Watts describes the science of networks—what they are and how they work—along with stories about networked and connected phenomena. These phenomena are embedded in a variety of systems that range from finance, health, epidemics, culture, and organizations. Accordingly, Watts defines a network as, “a collection of objects connected to each other in some fashion” (p. 27). The concept of “six degrees” originated in Stanley Milgram’s research in the “small world problem” (p. 37). Milgram investigated how many steps it would take to get a letter from one part of the globe to another. The simple answer was about six. This observation led to a meta-theory that everyone in the world is separated, or connected, by only six other people.
Consequently, Watts introduces a compelling question stating: “How does individual behavior aggregate to collective behavior?” (p. 24). I think exploration of this question provides powerful insights into the nature and importance of connections. We are living in a connected world with economies, organizations and online social networks that span traditional understandings of time, space, and place. I believe that Watt’s uses these illustrations to demonstrate how we often continue to think and act in fundamentally mechanical and linear ways in contrast to systems that operate in nonlinear and connected patterns. Watts proposes that we need a new lens to see and understand this complex web and that It is important to understand structures within the network that link us. Accordingly, Watts articulates the story of the “tragedy of the commons,” to illustrate his main thesis. Essentially, ‘The tragedy of the commons’ is a microcosm of our connected world. If we do not see the connected consequences of our individual actions we threaten an increasingly connected global civilization.
Nevertheless, I think that Watts was really trying to convey to the reader that, rather than relying solely on history to clarify events, we can work to develop a present understanding of events by seeing connections, influences, and relationships by understanding the structures within the network that link us together. For Granovetter, the argument asserts that our acquaintances (weak ties) are less likely to be socially involved with one another than are our close friends (strong ties). Thus the set of people made up of any individual and his or her acquaintances comprises a low-density network (one in which many of the possible relational lines are absent) whereas the set consisting of the same individual and his or her close friends will be densely knit. For instance, Granovetter shows that it is plausible that strong ties exist in cliques where as weak ties bridge cliques. Thus weak ties are often the drivers for macro sociological phenomena.
Nevertheless, if you are in a clique where everyone knows what everyone else knows, the most valuable asset to getting a head is information that everyone else doesn’t know, which will logically come from outside the group. The only way to get information from outside the group is through weak ties that act like bridges to other small groups. If a certain group is really lacking in weak ties to other groups, then they are at a systematic disadvantage. For Granovetter, weak ties can create local bridges between networks of strong ties. So a group of four closely-knit friends all offer each a great amount of trust and support. One individual has an acquaintance in another network of strong ties that also have their trust in one another. Although, the one persons’ tie with another network may not be as tight as with his or her own group, being acquainted allows a level of communication and some trust.
Thus, both theories from Granovetter and Watts are relevant to virtual communities because open networks have greater access to information and power than smaller, denser, and more interconnected networks because they supply more diversity of knowledge and information. In addition, the number of social links an individual can actively maintain has increased dramatically, bringing down the degrees of separation. It is interesting to note, however, that the structure of social networks online can provide access to new ideas, new individuals, and sustainability and social networks are practically the definition of weak ties and provide a window to the world. Hence, social networks online provide opportunities through compounded and elaborate sharing of identities and media.
--
References:
Watts, Duncan. (2003). Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age, New York: W.W. Norton. P. 24-37.
About the Author:
Christopher Tillman Neal is a detail-oriented IT professional with 7+ years of experience. He is driven by the sociology of computer-mediated communication—skilled at operating in a wide range of platforms. Graduating from the University of California, Berkeley, Christopher has a diverse career portfolio, which consists of social media analytics, information technology, sales, marketing, and project management. Christopher received rigorous virtual community and social media training from Berkeley, and Stanford Professor Howard Rheingold who is one of the world’s foremost authorities on the social implications of technology.
If you have any questions, please email chris-neal@alumni.ls.berkeley.edu.
Learn more at Berkeley profile https://cal.berkeley.edu/christopher Peeragogy.org http://goo.gl/O03Rp Howard Rheingold credits http://rheingold.com/credits/ Net Smart acknowledgments http://goo.gl/aigdD Peeragogy Handbook mention http://goo.gl/9lPYy Google + http://goo.gl/AMBbA or follow me on Twitter (@CNealUCB) and LinkedIn http://goo.gl/lyPFA. Go to link http://goo.gl/Aj9Fg to view online curriculum vitae.
