Barry Wellman www chass utoronto cawellman Seeing Networks

Barry Wellman www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Seeing Networks Barry Wellman, Net. Lab Department of Sociology University of Toronto wellman@chass. utoronto. ca

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman The Turn to Networked Individualism Functioning in Encompassing , Densely-Knit, Bounded Groups n Fragmented, Sparsely-Knit , Permeable & Specialized Networks n My. Face (sic) is only the most media-hyped aspect n

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman The Triple Revolution The Internet Revolution n The Mobile (Connectivity) Revolution n The (Social) Network Revolution n

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman The Internet Revolution Builds on and Reinforces the Network Revolution n Instant Access to Diverse, Copious Information n If You Know Much to Look Rapid, Low-Cost Communication Distance, Time Much Less of a Constraint n Email as Frequent with Ties 3 K km & 3 km n Yet most ties are local – people have bodies! n Supports Larger Networks n Increasing Volume and Velocity of Info & Comm n

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Social Affordances of New Forms of Computer-Mediated Connectivity n n n Bandwidth Ubiquity – Anywhere, Anytime Convergence – Any Media Accesses All Portability – Especially Wireless Globalized Connectivity Personalization

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Mobile Revolution The Newest n Information & Communication Available n Wherever You Are n Wherever You Go n Always On, Always Connected n n Multiple Venues of Connectivity – Social Venues n Physical Venues – home, work, Starbucks n

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman The Network Revolution The Subject of Our Talk n Actually Came First n We Think of Groups; We Function in Networks n No longer densely-knit n Fragmented – people switch & maneuver among nets n Specialized role relationships n • Social capital from boutiques & not general stores n Premium on individual agency, rather than letting the group do it n Find your own information – no more 2 -step flow

Traditional Ways of Looking at Social Interactions n Individuals as Aggregates of Attributes All Possess One or More Properties as an Aggregate of Individuals n Examples: Sex, Education, Bank, Rich Countries n n Groups (Almost) All Densely-Knit Within Tight Boundary n Thought of as a Solidary Unit (Really a Special Network) n Family, Workgroup, Community, Association, Soviet Bloc n

The Network Approach n Network n Set of Connected Units: People, Organizations, Networks n Relations: Direct relations or common affiliations • Talking, cheating, working together, trade, liking, partnership, citation, disease transmission, marriage, travel n Can Belong to Multiple Networks n Examples: Friendship, Organizational, Inter. Organizational, World-System, Internet

Nodes, Relationships & Ties n Nodes: A Unit That Possibly is Connected n Individuals, Households, Workgroups, Organizations, States Relationships (A Specific Type of Connection) A “Role Relationship” n n Ties (One or More Relationships) n n Friendship (with possibly many relationships) Affiliations (Person – Organization) n n Gives Emotional Support Sends Money To Attacks Works for IBM; INSNA Member; Football Team One-Mode, Two-Mode Networks

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Social Network Analysis The Analysis of Networks! Simple enough, eh? n But network analysis implies a new perspective for understanding social behavior n Not a method, a cognitive perspective that has developed methods for applying that perspective to empirical research n

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman The Social Network Perspective n Relations, not attributes n n No independence! Dyadic relations operate in the context of broader social structures

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Networks Before Network-ing Original ideas in the early 1900 s – Georg Simmel n First research in the 1930 s – J. L. Moreno n Modern Era of theory/research – mid 1960 s: Harrison White, etc. n International Network for Social Network Analysis founded at U of Toronto, 1976 n Email in late 1980 s n Networking software (Facebook) in this decade n

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Networks, Not Groups “Groups” are a short-hand for special kinds of networks: cohesive, densely-knit & tightly-bounded n Group = binary membership status n n n Network – varied levels of embeddededness, variable knit, often loosely bounded Networks can comprehend multiple memberships & commitments, as well as conflicting interests

A Network is More Than The Sum of Its Ties n A Network Consists of One or More Nodes n n Connected by One or More Ties n n Could be One or More Relationships That Form Distinct, Analyzable Patterns n n Could be Persons, Organizations, Groups, Nations Can Study Patterns of Relationships OR Ties Emergent Properties (Simmel vs. Homans)

Relations, Not Attributes Behavior of actors is best explained by: Position of actors in patterns of relations Not the attributes of actors (sex, SES, ethnicity) Although attributes may be correlated with positions: for example, central high-status white men

