Being among those who shamefully failed to complete this important reading prior to today’s class, I humbly submit the following…
First of all, I’m stunned that Granovetter’s piece first appeared over thirty years ago, at a time when only the most forward-thinking computer scientists could have envisioned what the Internet could become. Although he doesn’t frame his argument at all around technology-based communities (how could he have then?), the applicability of his ideas to today’s online social networks and virtual communities is, indeed, striking.
Second, I struggled with some of the more abstract concepts in his article, not least of which was his point about “local bridges.” He states on the one hand “only weak ties may be local bridges” (p.1365). But he also writes that weak ties “are certainly not automatically bridges” (p.1364). I think I get what he’s trying to convey, insofar as only those weak ties that represent the shortest path between two points constitute a local bridge; but this portion of his treatise left me scratching my head a bit.
Later in the article this did become clearer in the example of two Boston communities whose success in organizing against an urban renewal plan was markedly different. In one community (the West End), where organizing efforts failed to take root, weak ties existed but almost all originated from a singular context: people meeting friends of friends. This did NOT lead to his so-called local bridges and instead left the community fragmented. As Granovetter points out about the community that was successful in organizing against the urban renewal (Charlestown), it benefited from a richer social organization presence and greater number of locally employed citizens. He concludes that “there must be several distinct ways or contexts in which people may form [weak ties]” (p.1375) in order for them to become effective bridges.
Finally, I take exception with some of Granovetter’s broader generalizations, especially the bit about trust and leaders, wherein he posits, “Leaders, for their part, have little motivation to be responsive or even trustworthy toward those to whom they have no direct or indirect connection” (p.1374). What?! A true leader, in my eyes, is someone who inspires trust not just in those with whom he or she has direct contact, but in a broad audience of people, known and unknown. I also don’t agree that people’s trust in a leader is based largely on the existence of “intermediary personal contacts” who can basically vouch for the leader’s legitimacy and trustworthiness. I’ll be my own judge of character, thank you very much.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I will echo my thoughts here as a comment to Doug's post so not to fragment the Granovetter discussion.
I too was surprised Granovetter was aware of such social networking theory so early before the mass adoption of the Internet and the rise of social networks as we have come to know them today.
Also, as Doug pointed out, I found it difficult to understand Granovetter's discussion of local bridges between network groups. But I was able to understand how weak ties (and not strong ties) are ideal candidates for network connections between disparate groups. Granovetter's A-B-C model clearly explained how a strong A-B tie and a strong B-C tie would very well insinuate at least a weak, if not a strong, tie between A-C. But strong ties do not tend to span network clusters, and, instead, encourage fragmentation into cohesive local organizations.
Granovetter continued to cite several experiments between Boston suburbs, strengthening ties between school children in accordance with age, and others. However, I found Granovetter's entire argument based upon the need to diffuse information. Weak ties are ideal for diffusing ideas and increasing awareness amongst the largest possible number of people. However, there was not much discussion regarding the evolution of weak ties into stronger ties. Or perhaps such an evolution is not important.
Post a Comment