Disruption can bring about much good and a stronger society. Much less discussed but of vital importance is a different kind of disruption – that of our social circles, especially those that separate us from one another.
Network sociologist Mark Granovetter wrote about it in his seminal work, The Strength of Weak Ties (1973). In it, he plays the paradox by positing that weak ties are “strong” – in two ways. Weak ties are those formed by friends, acquaintances or colleagues; while strong ties typically refer to ties between family members, relations or very close friends.
First, ample research has shown that people often hear about new opportunities through their weak ties. Weak ties are bridges that connect people to better situations, paving the way for new opportunities.
Second, weak ties are critical for holding large systems together as they are the bridge that connects individuals across different social groups. Multiply this, and bridges connect all of society into an unmistakable whole.
A group of researchers recently completed a study for the Institute of Policy Studies on the social networks of Singapore residents, supported by the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth (MCCY). They found that people could easily name contacts from different gender, age and racial groups. Yet, they had a harder time naming people from different class groups.
The technical name for this phenomenon is “homophily”, which sociologists define broadly as love for the same. What makes class circles so salient in the first place? There are two explanations generally.
The first pertains to preferences. We tend to gravitate towards others like ourselves with whom we feel comfortable. It takes energy to bridge the gap with parties who are different.
The second pertains to opportunity to form ties. People make friends with those around them. The social context supplies the pool of potential contacts. It is the social environment that yields a certain structure and amount of social opportunities.
Both explanations are grist for the mill, posing useful lessons for us. We would need to be willing to diversify and form connections outside of our own social circle, class, and environment.
Ultimately then, bridging is a whole-of-society effort requiring individual initiative even when opportunities for social mixing are not always forthcoming. It is heartening that there are now more overlapping circles across race, religion, nationality and gender.
Disrupting our personal social silos and bridging communities hold rewards for individuals and society as a whole. For example, the study shows a positive correlation between a wide range of network diversities (including class diversity) and larger collective sentiments such as national identity, pride towards the nation, social trust generally, and trust towards other races, religious groups and nationality groups.
This gives important insight to our ongoing quest for a stronger national identity. Values such as multiculturalism, meritocracy, and society before self, have been, for some time now, anchoring values in Singapore society. More than values, however, we now know that our networks, whom we relate with, the kind of networks formed are also critical to enhancing national identity.
Forming connections across social groups helps us learn the art of communication, negotiation, understanding and accommodation. One begins to think outside of one’s own group to accommodate something more inclusive-the national.
Read more here.
Source: The Straits Times, 8 January 2018