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Dyads are Influenced by Network Context In a sentence: “To Discover How A, Who is in Touch with B and C, Is Affected by the Relation Between B & C” John Barnes, British sociologist, anthropologist, 1970 s

The Multiple Ways of Network Analysis n Method – The Most Visible Manifestation n n Data Gathering Theory – Pattern Matters Substance n n Add a Few Network Measures to a Study Integrated Approach n n n Community, Organizational, Inter-Organizational, Terrorist, World System, Web As an Add-On: n n Misleading to Confuse Appearance with Reality A Way of Looking at the World: Theory, Data Collection, Data Analysis, Substantive Analysis Links to Structural Analyses in Other Disciplines

The Social Network Approach n n n The world is composed of networks - not densely-knit, tightly-bounded groups Networks provide flexible means of social organization and of thinking about social organization Networks have emergent properties of structure and composition Networks are a major source of social capital mobilizable in themselves and from their contents Networks are self-shaping and reflexive Networks scale up to networks of networks

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman How Do Network Analysts Explain Things? Some don’t. Pure formalists discovering structure n How structure affects outcomes: n Sparsely knit networks provide a greater variety of resources n Structure as providing constraints and opportunities – manuverability of multiple clusters n Structure matters more than individual attributes n Structure helps explain individual motivations n

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Explanation by Structure Alone n Understanding of motivation not necessary to explain outcomes n Harrison White: chains of opportunity (vacancy chains) • Jobs, homes

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Structure as Constraint & Opportunity People pursue their goals within structure n Structure provides opportunities to pursue goals & constraints on action n n e. g. , Ron Burt’s Structural Holes

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Structural vs Other Explanations n Determine how much variation is accounted for by structure and how much by other explanations e. g. , Beverly Wellman: “Pathways to Back Care” n How people find alternative health care providers n

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Structure as Source of Motivations n People “catch” peferences, goals, motivations, etc from their networks: n n Epidemiology – attitudes to birth control; AIDs Two methods: n Cohesion – from those to whey are connected • E. g. , Poison Pills and Golden Parachutes n Equivalence – From those in similar network positions • Citation studies – White, Wellman & Nazer; Matzat

Changing Connectivity: Groups to Networks Densely Knit > Sparsely-Knit n Impermeable (Bounded) > Permeable n Broadly-Based Solidarity > Specialized Multiple Foci n

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Characteristics of a Networked Society n Multiplicity of specialized relations Management by networks n More alienation, more maneuverability n n Loosely-coupled organizations / societies Less centralized n The networked society n

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Little Boxes: Door-to-Door § Old Workgroups/ Communities Based on § Propinquity, Kinship Pre-Industrial Villages, Wandering Bands All Observe and Interact with All n Deal with Only One Group n Knowledge Comes Only From Within the Group – and Stays Within the Group n

Little Boxes Glo. Calization Networked Individualism BW, “From Physical Place to Cyber Place”, Intl J of Urban & Regional Research, 2001

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Place To Place: Glo. Calization (Phones, Networked PCs, Airplanes, Expressways, RR, Transit) Home, Office Important Contexts, n n Ramified & Sparsely Knit: Not Local Solidarities n n n n n Not Intervening Space Not neighborhood-based Not densely-knit with a group feeling Partial Membership in Multiple Workgroups/ Communities Often Based on Shared Interest Connectivity Beyond Neighborhood, Work Site Household to Household / Work Group to Work Group Domestication, Feminization of Community Deal with Multiple Groups Knowledge Comes From Internal & External Sources “Glocalization”: Globally Connected, Locally Invested

Person To Person: Networked Individualism (Cell Phones, Wireless Computing) n n n n Little Awareness of Context Individual, Not Household or Work Group Personalized Networking Tailored Media Interactions Private Desires Replace Public Civility Less Caring for Strangers, Fewer Weak Ties Online Interactions Linked with Offline Dissolution of the Internal: All Knowledge is External

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Role To Role Tailored Communication Media n Little Awareness of Whole Person n Portfolios of Specialized Relationships n n Boutiques, not Variety Stores Cycling among Specialized n Communities / Work Groups Role-Based Media Interactions n Management by Network n

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman The “Fishbowl” Group Office: (Little Boxes) n n n All Work Together in Same Room All Visible to Each Another All have Physical Access to Each Other All can see when a Person is Interruptible All can see when One Person is with Another n n No Real Secrets No Secret Meetings Anyone can Observe Conversations & Decide to Join Little Alert to Others Approaching

