Technology and Social Capital

After reading Shirky’s book, Here Comes Everybody, I was interested in reading more about social capital and how technology may be affecting it. For those of you who do not know a lot about the idea of social capital, I put a great link in a recent blog to a site that explains the concept well. I found a great article all about this topic. The article is called, “Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital? Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment”, written by Barry Wellman in 2001. Wellman begins with a discussion of previous work done by Robert Putnam. “Putnam has documented a long-term decline since the 1960’s in American civic involvement” (Wellman, Pg.1). This decline is associated with a decrease in political involvement, as well as a decrease in community involvement, and a decrease in interpersonal communication which could lead to psychological issues. Putnam classified two forms of social capital:

a) Network Capital: Relations with friends, neighbors, relatives, and workmates that significantly provide companionship, emotional aid, goods and services, information, and a sense of belonging (Wellman, Pg.2).

b) Participatory Capital: Involvement in politics and voluntary organizations that afford opportunities for people to bond, create joint accomplishments, and aggregate and articulate their demands and desires (Wellman, Pg. 2).

Wellman adds a third type that he calls:

c) Community Commitment: Social capital consists of more than going through the motions of interpersonal interaction and organizational involvement. When people have a strong attitude toward community -have a motivated, responsible sense of belonging- they will mobilize their social capital more willingly and effectively (Wellman, Pg.2).

The question at hand: What is causing this decline in these types of social capital? Many are quick to blame the Internet and ever-increasing technology. It seems reasonable to assume that if people are participating less in their offline communities, it is because they are involved in online communities. It seems that technology is taking over. People are spending a significant amount of time e-mailing, blogging, on social networking sites, and texting. Many are saying that the Internet is having the same impact as the television, which led to a decline in both community involvement, and even involvement inside the home. All of these claims seem reasonable; however there has not been any definitive evidence that the Internet is the cause of this decline in social capital.

Wellman’s article discussed a study that strived to find a relationship between social capital and technology by looking at three views on the topic. The first view the study examined is that the Internet increases social capital. The idea behind this argument is that the involvement in online communities acts as a starting ground for new relationships. These online “meeting places” draw members in on the basis of common interests. The idea is that the relationship will develop and continue into the offline world. This view also argues that technology has made it easier and cheaper to communicate with family and relatives far away, thus increasing interaction and social capital.

The second view the study looked it is that the Internet decreases social capital. This view has six arguments:

1. “The Internet may be diverting people from “true” community because online interactions are inherently inferior to face-to-face and even phone interactions” (Wellman, Pg. 5).

2. “The Internet may compete for time with other activities…and can draw people’s attention away from their immediate physical environments while they are online” (Wellman, Pg.6).

3. “The Internet may be a stressor that depresses and alienates people from interaction” (Wellman, Pg.6).

4. “Not all uses of the Internet are social; much activity involves engaging in solitary recreations” (Wellman, Pg. 7).

5. “Computerization and the Internet can blur the home-work boundary, allowing people to bring work home” (Wellman, Pg. 7).

6. “….the Internet keeps people indoors, staring at their screens and neglecting local interaction at home and in the neighborhood” (Wellman, Pg. 8).

The third view argues that the Internet supplements social capital. “It presents the Internet as best understood in the context of a person’s overall life. It is integrated into rhythms of daily life, with life online viewed as an extension of offline activities” (Wellman, Pg.8). Basically this view argues that the level of Internet use and the degree of social capital are unrelated.

After defining these views, the article went on to discuss a survey conducted in the year 2000. The survey involved 39,211 North American adult participants. The survey contained ten items where participants reported different aspects of their Internet use. The study revealed some interesting findings. The first is that Internet use supplements network capital by extending face-to-face and telephone contact. The Internet is particularly useful for keeping contact with friends and family who live long distances away. (Wellman, Pg. 21)

The second finding is that Internet use actually increases participatory capital. “The more people are on the Internet, and the more they are involved in online organizational and political activity, the more they are involved in offline organizational and political activity” (Wellman, pg 22).

