Bott looked at the direct correlation between the degree of segregation in conjugal roles and the degree of connectedness in social networks. She not only claims that when conjugal roles are separated, the social networks of husband and wife are also separated but she also shows that these separate networks have a high degree of connectedness since such networks are likely to be formed in the vicinity of where the couple lives. The opposite also hold true. When conjugal roles are shared, couples have shared social networks but people in these networks don’t necessarily know each other, which signifies a lower degree of connectedness.
Although Bott does a great job analyzing each individual family in great detail in her study, unfortunately, these findings cannot be generalized to the entire population since the sample is not random. Therefore, the four categories she uses to classify families are not entirely valid, especially considering that that N family was the only example of its kind.
I wonder if the Bott study would yield the same results if it were repeated today, considering the increasing industrialization & urbanization since 1950s, along with increased equality between male and female roles and increased education level of the population in general. The more recent McPherson et al. study shows an increase in core discussion networks with spouses, which might suggest that couples are more likely to share conjugal roles as they rely on each other for support. This would also imply that they would have shared networks based on the Bott study. The Kalmijn study seems to support this claim, as it looks at people’s friendship networks at different stages in the course of their relationships, and analyses the changes in size and overlaps with partner’s networks, through competition and balance principles. It seems like friendship networks become more overlapping between partners as their relationship progresses. I wonder how this shrinkage and overlapping affects each partner’s individual network. Do they each acquire a more efficient network or do they give up a significant portion of their network as they acquire the strong tie of a spouse?
While both Bott and Kalmijn concentrate on marital issues, Fischer looks at how urbanism allows individuals to be selective about their networks, as opposed to small-town networks where relationships are formed as a result of inevitability and lack of choice. He looks at various different types of relationships, ranging from kin to nonkin, from co-workers to neighbors, or from organization members to ‘just friends.’
This study is also very interesting as it supports the earlier Wellman study we have read. Fischer claims, “there is no reason to suppose that the freely chosen extraneighborhood ties are any less supportive than the neighborhood ties urbanites continue to have” (p. 98). As he stresses the issue here is not a difference in the quality of life but rather a difference in the style of life, which would also explain how the structure of communities have changed over time, supporting a different style of life in today’s world.
Finally, Wellman & Wortley shows that social support is a relational phenomenon and that people are aware of how the quality of their relationships affects the amount and type of support they get through these outlets. It was interesting to see this non-US based study that supported the results of the earlier McPherson et al. study we have read in terms the correlation between tie strength and social support. However, since these studies are only generalizable to First World milieus, I wonder how networks in less secure milieus would differ in terms of the kinds social support they seek from different network members. Would ‘weak ties’ play a more important role in these cases as people seek support for economic and political problems?
Comments (4)
Your last question about how social support structures in Third World countries could differ was very insightful. I almost think that strong ties would be just as if not more important for political and economic support in developing nations. Our industrialized society allows bureaucratization of money or politics to allow everyone access to easier support. For example, American society has banks which do not require a strong tie for you to be loaned money. In a Third-World society, one would probably be limited from borrowing only from their Church or family, aka strong ties. Also, in America, I can vote without having any strong ties to participate in the political process or have a say (nominally) in the government. In developing nations, political power is more concentrated amongst a network of strong ties say tribal leaders or the military, in which only people with strong ties to the powered group have access to political support. Again, I think we are seeing a process that was outlined by Wellman in our first week's reading that the evolution of society and human progress is leading towards a more democratic network community with a higher number of selected and heterogenous weak ties.
Posted by Liz Day | October 4, 2006 8:21 PM
Posted on October 4, 2006 20:21
I was particularly interested in your question of if weak ties would play a more important role (than strong ties) in cases where people are seeking support for economic and political problems. Because of the context of your question, I am presuming that you are referring to Third World countries here. I think that the answer to this question can be found on page 88 in chapter 7 of Fischer’s book, “To Dwell Among Friends.”
