Social networks, revisited

[REGINA SEWELL]

Adam and Peter,

What great timing.  I was actually consulting with the director of a local environmental group about social movements and sustainability.  I'd forwarded the article on smoking and social networks to her in contrast to some of the more psychological perspectives she'd been focussed on.  To prep for the meeting, I actually read the smoking article and the article on obesity (for folks who missed the previous article, you can google Nicholas Christakis,  James Fowler and smoking cessation).  The thing that stood out to me as I was reading the research was the fact that there is no explanation for the fact that social networks affect people's smoking and weight gain.  As a sociologist, especially one interested in social movements, this is most frustrating.  Especially, as Peter notes, the maxim is that peer groups rule.  To wax valley girl, "Like, how new is this?"  Criminologists have been talking about this phenomenon   for decades.  Is it simply that people quit smoking, gain weight, etc. in mass because they were similar to start with?  

Donald Sutherland, a criminologist who talked about social learning would suggest that commonality is simply not enough.  He argues that deviance (and I would add all social behavior) is learned.  People learn the why's (the behavior is "cool" and how to's (remember the first time you tried to smoke a cigarette on your own????) of behavior from others in their social networks who have significance in their lives. 

While he acknowledged the fact that this learning usually happens in intimate, personal groups (he was writing way before the advent of the world wide web), he didn't include sociometric factors.  Clearly positive sociometric stars around issues of social desirable characteristics should be more influential than the negative sociometric stars.  At a broader social level, reference groups are important here.  And a true confession, I actually went through a phase where I did 400 sit-ups a day because Robby Benson (a pop star in my generation) did that many, and traded chocolate for caffeine because I read that Donny and Mari Osmond were Mormon and didn't eat chocolate.. but these changes didn't last very long... especially the carob. (Have you ever eaten carob?  It's not the same...)    He does suggest that significance of the relationship is important... but what about the phenomenon of someone who isn't connected to the sociometric star but wants to  be - per Adam, aristo-tele?    

And what about the possibility that smoking and eating are (or were) forms of cultural currency?  I remember the days when the "cool people" hung out in the smoking lounge.  To not smoke was to not be cool.  And eating, for many, is a social event.  Going out to dinner or coffee (with the requisite mocha cappachino laced with, in some cases, more calories than a hamburger) is standard fare.  

But we still don't really know what's happening.  
 
Jung, I thing, (I'm not a Jungian) would say that it has something to do with the collective unconscious.  Marx would argue that it's really all about economic determinism... Follow the financial bottom line and you will find the answer...  (Barbara Kinsolver in "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" traces the obesity issue back to the aftermath of WW2 and converting the plants that were producing war oriented chemicals into something else.  High Fructose Corn Syrup among other things became the "thing."  Corporate interests found a way to get govt. subsidies to produce products we didn't need and figured out how to market all these excess calories to the American people.)  And it's hard to deny that Capitalism in the U.S. has really pushed us to live in the burbs, drive cars, and get incredibly busy so that walking is a difficult option to embrace.  

So I'm left with questions...  how do social networks work?  What research is available to support morenian principals of tele?

peace,

regina sewell
  
From: "Adam Blatner" <ablatner at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Impact of social networks on behavior
To: "Peter Howie" <peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au>,
	<list at grouptalkweb.org>
Message-ID: <02d101c8d3b2$577c4320$2e01a8c0 at desktop>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

cleaning up old email
    Yes, I agree that we need to keep up a variety of angles---
             in addition to the individual, peer group influences, the ? co-unconscious?  , seeking to be accepted by others can be subtle, unconscious, 
    aristo-tele (seeking to partake of the aura of popularity by maneuvering to be close to, liked by the star; or actually being chosen and becoming a little more popular by being the star's associate)
        ...main thing I want to note is that there is a need to become more insightful and specific rather than general; I suspect that there's more research, more to be known. I also have the uneasy feeling that a few of you out there know more than we all do and haven't yet expressed this knowledge or experience in other-than-your peer groups or training groups. My hope is that you may become aware enough of your ideas that you realize that others don't know them, and that this will empower you to write them up, speak up about them, thus leading to their value becoming known to our collective.

      Warmly, Adam
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Peter Howie 
  To: list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 3:42 PM
  Subject: Re: Impact of social networks on behavior


  Dear Adam and Steve,

  Similar to you Adam I found a few things to pique my interest. Quite an overlap but with a different focus.



    Taken together, these studies and others are fueling a growing recognition that many behaviors are swayed by social networks in ways that have not been fully understood. And it may be possible, the researchers say, to harness the power of these networks for many purposes, such as encouraging safe sex, getting more people to exercise or even fighting crime. (my highlight)

  Philosophically this article is again presenting the rather tired old idea that comes from the positivist tradition that has led to such philosophical abominations (at least to me) as Human Resources and other inhuman relegations of people to defined functions for which we only need to find the right levers and all will be well. 


    "What all these studies do is force us to start to kind of rethink our mental model of how we behave," said Duncan Watts, a Columbia University sociologist. "Public policy in general treats people as if they are sort of atomized individuals and puts policies in place to try to get them to stop smoking, eat right, start exercising or make better decisions about retirement, et cetera. What we see in this research is that we are missing a lot of what is happening if we think only that way."

  Adam rather than think sociometry - how about the basic Morenian idea (at least this is where I learned it) that we are part of a matrix of relationships and our psyche is also part of this web of relationships rather than only within my head?. Rather than sociometry of individuals and hence looking at the strands of tele from one individual to another - seeing that each individual is part of a web of telic relationships and that the psyche rests in these.

  Peer groups rule - is another maxim I follow.

  Cheers

  Peter in Brisbane 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20080621/45b09af0/attachment.html