TheIncubator: musings on the social sector

"The Strength of Weak Ties"

I wanted to go into a bit of history about this concept--"The Strength of Weak Ties" (this is actually a formal theory that was well articulated back in 1973 by  American sociologist, Mark Granovetter).  This concept has to do with how information spreads within a community.  In the 1973 piece, Granovetter asserts that each individual's social community consists of close friends (strong ties) and acquaintances (weak ties).  An individual's set of close friends, most of whom probably know each other and have many possible lines of communication and relationships, creates a densely knit network.  The set of acquaintances is a low-density network, and the relationships between an individual's various acquaintances may be low or (for the moment) non-existent.

As each individual's set of "ties" is comprised of other individuals with their own set of "ties" and networks, the acquaintance (the weak tie) of Individual A is not merely a random friend, but rather a bridge between two networks of densely knit social networks.  And, in fact, these two sets of closely knit friends may not be connected to each other, save that weak tie between Individual A and his/her rando friend, Individual B.  I may not know John, but I am close friends with Sally and Sally is close friends with John, and Sally may set me up with John at some point.  I may have never met John, if it had not been for Sally.

Things get interesting as you start to examine the way that information flows between these densely knit groups of close friends and low-density networks of weak ties.  As Granovetter suggests the "individuals with few weak ties will be deprived of information from distant parts of the social system and will be confined to the provincial news and views of their close friends.  This deprivation will not only insulate them from the latest ideas and fashions but may put them in a disadvantaged position in the labor market, where advancement can depend...on knowing about appropriate job openings at just the right time."  What's really sticking out at me is the word deprived.  Before jumping into this issue of depravity, I want to share what Granovetter goes on to say--"The macroscopic side of this communications argument is that social systems lacking in weak ties will be fragmented and incoherent.  New ideas will spread slowly, scientific endeavors will be handicapped, and subgroups separated by race, ethnicity, geography, or other characteristics will have difficulty reaching a modus vivendi."

I find this issue of depravity to be really fascinating.  And I'm sensing that it is hitting a nerve in the state of the nonprofit world.   So, to re-articulate in terms of the nonprofit word, what Granovetter is saying: nonprofits either tend to talk either only within their own organization (this seems to be fairly true with my current organization) and/or only with other nonprofits.  Maybe there's a little "outsider" voice that's represented through a board member.  Within these insular worlds, some really good discussion is being had, I'm sure.  And there are some interesting possibilities for partnerships, ideas, and approaches to dealing with the problems that nonprofits address.   But, there is little discussion with those outside the immediate, densely-knit community of nonprofits--even with the not-so-distant relationship of the philanthropist.  Rarely with a for-profit business.  But to not talk with for-profits, with philanthropists, with the government, the media, or the community at large, nonprofits are starving themselves of very relevant information and opportunities.  And with the internet, it really couldn't be easier--in theory. 

For your reference, here's a little diagram illustrating weak and strong ties in a social network:

Understanding the Dynamics of Social Network Sites and Nonprofits

in reading some writings about social networks, the importance of "weak ties" is often cited.  having a larger, looser network--one that has more weak ties outside of the core network--results in a space in which new ideas, innovations, and discussion occur.  new ideas, innovations, challenges, different approaches all help to make up that fertile ground where change may occur.  but it seems rather lacking in these communities who actually do wish to be agents of change.  rather, the nonprofits seem to love to only run with themselves.  i guess it's safer, and easier to trust and open up.  the artist circles seem to do that, too.  last week i went to a Bad at Sports round table discussion at ThreeWalls,called "Where in the Art World is Chicago." (i'm looking for the link and will post it once i find it).  There seemed to be a lot of limiting definitions thrown around and the fact that the whole room was filled with like-minded folk kept the discussion also limited--in the fashion of remaining in the comfort zone of like-minded notions of what is and what should be.  some people did bring up the fact that there wasn't a diverse cross-section of others involved in the discussion--others that would be relevant:  the uber-commercial gallery on Michigan Ave, the respected gallerist who does not show Chicago artists, the rich philanthropist....while participants still engaged each other and challenged each other, it's hard to question all the facets of the Chicago art world when not all are represented.

that prompted me to wonder about definitions.  they are central to our world, to our identity, to our progress, but are they, in fact, limiting--at least in terms of trying to activate social change?  or at least the way we define our audience and thus the "other", are those interested in social change preventing it from happening on a larger scale partly because of those definitions?

and that leads me to my other thought about  audience.  it's easy to surround yourself with like-minded folk.  and obviously people want to associate with those that think like them, hold the same beliefs and values, but in the interest of social change, is this healthy?