He says, “One wonders about how strong unexercised kin ties will be in times of social trauma. If economic collapse, war, mass migration, or some other catastrophe struck northern California, could these people, particularly the city-dwellers, rely on their otherwise inactive kinship relations for survival?” (p.88). Fischer goes on to say how he is reassured by people maintaining ties with nuclear kin that they felt they could contact in case of emergency; this comment demonstrates the weight Fischer puts on strong kin ties. Fischer also looks into history, pointing out that past generations were able to “activate latent kinship ties in crises” (p.88), another demonstration of the necessity of kinship ties.
Helping behavior often boils down to two characteristics: (1) survival/resources, a biological view, and (b) desire, a more social view. I believe that people do not have that type of biological drive to help non-kin in emergencies, if it could endanger themselves. This situation would hold true in both First World and Third World milieus. To the question of resource availability, I believe that whereas people First World countries may have access to more governmental and private support systems, people in Third World countries are more limited in such aid institutions. Thus, it is not likely that they would have the opportunity to aid weak ties in times of need.
Finally comes the question of desire. I ask: Is there such a desire to help people you barely know, where you do not have the resources to help yourself? I don’t think so.
Posted by Mindy (r10) | October 4, 2006 9:25 PM
Posted on October 4, 2006 21:25
You have brought up some really important questions that I think we need to look at more in this course. One of main issues I see you getting at is how the larger society effects social network changes and how/if they depend on it. This is such a difficult question, considering the fact that we'll never know completely how society effects our life. However, I think your point about the difference between first and third world is a major factor. I hadn't thought about this before but it sure seems like a third world tribe in the middle of a forest somewhere would have very little need for weak ties. In fact anywhere where there isn't such competition for jobs (as in first world countries) I feel it's more important for people to work together to survive, and hence strong ties would be crucial (much as they are in a small-town setting). A social network study in a poorer country can really give us some insight on whether some of these solutions we've read thus far really do apply to everyone.
Furthermore, I think that a Bott-type study today and in this country would be very useful to our social networking questions. I bet that with increasing gender equality conjugal decisions are much more shared than they used to be. Yet, at the same time as spouses seem to be closer their is an astounding divorce rate. These are interesting issues to consider, based on the fact that if more and more friendships depend on marriage and 50% of people in this country get divorced then people who get divorced are left with incredibly small and weak social networks. And with dispersed networks a breakup could make someone feel as if they don't belong to a community at all. Maybe this is the case considering how much we hear about isolationism these days. This is something that in any case seems like it'd be very important to study further as well.
Posted by Jason (r32) | October 5, 2006 12:07 AM
Posted on October 5, 2006 00:07
I am intrigued by the first question that y10 asks. I wonder how this shrinkage and overlapping affects each partner’s individual network. Do they each acquire a more efficient network or do they give up a significant portion of their network as they acquire the strong tie of a spouse? Theoretically, the overlapping of networks ties in with Granovetter's "Forbidden Triad" concept. Two individuals (person A and person B) within a marriage have very strong ties to one another. Person A has his network of strong tie friendships and Person B has her network of strong tie friendships. Due to the amount of time that A shares with his network and B shares with her network and the number of similar characteristics that each person has to his or her respective groups, it would be natural for A and the individuals within his network to create strong ties with people in B's network and vice versa. This overlapping is due to the fact that there are common shared interests and characteristics between A's network and B's network. With the "bridge" that A and B made, these two formally separate networks can now combine and create full triangle ties because of the number of common qualities and likes.
Also, since there is an addition to the network, time must be spread across more individuals. This characteristic of "strength of ties" may determine which ties lose their connectivity as more time is alloted to the spouse and his/her networks. This as a result would explain why the shrinkage of networks and connects occurs.
Posted by g3 | October 5, 2006 12:32 PM
Posted on October 5, 2006 12:32