Complexity and Social Networks Blog

It's interesting that people have always had multiple circles, and potentially represnted themselves differently in each circle-- work, home, place of worship, etc. A corollary of the structural hole vein of research is that the less the multiple spheres of your life intersect, the more autonomy you have. One of interesting features of the Internet is that how we represent ourselves in our multiple circles becomes more transparent ("googleparent"?), at times reducing our capacity to maintain distinct identities.

Danah Boyd is a grad student at Berkeley who specializes in this question; I'd highly recommend you look at her research or try to contact her directly.

Her webpage is: www.danah.org

She also has a blog: www.zephoria.org/thoughts

Hope this helps!

re david: "A corollary of the structural hole vein of research is that the less the multiple spheres of your life intersect, the more autonomy you have."

One of the "founding fathers" of european sociology, Georg Simmel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Simmel), argued in the early 20th century that the driving force of individualization is the differentiation of "social circles" - the more social circles (or networks as we would call them now) one belongs to, the more unique one's position becomes, and the greater one's individual autonomy will be (and, on the other hand, the more one will be dependent on others). I'm pretty sure Simmel would have loved SNS, since he was very interested in cultural trends and their consequences for modern life (in a very general sense).

Very good point. Indeed, the connection between Simmel and SNA has been made quite explicitly, most prominently by David Krackhardt, who coined the term "Simmelian tie" to indicate the presence of a tie where the two nodes have ties to at least one mutual third party. Krackhardt's 1992 paper on "The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations" provides an example consistent with what I suggested above, illustrating how an individual might have less autonomy when s/he belongs to multiple sets of circles, because that have to adhere to the norms of both sets of circles. The key factor here is how public is the information across circles. In the example that Krackhardt talked above (pro-union activity) the behavior of the individual in question would have been public to both cliques, which is why the individual was constrained. If the information stayed within a particular circle ("what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas") then belonging to multiple circles would increase autonomy.

One pertinent question is how online interaction differs from face-to-face interaction. Doubtless, the constraints/opportunities are different in some ways and similar in others. They're different in that our face-to-face behavior is shaped by expectations and opportunities defined by the fleeting moment, which benefits those who are quick on their feet over those who aren't. Online interaction thus affords the latter group with self-presentational opportunities that they otherwise might not enjoy. On the other hand, both face-to-face and online, one is constrained by the expectation that one will be consistent in one's claims, and one has to live with the consequences of slips and offenses (assuming one is not changing one's online screen name).

D. Lazer writes: "One of interesting features of the Internet is that how we represent ourselves in our multiple circles becomes more transparent ...at times reducing our capacity to maintain distinct identities." I was going to say just the opposite, that we're better able to maintain distinct online persona because the audiences are more segregated. I suppose it depends on the technology and how easily others can piece together one's various "faces."

re: "I suppose it depends on the technology and how easily others can piece together one's various "faces." "

I absolutely agree with this point, although I would note that I was not talking exclusively about online representations of self. There are certainly gated online communities. However, pre-Internet, "public" in many settings really meant semi-private-- presenting yourself just to the people in front of you, where that information would not diffuse too far. Now (much more true in certain sectors than others), digital traces of your behavior are easily accessible via Google, etc. So, if I google someone, I may find out, for example, that they play in a band, or ran the Boston marathon in 3:31, or whatever. That information may have been public previously, but did not easily permeate across sphers.

Very nice text! Thank you!