The third finding is that Internet use is associated with decreased commitment to community. “The security and social control of encompassing communities have given way to the opportunity and vulnerability of networked individualism” (Wellman, Pg. 22).

Overall it seems that the Internet is both positive and negative. One must take into consideration the facts of this article and examine their individual habits. Is time online worth sacrificing the time you could be spending offline with family and friends? Is it possible that eventually community commitment as defined by Wellman will be non-existent? What affects may this have on society?

Here is a PowerPoint to go along with my blog:

404 presentation

View more presentations from Michelle VanOsdol.

Also, here is the article I used:

Article

View more documents from Michelle VanOsdol.

Reference:

Wellman, B., A. Q. Haase, J. Witte, and K. Hampton. "Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital?: Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment." American Behavioral Scientist 45.3 (2001): 436-55. Print.

Technology: Then and Now

The readings for this week really got me thinking about how much technology has changed just in my lifetime, and the potential for change yet to come. One example that sticks out to me is the Video Camera. My parents video camera we had growing up was huge, heavy, and took at least 5 minutes to set up. We hauled it around in a giant suitcase of sorts, and it came complete with a tripod. It is shocking to compare that to the video cameras we have now. They are small enough to fit in a pocket, or purse. Setting it up to film is as simple as turning it on and pressing record. Not only have video cameras changed drastically in appearance, they have also had an extreme drop in cost. My parents clunky camera? $1200! The new high-tech, pocket-sized, fast-speed camera? $200! The new cameras also allow you to do such things as plug your camera directly into your computer and upload the videos. You can then post them online, or send them through e-mails.

Television is another major area of change and evolution. My parents still tell stories of rabbit ear antennas and a 4 channel choice selection. Now we are all digital, the channel selections are almost endless, and the user has more power then simply volume control or changing the channel. We now have the ability to pause live TV, record one show while we watch another, choose which programs to watch OnDemand whenever we choose. Even with all these changes, can television keep up? Is it possible that eventually everyone will be watching their favorite programs on the Internet, or on their phones?

The final topic the reading discussed was the radio, for it too has seen its fair share of change. We now have satellite radio, offering a wider variety of channels that can be accessed anywhere, and that are free from commercials. I, myself, have had satellite radio for about 8 years, and I could never imagine going back to the regular radio. With the addition of iPods, and other handheld devices, the radio has to work hard to maintain its listeners.

What does all this have in common? They are all technologies that have drastically changed in order to fit consumers needs and wants. Consumers have the power. We control what we see, hear, and are exposed to, as well as when we are exposed to it. We want everything faster, smaller, easier to use, and more portable. Where will we go from here? Will there ever come a point where consumers are content with existing technology and not want for more? Do any of these changes have negative effects? How will advertisers keep up? These are not easy questions to answer, but I look forward to reading more about the topic.

Shirky: Here Comes Everybody

Shirky's book is about the numerous ways in which technology has changed our lives, both for the better and for the worse. Many of the things he discusses have become so commonplace to most of us that we do not realize how different life would be without them. One of the many positive things that all these advances in technology has brought us is the ability to disseminate new information at a rapid pace and at low cost. Shirky often mentioned the popular website Wikipedia. Before reading this book I had negative ideas about Wikipedia. It seemed to me to be nothing but a completely untrustworthy site that allowed everyone to act as experts, and develop definitions and explanations of things they may know nothing about. After reading the book, I realize that the power of groups is stronger than I realized. The genius of the website is that it allows users to continually build on what others have already written, and also to delete anything that they disagree with or know to be incorrect. Through time, the information becomes surprisingly accurate and in-depth. A surprising use of the website that I had not realized before is the fact that it is helpful in informing the public of current events. Shirky discusses the fact that when major events occur, users will create a new Wikipedia entry for that event. This entry will continually be updated as more information about the event is released. In this way, it is almost like a news channel. I found that to be very interesting. This topic also got me thinking about how vulnerable the site actually is. Anyone with a lot of free time on their hands could potentially destroy much of the site by simply deleting entries. I am pleasantly surprised by the fact that most people who add entries to the site do so with positive intentions.

