Granovetter brings up an interesting, yet wordy, discussion of social ties throughout society.  I agree with his formula for strength of a tie, which as he sees it is equal to the amount of time, emotional intensity, intimacy (mutual confiding) and the reciprocal services between the two individuals.  I believe that these aspects are very important in the calculation of a relationship between people, however these are not the only variables that should be included in this equation.  Relationships, and social ties, go through ups and downs and the tie may change strength throughout a friendship.  However as a simplified model I believe this equation would suffice.

The discussion of the strong and weak ties between people, and how a bridge is incorporated into these relationships was extremely wordy.  The point he made however is accurate to real life.  For example with his discussion of people A, B and C, if A has a friendship with both B and C, then through time B and C can ultimately become friends.  Through my own personal experience I have seen this happen, although the ‘bridge’ between B and C, in certain situations, has become a strong tie, and in some cases, stronger than the tie between A and B, and A and C.  This would then disrupt the system that Granovetter had so meticulously created.  It is interesting to see this some what simple idea of relationship and put it into terms such as these, and see how they can effect the dispersal of information, like rumors.  Weak ties create the “rumor” that we are all familiar with, where the true facts get twisted through word of mouth, especially between people how share weak friendship ties as opposed to strong ties.  This discussion brought up interesting points of human interaction and how we face relationships.

As argued by Granovetter, it appears that weak social ties may be most beneficial in the times of a crisis because of the nature of social networks. Specifically, there is the argument that the stronger the relationship between two people, the greater the likelihood that their respective social networks (people they know, with varying degrees of strength) overlap significantly. This overlap may not necessarily be a positive thing in certain cases. For instance, in the even of a natural disaster or economic crisis when resources or employment are scarce, people with larger social networks (weaker ties) are more likely to have access to the aforementioned scarce resources and jobs because they simply know more people who know other, unique individuals with access or knowledge. In comparison to those individuals with smaller social networks (stronger ties), they would be better off in times of widespread distress. Conversely, one could inference that closer-knit networks are more beneficial when circumstances are “normal” or not dire. What effect would negative weak ties have on integrating the communities of immigrant groups? How would one go about exploring this empirically?

Granovetter writes, “the strength of a tie is a… combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding), and the reciprocal services which characterize the tie” (1361). Granovetter says that the factors that make up these ties are not interdependent, but are highly intracorrelated; these ties can be strong, weak, or absent. He says that ties are often weak when there is alienation, yet weak ties are important to both individuals and communities. I think that it is interesting to see how a network that is considered to be weak can also be considered a positive thing, almost in its negativity. I suppose it is how you define a weak ties, ie an acquaintance, that makes its weakness not a negative but rather simply a scale of how well people know each other. And if you think of it like that, then it does make sense that having acquaintances will help communities to become stronger in the end. The position of trust as almost a benchmark for when a weak tie becomes strong also makes sense, just in terms of how we think about relationships on a day to day basis.

In “The Strength of Weak Ties,”  Granovetter discusses the different connections that help people find jobs.  He says that weak ties are often seen as stemming from alienation; however, they are actually very important to the opportunities of individuals and to their integration into communities.  For example, weak ties often help immigrants find jobs.  Strong ties may lead to overall fragmentation although it may seem as if they foster unity.

One of the topics Granovetter explores is the idea of weak ties strengthening communities.  He says that is all of the people in a clique are only connected to each other then they will be negative affected; however, if they are connected to someone outside of their clique then they will benefit.  He uses the example that if a product is only taken seriously by one clique, then without a weak tie to another group the importance of this product or idea would not be transmitted.  Thus, each group would have to develop the idea in their own group.

Granovetter also relates this idea to trust, saying that people will more likely trust a leader if he has some kind of tie to someone who also know something about this leader and his or her trustworthiness.  On the other hand, leaders may feel more trustworthy or responsive to those who they are connected to within their network whether it be a weak, strong, indirect, or direct tie.

In this paper, Granovetter attempts to link macro-interactions with micro-interactions through interpersonal networks. Granovetter defines the strength of a tie as “a combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy, ad the reciprocal services which characterize the tie” (1361). There are weak ties, strong ties, and absent ties. In this paper, Granovetter states that weak ties function as bridges while strong ties cannot exist as bridges. Weak social ties are responsible for the structure of social networks and how the information is transferred between members of society.

I found it interesting that Granovetter used mathematical sociology to prove his theory. He noted individuals with letters, making it easier for one to understand his theory, and symbolized the connection between individuals through an unconnected triangle (basically a 45 degree angle). I liked this because then I was able to visualize the connection and bridges between individuals.

I was shocked to find that weak ties are actually more efficient that strong ties. Granovetter gives several examples to prove this claim. One example was of a rumor being spread; if close friends were spreading the rumor to other close friends, the rumor would be heard twice or thrice among the close-knit group. However, if friends of these close friends were to hear the rumor, that is the information is spread through weak ties, the rumor would spread more widely.

I also didn’t realize that the majority of people who got their jobs through contacts only saw these contacts occasionally. In my mind, I thought that those who got jobs from contacts were actually close friends with these contacts. Like Granovetter states, “It is remarkable that people receive crucial information from individuals whose very existence they have forgotten” (1372).

-Anissa Daimally

Comments:

– Granovetter Strength of Weak Ties opened my eyes to a new reality. I had always assumed that the stronger the ties you shared with someone the better connected one would be with the macro discussions of social culture. Those more strongly connected individuals would be more inclined to help one another. However the results in the reading really made me realize that weak ties have just as good and in most cases better overall effects.

Questions:

-Are weaker ties said to be better than stronger ties because in all situations the results prove this to be true? If so wouldn’t this sentiment disregard the fact that there may be a small number of incidents where this isn’t necessarily true?

-Are weaker ties said to be better than stronger ties because in most cases the results prove to be more beneficial? Therefore, if it is true for the majority of the time, does this imply that weaker ties are better than stronger ties, overall?

-Ashley Haynes

Granovetter’s study seeks to apply patterns of interaction on the macro level to micro-interactions.  I found Granovetter’s scientific and mathematical approach to the paper to be interesting and thought-provoking.  By quantifying the people as basic letters and defining their interpersonal networks as mathematical sets, I was interested in Granovetter’s approach to the argument.  I was, however, I was a bit alarmed at the terminology used in the article that seemed to dehumanize the supposed subjects, particularly in the discussion of central and marginal individuals.  The terms “central” and “marginal” are, in effect, euphemisms for judging a person’s popularity among his or her inner circle.  The so-called marginal individuals are those with a tendency to not be linked to as many of the other people with whom they interact, whereas the central individuals are those with significantly more sociometric bridges and consequently more weak ties.  It is interesting to note that these terms seem to be euphemisms for describing the extent to which a person is popular or well-connected to a group.

Further, I found Granovetter’s study of the ways in which people receive work-related information to be quite interesting.  According to his results, the majority of people obtain references to and recommendations about job openings from those with whom they interact occasionally (in this case, individuals whom they see less than twice a week, but more than once a year).  This point does seem intuitive, as being acquainted with someone one sees occasionally denotes that the two are close enough to keep up correspondence over a period of time; this closeness also suggests that the persons in question probably share personal information with each other when they meet.  When seeing someone after some time, one is more inclined to share long-term plans and non-trivial goals.  In the case of those that interact frequently, conversations are usually based on short term events (for example, plans for the coming week), because there is a guarantee that one will see the other person in the near future to discuss these short-term plans.