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman n n Neighbors have Hi Visual & Aural Awareness Limited Number of Participants Densely-Knit (most directly connected) Tightly Bounded (most interactions within group) Frequent Contact Recurrent Interactions Long-Duration Ties Cooperate for Clear, Collective purposes Sense of Group Solidarity (name, collective identity) Social Control by Supervisor & Group

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman The “Switchboard” Network Office: Networked Individualism n n n Each Works Separately Office Doors Closable for Privacy Glass in Doors Indicate Interruptibility If Doors Locked, Must Knock If Doors Open, Request Admission Difficult to learn if Person is Dealing with Others Unless Door is Open Large Number of Potential Interactors n n Average Person knows > 1, 000 Strangers & Friends of Friends May also be Contacted

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman n Sparsely-Knit n n Loosely-Bounded n n n Most Don’t Know Each Other Or Not Aware of Mutual Contact No Detailed Knowledge of Indirect Ties Many Different People Contacted Many Different Workplaces Can Link with Outside Organizations Each Functions Individually Collective Activities Transient, Shifting Sets Subgroups, Cleavages, Secrets Can Develop

Little Boxes Ramified Networks **** Each in its Place Mobility of People and Goods **** n United Family Serial Marriage, Mixed Custody n Shared Community Multiple, Partial Personal Nets n Neighborhoods Dispersed Networks n Voluntary Organizations Informal Leisure n Face-to-Face Computer-Mediated Communication n Public Spaces Private Spaces n Focused Work Unit Multiple Teams n Hierarchical Org. Networked Organization n Job in a Company Career in a Profession n Autarky Outsourcing n Office, Factory Airplane, Internet, Cellphone n Ascription Achievement n Conglomerates Virtual Organizations/Alliances n Cold War Blocs Fluid, Transitory Alliances

Ways of Looking at Networks n Whole Networks & Personal Networks n n Focus on the System or on the Set of Individuals Graphs & Matrices We dream in graphs n We analyze in matrices n

Network Data n Observation n Archival n Name Generators/Interpreters n Position Generators n Resource Generators

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman What Do Network Data Look Like? n Most quantitative data = one row per unit, with variables representing unit's attributes Network data = data about relations between units We dream in graphs; we analyze in matrices

Whole Social Networks n n n n n Comprehensive Set of Role Relationships in an Entire Social System Analyze Each Role Relationship – Can Combine Composition: % Women; Heterogeneity; % Weak Ties Structure: Pattern of Ties Village, Organization, Kinship, Enclaves, World-System Copernican Airplane View Typical Methods: Cliques, Blocks, Centrality, Flows Examples: (1) What is the Real Structure of an Organization? (2) How Does Information Flow Through a Village?

Whole Networks vs. Ego Networks www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman n Personal Networks = the network surrounding one person (node) Person tied with Alters n Alters’ characteristics n Connections between alters n Normally collected for multiple Egos n n Whole Networks = Network of a particular setting or population. Bird's eye view of network, not focused on one person

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Network Graphs Whole Person

Costs of Whole Network Analysis Requires a Roster of Entire Population n Requires (Imposition of) a Social Boundary n n This May Assume What You Want to Find Hard to Handle Missing Data n Needs Special Analytic Packages n n Becoming Easier to Use

Duality of Persons & Groups n n People Link Groups Link People An Interpersonal Net is an Interorganizational Net Ronald Breiger 1973

The Dualities of Persons and Groups -- Graphs

Network Size Matters n (Robert) Metcalfe’s Law – (Xerox PARC, 1973) n n (David) Reed’s Law (MIT emeritus, 1997) n n For every network member added The number of possible ties grows by N 2 10 people => 102 possible ties = 100 For every network member added The number of possible (sub)groups grows by 2 N 10 people => 210 possible groups = 1, 024 Not only does Reed give a higher number than Metcalf n n The disparity increases greatly as N increases However, many of these subgroups are very similar

Personal Social Networks n n n n Ptolemaic Ego-Centered View Good for Unbounded Networks Often Uses Survey Research Example: (1) Do Densely-Knit Networks Provide More Support? (structure) (2) Do More Central People Get More Support? (network) (2) Do Women Provide More Support? (composition) (3) Do Face-to-Face Ties Provide More Support Than Internet Ties? (relational) (4) Are People More Isolated Now? (ego)

Percentage of valid cases Network Size: The Myopia of “Bowling Alone” 40 30 20 10 25. 0% 20. 0% 15. 0% 10. 0% 5. 0% 0. 0% 5 0 15 25 35 45 55 # of network members Very Somewhat 65

Social Network Analysis: More Flavors n Diffusion of Information (& Viruses) n n Organizational Analyses n n n “Real” Organization” Knowledge Acquisition & Management Inter-Organizational Analysis n n n Flows Through Systems Is There a Ruling Elite Strategies, Deals Networking: How People Network n n n As a Strategy Unconscious Behavior Are There Networking Personality Types?

