost created too much cognitive imbalance and strain and was more difficult to maintain over time, therefore it has been lost. Though there may be less absolute social support and counseling support available in terms of number of core discussion group members, the strong ties that remain in our core discussion groups are the most favorable and efficient sources for this type of social support. Though these homophilus networks are shrinking in size, this marks evolution in social relations towards more specialized weak ties which provide very diverse information and opportunities. These weak ties are being developed at the expense of a greater number of strong ties which tend to drain more resources (time, cognitive drain) (Granovetter). I think people will be more likely to meet others and expand their social circles more widely in order to optimize the diversity of the information they receive. I think on a societal level there will be an increased level of interest in those different from oneself. This manifests itself in heightened interest in other cultures, other ways of thinking and other information stores. This decrease in strong ties will free up cognitive resources to establish so many more diverse ties.