Earlier today, I forgot to print out a reminder for a party that I’m having tomorrow. See, I’d emailed the reminder to all the students at Annenberg & to my other (mostly Penn-related) friends—but I wanted to tape it to my neighbors’ doors so that they’d know I was having a party, maybe stop by, and, most importantly, not call the cops. In my 4th year in the same apartment, I know none of my neighbors. I don’t have their email addresses, I don’t know their names or faces, and I’m certainly not going to knock on their doors.
The idea of neighboring—borrowing a cup of sugar or a stick of margarine—is bizarre to me. In the Hampton articles (and beyond), it’s written about with a halcyon tone: in the distant past, before the dawn of modernity, people near each other talked to one another. As Hampton&Wellman point out, these concerns echo those offered by Tonnies 120 years ago; one difference that occurs to me is the populations affected by the structural changes seen to be at the root of these respect social breakdowns. In Tonnies gemeinschaft/geselleschaft, industrialization drives an urbanization of peasants. Thus, the bonds are broken first among the poor. In modern times, the change is wrought by ICTs—fairly expensive, non-necessary purchases. Though a divide may develop between the ICT haves and have-nots, the decline in social connection that we’re discussing today emanates from the opposite end of the economic spectrum.
In reading the “Narrowing the Digital Divide” article, I started wondering what neighboring was like among communities that are not permeated with ICTs. Netville and the locales discussed in the follow-up Hampton article are clearly not lower socio-economic situations; the Ball-Rokeach article does include different ethnicity and income groups but only in a very narrowly focused analysis. According to the logistic regression results, being poor does have a negative effect on making friends online—presumably because of digital divide obstacles. Strangely, very, very little is said in this article about internet use or even internet access. In the course of a 45 minute telephone interview, I assume these questions were asked—but they are not included in the analysis. At any rate, there seem to be many fruitful questions to ask about neighboring: how does accessing ICTs at community technology centers affect neighboring? What does neighboring look like within poorer communities today? Are there meaningful insights to be drawn from a comparison of neighboring within poor and wealthy communities instead of across types of wealthy communities?
Another question is whether neighboring is necessary anymore. Since interest-based social interactions are clearly better served by matches made by interest not immediate location, the best rationale for neighboring that I see probably revolve around either Putnam’s pleas for social-capital or a Jane Jacobs eyes-in-the-city perspective (both of which are invoked in the Hampton&Wellman piece). A true believer in the internet and markets might suggest that these notions are antiquated. Why cultivate social capital—useful for solving small problems like hiring a baby-sitter or fixing a drain—when craigslist and online rating systems can easily and effectively fill the same needs? A similar, wisdom-of-the-crowds, approach might be taken to the Jacobs view as well. The street isn’t safe because you know the store-keeper that’s watching it, it’s safe merely because he’s there, watching it. Jacobs herself writes about the role strangers play in this interaction; isn’t the necessity of a personal relationship even lower today? To take this approach demands a surfeit of faith in the functioning of markets and institutions. I’d like to think that, were my building to burn down, a neighbor would be concerned if I didn’t emerge downstairs—but will they even notice if I don’t invite them to my party?
1. What does neighboring look like within poorer communities today?
2. Are there meaningful insights to be drawn from a comparison of neighboring within poor and wealthy communities instead of across types of wealthy communities?
3. Is social capital necessary? If it's not necessary, how useful or important is it? Can somebody make an effective case for me--'cause I'm skeptical and don't like just being told that it is because it is...
4. Is it cool to live in the basement in Canada? My parents' house in BC has a basement suite too; I just feel like I need a window or something...
Comments (1)
If you want a good picture of 'neighboring' in 'poor' communities, I would suggest Philippe Bourgois's three and a half year ethnographic account of Spanish Harlem. Conducted in the late 80’s he illuminates how the social actors within the impoverished and drug-soaked community struggle to find identity and make connections. I think political scientists would find some interesting interpretations of what “social capital” means to these people.
In response to question 3, I’ll try to construct a world in which social capital was important (if it isn’t already?) It seems to me that the idea of social capital has always been around but only until recently have researchers focused on what is means. I believe the underlying concepts (trust, network ties, etc) are some of the most important aspects of human interaction and I feel we should continue to develop ways of analyzing these measures, as long as we don’t jump to conclusions about what these measures mean or how they were formulated. Constructions aside, let’s look at the benefits of social capital.
One of the obvious implications for positive aspects is found in the name itself, capital. Social capital, like human and cultural capital, when applied correctly will translate into increased financial wealth. Whether it’s an increased number of weak-ties within your network that allow for diverse employment perspectives and opportunities or if it’s in the form of a flourishing community of trusting individuals, social capital has been shown to correlate with economic prosperity. (even at the national level?)
There are also non-monetary benefits as well. If you live in a community of high levels of trust and strong sentiments of belonging, you’re more likely to be in cleaner areas with friendlier folks and safer streets. You can see how these would affect stress and happiness levels on the individual level, not to mention how the results translate into your less inhibited ability to pursue goals (education, wealth, etc).
It comes down to how you want to define “happiness.” If your happiness is based on emotional support and feelings of safety then social capital offers you a network of trusting individuals. If your happiness is based on successful pursuits than social capital offers you a network of prospering individuals. Either way you win?
I engaged your question with the purpose of trying to increase discussion on the topic, rather than push some sort of answer.
Posted by g4 | October 13, 2006 4:36 PM
Posted on October 13, 2006 16:36