Branching Out (II) Social Movements n World-Systems Analyses n Cognitive Networks n Citation Networks n Co-Citation n Inter-Citation n n Applied Networks Terrorist Networks n Corruption Networks n n Web Networks

Multilevel Analysis: Studying Emergent Properties n Switching and Combining Levels n n n Consider Wider Range of Theories Disentangles (& Avoids Nagging Confounding) n n n Individual Agency, Dyadic Dancing, Network Facilitation & Emergent Properties Tie Effects Network Effects Contingent (Cross-Level) Effects Interactions Addresses Emergent Properties n n Fundamental Sociological Issue Simmel vs. Homans

Multilevel Analysis – Tie Effects Tie Strength: Stronger is More Supportive n Workmates: Provide More Everyday Support n • (Multilevel Discovered This)

Multilevel Analysis– Network Effects n Network Size • Not Only More Support from Entire Network • More Probability of Support from Each Network Member n Mutual Ties (Reciprocity): • Those Who Have More Ties with Network Members Provide More Support • Cross-Level Effect Stronger (and Attenuates) Dyadic (Tie-Level) Effect It’s Contribution to the Network, Not the Alter

Multilevel Analysis: Cross-Level, Interaction Effects n Kinship No longer a solidary system n Parent-(Adult) Child Interaction n • More Support From Each When > 1 Parent-Child Tie • Single P-C Tie: 34% • 2+ P-C Ties, Probability of Support from Each: 54%

The Internet in Everyday Life n n n Computer Networks as Social Networks Key Questions Community On and Off line n n n Networked Life before the Internet Netville: The Wired Suburb Large Web Surveys: National Geographic Work On and Off line Towards Networked Individualism, or n The Retreat to Little Boxes

Research Questions 1. Ties: Does the Internet support all types of ties? 1. 2. 3. 2. Social Capital: Has the Internet increased, decreased, or multiplied contact – at work, in society? 1. 2. 3. Weak and Strong? Instrumental and Socio-Emotional? Online-Only or Using Internet & Other Media (F 2 F, Phone)? Interpersonally – Locally Interpersonally – Long Distance Organizationally Glo. Calization: Has the map of the world dissolved so much that distance does not matter? Has the Internet brought spatial and social peripheries closer to the center?

Research Questions (cont’d) 4. 5. Structure: Does the Internet facilitate working in loosely-coupled networks rather than dense, tight groups? Knowledge Management: How do people find acquire usable knowledge in networked and virtual organizations

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Research Questions – re Memes n Do Memes Preferentially Spread Locally? n i. e. , Does Face-to-Face Communication still Pay. Off? Do Fragmented Networks Localized Memes? n How Do Memes Facilitate Within-Net & Cross. Net Connectivity? n Has Trust Declined with Multiple Venues & Lower Interpersonal Bandwidth n

Summary: Local Social Capital n Multiplied Number & Range of Neighbors n n Increased Contact with Existing Neighbors – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F 2 F, Phone n n Evidence: Netville Evidence: National Geographic, Berkeley, Netville? Demand for Local Information n Evidence: Netville, Berkeley, Small City Study

Summary: Long Distance Ties n Increased Contact with Long Distance Ties – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F 2 F, Phone 1. Friends More than Kin 2. Long-Distance Ties More than Local 3. Post Used Only for Rituals (Birthdays, Christmas) n Evidence: National Geographic, Netville

Summary: Long Distance Ties n Increased Contact with Long Distance Ties – Email Adds On to Same Levels of F 2 F, Phone 1. Friends More than Kin 2. Long-Distance Ties More than Local 3. Post Used Only for Rituals (Birthdays, Christmas) n Evidence: National Geographic, Netville

