Wellman’s article examines how communities today compare to the communities of the past. While many people see today’s communities as more disintegrated, unstable, and colder than communities of the “bygone, supposedly golden days” (p.1) of the past, Wellman argues that it is the standards by which the term ‘community’ is defined and measured that causes such disparity.
One may define an individual’s community in terms of a network of contacts rather than in terms of the strength of relationships with one’s neighbors. By doing so, one could reasonably argue that people experience stronger communities today. Wellman writes, “By looking for community in localities and not in networks, analysts had focused on local phenomena and stability rather than on long distances and mobility” (p.11). Indeed, today’s people have communication (i.e. phone and Internet) and transportation (i.e. cars and airplanes) options available to them that allow them to maintain more geographically widespread relationships. Before these innovations, people (who, as Wellman admits, were “frequently on the road” (p.12)) could not as readily contact and maintain relationships with dispersed groups of people. I ask: Does neighborly proximity or frequency of contact matter more when defining “community”?
Wellman introduces the social network approach to suggest that community can be defined by networks rather then by neighborhoods. Thus, community has transformed within, rather than disappeared from, society. This ‘new community’ may be more appropriate in today’s “global village” (p.36). I ask: How has globalization changed the requirements for appropriate, effective, strong communities?
Freeman analyzes cartoons as a commentary on the influence of social networks in popular culture. However, I feel that this selection of cartoons presents friendship networks in a negative light. For example, quotes such as “struggle to interject order” (p.1), “my circle of friends has completely changed” (p.2), and the reference to indirect nodes as enemies all regard social networks as complicated and erratic. Networks are seen as the tools to spreading work and personal gossip and the source of extremely boring rambling about friends and friends’ friends. Perhaps not all the cartoons are negative; perhaps such negativity is a point on which humor hinges. Nevertheless, the fact that popular media often presents networking in such a light, hoping to strike a chord with the readers of the comics, demonstrates the attitudes of today’s artists and readers. I ask: Do you think there is a connection between current attitudes towards social networks and these cartoons’ negativity?
Monge provides a resource for understanding the technical terms and measures for describing and classifying social networks. Note that even paths in a social network have direction, meaning that the relationship between two nodes can be pointed from one node to another rather than equally linking the two nodes together. I believe such a phenomenon is more common today as a result of television coverage of celebrities. You know Tom Cruise and his network of Katie and Suri more than they know you.
I ask: Do you think television has created more people with a large “indegree-to-outdegree” ratio?
Comments (3)
Your graphic was very eye-catching. As for your last question and example of celebrities and common folk, I definitely think that such a harsh disparity of social capital can throw off indegree-outdegree balance. I wonder what Wellman would say about the ways in which relationships between a "common" person and a celebrity can be imagined and grossly distorted by crazed fans.
I took notice of your observation about the negative humor towards social networking and I do think that some of these cartoonists are sort of tongue-in-cheekily lampooning the "scientific" concepts and terms employed by social network analysis. I think some of the cartoonists featured in Freeman's piece probably would agree with our classmate who described some of the social network analysis terms from this week's readings in their blog as common sense for anyone who went to a seventh grade dance before.
Posted by Liz Day | September 13, 2006 12:19 AM
Posted on September 13, 2006 00:19
Though communities today no longer are defined as within certain proximity, we can not rule out local altogether. Yes new technologies are allowing people to have much broader social networks for careers and even friendships, but as humans we still have a need for physical interaction. While proximity may not matter more depending on the type of network, there are some networks and some people that rely on proximity.
Your point on the “global village” is right on, and I don’t think globalization has changed many of the requirements. The strength of social networks still relies on their frequency of interaction and what occurs during the interaction. Regardless of whether it is dinner with a neighbor or a phone call home the measurements of the two relationships could take place on similar scales.
It is true that some of the comic strips portray social networks as complicated and futile but I do not believe that this is the current attitude towards social networks. If anything it just shows how complex it is to measure and define social networks when people have different friends or acquaintances for discussing every different aspect of their lives. Humor often takes the negative and dramatizes it for effect in hopes of sparking a reaction. I think the point that artists are focusing on social networks just points out that it is a relevant issue in today’s society that is becoming more prevalent.
Monge did do a great job explaining the technical terms and as your image illustrates, I would have to say, yes it is almost guaranteed that TV has caused more people to have a distorted indegree-to-outdegree ratio.
Posted by R14 | September 13, 2006 5:24 PM
Posted on September 13, 2006 17:24
I thought your graphic art and last question were really thought-provoking. I know that in today's culture we think of networks and communities from more of an individual perspective, but I think when we step back and see it from a larger, bird's-eye view, the public at large is a huge part of any celebrity's network. In a sense, we, as the public, spend our money on movies, vote on awards given to actors and actresses, and therefore become a part of any given celebrity's network. It may not be the same thing as saying, "I had dinner with Jennifer Aniston," but a lot of connections, like the ones we discussed in class were more of "I have seen this person in a class," and not, "I know so-and-so's favorite food." So although we probably see and study celebrities' lives a lot more than they see us, they do meet people and sign autographs on a daily basis. Your point was valid, though, in that we "stalk" them a lot more than they keep track of us. But in a more broad sense, I think we, as a public, do play a large role in their lives. It may just be that we communicate with them in different ways.
On another note (brought to mind while viewing your social network), "nondirectional" links are "those that do not have a direction, representing instead a shared partnership" according to the text (p.35). But in my opinion this is a very subjective definition of the word. Again, as we saw in class, some would consider an acquaintance to be a nondirectional tie, while others may not recognize the tie at all. It's a complicated term due to the fact that it can only be individually defined and is difficult to measure. For instance, do you think that if you were to draw out your entire network as you did above, all those who you linked as a nondirectional tie would connect you in the same way on their network? Could any perceived directional links ever be reversed if taken from the other person's point of view? Can you think of a type of relationship where this might likely the case?
Posted by g23 | September 14, 2006 12:04 AM
Posted on September 14, 2006 00:04