The ability for masses of heterogeneous people to communicate rapidly at low cost has brought about many changes in society as a whole. One of the topics that Shirky discussed that hit close to home with me was the idea of "Social Capital" and the fact that it seems to be disappearing. Shirky described this as, “that mysterious but critical set of characteristics of functioning communities” (Shirky Pg. 102). In other words, it is the sense of community and trust. It is the willingness of neighbors to lend a helping hand, and the sense of safety that comes with knowing you can rely and trust those around you. It is also the simple acts of kindness and friendliness. The fact that this concept is slowly dwindling away is sad, but not news to me. I was raised in a small town in Iowa where we knew all our neighbors. If someone new moved into the neighborhood they were greeted with baked goods and warm welcome. My parents could trust that my friends and I were safe exploring the neighborhood because they knew we would be looked after and safe from “strangers”. While walking or driving around, everyone waved and smiled at those that they passed. It was quite the culture shock from that small town in Iowa to the busy city in Minnesota. None of our neighbors came to greet us when we moved in, and our friendly waves and smiles were met with glares and looks of confusion. It seemed that our new home lacked the concept of social capital. One wonders if this is due to the fact that perhaps bigger cities are more technologically advanced, in that they have more resources readily available. In other words, perhaps this decline in face-to-face social interaction is due to the fact that more people are getting used to communicating through technology. Of course one can not overlook the fact that people are also increasingly busy and have less time to get together, or do things for their neighbor. I did some further research on this topic and found a great site that discusses exactly what I am talking about. The link to this site is: http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/. I highly suggest checking it out, it has links to a variety of other helpful resources on the subject.

By no means am I trying to say that new technology is all bad, but we must look at the negatives along with the positives. There are in fact many positive aspects of this advanced means of communication. Ideas are spread quickly, and can be heard from all individuals, not just experts. The Internet allows everyone to become a journalist of sorts. These blogs for instance allow all of us to become published in a way. We are able to write about any topic that interests us, and display it in a mass medium that the entire world can access. We are able to meet people that we otherwise never could have, and form groups with those that have the same interests. Many of these groups can be formed around a powerful cause to end a great injustice. Shirky talks about VOTF (Voices of the Faithful) that formed around the collective shock and anger about the sexual abuse committed by Priests. Here is a link to their site: http://www.votf.org/. These types of groups raise awareness about important issues and can help to generate the support needed to put an end to such acts of injustice. The cause can be something as small and simple as trying to save a television show. If enough people join together and create enough stir about a topic, they can make a change. This idea is exciting and somewhat frightening at the same time. The power of groupthink is astounding, and can come with extremely negative consequences. One extreme and well-known example of this would be the Holocaust. Hitler was able to convince thousands of people that mass murder was not only acceptable, but necessary. We can see further examples of this with Charles Manson, or the phenomenon of cults that commit mass suicide. One wonders how much more damage Hitler could have done had he the range of technology that we do today. For further information on the power of groupthink, including more examples, visit this site: http://changingminds.org/explanations/theories/groupthink.htm

Obviously there are a number of issues that go along with the introduction of new technology into society. Things are going to change, but what is important is that the good changes outweigh the bad. Because of the Internet we are able to communicate easily and frequently with masses of people. We are able to learn about events that are happening within minutes of the news breaking. We have an endless supply of knowledge at our fingertips and the ability to add to that knowledge and leave our individual mark on the world. We can spread the news of crisis and rally for support and aide. The abilities the Internet gives us are endless and always growing. I believe we will continue to find new uses of this technology, and develop even more new things that will drastically change the world as we know it. I will end with a quote from Shirky that I believe sums up this whole concept really well:

“Whenever you improve a group’s ability to communicate internally, you change the things it is capable of. What the group does with that power is a separate question.”(Shirky Pg. 171)