Summary: The Glo. Calization Paradox n n Surf and Email Globally Stay Wired at Office/Home to be Online Desire for Local/Distant Services and Information Internet Supplements/Augments F 2 F n n Doesn’t Replace It; Rarely Used Exclusively Media Choice? By Any Means Available Many Emails are Local – Within the Workgroup or Community n Local Becomes Just Another Interest Evidence: Netville, National Geographic, Small Cities, Berkeley, Netting Scholars, Cerise, Indigo, Telework

Summary: Social Network Structure n Internet Aids Both Direct & Indirect Connections n Knowledge Acquisition & Management • Accessing Friends of Friends • Forwarding & Folding In: Making Indirect Ties Direct Ties n n Social and Spatial Peripheries Closer to the Center Shift from Spatial Propinquity to Shared Interests Shifting, Fluid Structures Networked, Long-Distance Coordination & “Reports”

Conclusions: Changing Connectivity n n n By Any Means Available Door-to-Door > Place-to-Place > Person-to-Person Connectivity Less Solidary Households n n New Forms of Community n n Dual Careers Multiple Schedules Multiple Marriages Partial Membership in Multiple Communities Networked & Virtual Work Relationships

Conclusions: Role-to-Role Relationships Partial Communities of: Shared, Specialized Interest n Importance of Informal Network Capital n Production n Reproduction n Externalities n n Bridging and Bonding Ties

Conclusions: How a Network Society Looks Multiplicity of Specialized Relations n Management by Networks n More Uncertainty, More Maneuverability n Boutiques, not General Stores n Less Palpable than Traditional Solidarities Need Navigation Tools n ü An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network. " Pp. 179205 in Culture of the Internet, edited by Sara Kiesler. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.

Conclusions: Shift to New Kinds Of Community & Workgroups n n n § n n Partial Membership in Multiple Networks Multiple Reports Long-Distance Relationships Transitory Work Relationships Each Person Operates Own Network Online Interactions Linked with Offline n n Status, Power, Social Characteristics Important Sparsely-Knit: Fewer Direct Connections Than Door-To-Door -- Need for Institutional Memory & Knowledge Management n n IKNOW (Nosh Contractor) – Network Tracer Contact. Map (Bonnie Nardi & Steve Whittaker) – Network Accumulator

Conclusions: The Rise of Networked Individualism § Individual Agency Constrained by Nets: § Personalization rather than Group Behavior § Interpersonal Ties Dancing Dyadic Duets: § Bandwidth § Sparsely-Knit, Physically-Dispersed Ties § Social Networks § Multiple, Ad Hoc § Wireless Portability

Three Modes of Interaction Social Structure Phenomena Little Boxes Glocalizatio Networked n Individualism Metaphor Fishbowl Core. Periphery Unit of Analysis Village, Band, Household, Shop, Office Work, Unit, Multiple Networks Switchboard Networked Individual Social Groups Organization Home Bases Networked Network of Individualism Networks Era Contemporary Emerging Traditional

Boundaries Phenomena Little Boxes Glocalization Net. Individualism Physical Context Dominance of immediate context Relevance of immediate context Ignorance of immediate context Modality Door-to-Door Place-to-Place Person-to-Person Predominant Mode of Communication Face-to-Face Wired phone Internet Mobile phone, Wireless modem Spatial Range Local Glo. Cal = Local + Global Locale All in common household and work spaces Common household and work spaces for core + external periphery External Awareness and Availability All visible and audible to all High awareness of availability Core immediately visible, audible; Little awareness of others’ availability -- must be contacted Little awareness of availability Must be contacted Visibility and audibility must be negotiated Access Control Doors wide open to ingroup members Walled off from others External gate guarded Doors ajar within and between networks Look, knock and ask Doors closed Access to others by request Knock and ask Physical Access All have immediate access to all Core have immediate access Contacting others requires a journey or telecommunications Contact requires a journey or telecommunications

Boundaries (continued) Phenomena Little Boxes Glocalization Net. Individualism Interruptibility High: (Open Door) Norm of Interruption Mixed: Core interruptible Others require deliberate requests Answering machine Knocking on door that may be ajar or closed Norm of Interruption within immediate network only Low: Contact must be requested May be avoided or refused Prioritizing voice mail Internet filter Knocking on door that may be ajar or closed Norm of interruption within immediate network only Observability High: All can see when other group members are interacting Mixed: Core can observe core Periphery cannot observe core or interactions with other network members Low: Interactions with other network members rarely visible Privacy Low information control: Few secrets Status/Position becomes important capital Low information control: Few secrets for core Variable information control for periphery Material resources and network connections become important capital High information control: Many secrets Information and ties become important capital Joining In Anyone can observe interactions Anyone can join Interactions outside the core rarely observable Difficult to join Interactions rarely observable Difficult to join Alerts Little awareness of others approaching Open, unlocked doors High prior awareness of periphery’s desire to interact Telephone ring, doorbell High prior awareness of others’ desire to interact Formal requests

Interpersonal Interactions Phenomena Little Boxes Glocalization Net. Individualism Predominant Basis of Interaction Ascription (What you are born into) e. g. , Gender, ethnicity “Protect Your Base Before You Attack” (attributed to Mao) Free agent Frequency of Contact High within group Moderate within core; Low to moderate outside of core Variable, low with most; Moderate overall Recurrency Recurrent interactions within group Recurrent interactions within core; Intermittent with each network member Low with most others; Moderate overall Duration Long duration ties: cradle-to-grave; employed for life Long duration for household core (except for divorce); Short duration otherwise Short duration ties Domesticity Cradle-to-grave Mom and Dad Dick and Jane Long-term partners Serial monogamy Dick lives with divorced parent Changing partners; Living together; Singles; Single parents; Nanny cares for Jane Scheduling Drop-In anytime Drop-in within household, work core; Appointments otherwise Scheduled appointments Transaction Speed Slow Variable in core; Fast in periphery Fast Autonomy & Proactivity Low autonomy High reactivity Mixed: Autonomy within household & work cores High proactivity & autonomy with others High autonomy High proactivity Tie Maintenance Group maintains ties Core groups maintain internal ties; Other ties must be actively maintained Ties must be actively maintained, one-byone Predictability, certainty and security within group interactions Moderate predictability, certainty and security within core; Interactions with others less predictable, certain and secure Unpredictability, uncertainty, insecurity, contingency, opportunity Latency Leaving is betrayal; Re-Entry difficult Ability to reestablish relationships quickly with network members not seen in years

Social Networks Phenomena Little Boxes Glocalization Net. Individualism #of Social Circles Few: Household, kin, work Multiple: Core household, work unit; Multiple sets of friends, kin, work associates, neighbors Multiple: Dyadic or network ties with household, work unit, friends, kin, work associates, neighbors Maneuverabilit y Little choice of social circles Choice of core and other social circles Choice of social circles Trust Building Enforced by group Betrayal of one is betrayal of all Core enforces trust Networked members depend on cumulative reciprocal exchanges and ties with mutual others Dependent on cumulative reciprocal exchanges and ties with mutual others Social Support Broad (“multistranded”) Broad household and work core; Specialized kin, friends, other work Specialized Social Integration By groups only Cross-cutting ties between networks integrate society; Core is the common hub Cross-cutting ties between networks integrate society Cooperation Group cooperation Joint activity for clear, collective purposes Core cooperation; Otherwise: short-term alliances, tentatively reinforced by trust building and ties with mutual others Independent schedules Transient alliances with shifting sets of others Knowledge All aware of most information Information open to all within unit Secret to outsiders Core Knows Most Things Variable awareness of and access to what periphery knows Social Control Superiors and group exercise tight control Moderate control by core household and workgroup, with some spillover to interactions with periphery Fragmented control within specialized networks Adherence to norms must be internalized by individuals Subgroups, cleavages Partial, fragmented control within specialized networks Adherence to norms must be internalized by individuals

Norms and Perceptions Phenomena Little Boxes Glocalization Net. Individualism Socialization Obey group elders Obey your parents; cherish your spouse; nurture your children; Defer to your boss; work and play well with colleagues and friends Develop strategies and tactics for self-advancement Sense of Solidarity High group solidarity Collective identity Collective name Moderate solidarity within core household and workgroup, Vitiated by many ties to multiple peripheries Sense of being an autonomous individual Fuzzy identifiable networks Loyalty Particularistic: High group loyalty Public and private spheres: Moderate loyalty to home base takes precedence over weak loyalty elsewhere Self Global weak and divided loyalties Conflict Handling Revolt, coup Irrevocable departure Back-biting Keeping distance Avoidance Exit Commitment to Net Members High within groups High within core; Variable elsewhere Variable

www. chass. utoronto. ca/~wellman Thanks for the Meme-ories Barry Wellman