Understanding the network system – within which interaction happens

The social network system focuses on the characteristics and patterns of the relationship between individuals in a social system rather than the characteristics of the individuals (Manski, 1993 and Frumkin et al 2004). Henning and Lieberg (2007) say that the social network concept is the best thing to use to study social relationships. They define it as

‘ways in which people construct their local group relationships as part of wider patterns of relations’ and ‘It can be used as a metaphor for talking about relationships, as a general concept’ (Henning and Lieberg, 2007 p 4). Human relations consist of multiple layers that extend out from the ego, i.e. self. Beyond the self, egocentric networks are outer layers that produce social experiences These layers extend from the most intimate relations (e.g. marital ties), outward to social networks of strong ties (e.g.

connections to close relatives and friends) to weak ties (for example work place relations community voluntary relations and religious organizational relations) (Kawachi and Berkman, 2001). These ties influence a flow of tangible and intangible

40 resources to people within the network. Some examples are support, influence and engagements, which are explained below.

Social support has been identified as the instrumental and financial help which is given in the form of tangible help, in kind, money and labour (House, 1981). It is also about the sharing of information in the form of advice or about services and needs or an appraisal which is in the form of help in decision making. Another dimension is emotional support which is in the form of love and care and sympathy and understanding being shared among people. Social influence is about the sources of influence for individuals or members and it has direct consequences on behaviour;

examples are peer pressure, social comparison. The critical mass model is also another take on this which describes the situation where an individual will only take part in an activity if a majority of the population around them takes part in it (Schelling 1971 and Scheinkman, 2008). Social engagements are the social activities and functions that an individual gets involved in and which activates a feeling of a sense of belonging and attachment to other people or ‘members in the group’. Rook (1984) states that behaviours are not the result of social experience but happen as a consequence of

‘participating’ in a meaningful social context.

For anyone to benefit from these network resources listed above, certain factors such as the size of the network; the amount of time spent on relationships; the frequency of the support; a combination of emotional intensity; intimacy and reciprocity are required (Granoveter, 1973; Berkman et al; 2000; Kawachi and Berkman, 2001). A combination of two or three of these factors mentioned above are likely to result in social relationships which are: either horizontal and vertical (Hall, 1999 & Borgonovi, 2010);

different in tie strength or in trust types i.e., thin and thick trusts (Frumkin et al, 2004) and are either bonds and bridges or links (Putnam, 2001). These outcomes can simply be summarised into two main associations: strong ties and weak ties.

A strong tie is a result of a wide reliable network, which has been built over a long period of time and benefits from frequent, intense support. The results can be a rewarding and substantial relationship between two or more people. Thus strong ties will be close friends or people you go to in times of great need, emergency and crisis (for example to talk about a loss of a loved one, a job, a marriage, health) for some form of support (Granovetter, 1973; Putnam, 2001; Harvard Kennedy School, 2012). One

41 element that serves as the glue to combine the things mentioned above (time, emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocity) is trust. Trust is the belief that people will act in ways that are appropriate and predictable (Clarke and McCann, 2003; Harvard Kennedy School, 2012). The trust that exists within a strong tie is therefore a ‘thick trust’.

Putnam (2001) defines thick trust as ‘social relations based on personal relationships where there is more than time and familiarity investment’. Granovetter, (1973) advises that perhaps the test of a strong tie should be based on continuity (time) as there is the likelihood that the tie can break. Negative ties can occur when strong ties break down due to friction or aggravation. This aspect of social networking is often not mentioned or addressed in literature. Relating this to trust, one might refer to it as broken trust. So simply put, strong ties are created by thick trust associations which could have developed through frequent associations and support over time.

Weak ties on the other hand are defined as more superficial and less deep when defined in terms of being important (Henning and Lieberg, 1997). They require minimal emotional intensity, intimacy and reciprocity (Granovetter, 1973). An example is asking for smaller favours such as the availability of a job or to borrow an insignificant item from other people you ‘know’ but not too well. Granoveter (1973) explains in his paper

‘The Strength of Weak Ties’ that weak ties are very useful for such purposes. In terms of trust this might be referred to as ‘thin trust’ because, it is ‘trust beyond an individual’s actual network, into a more implicit sense of common networks and assumptions of eventual reciprocity’ or social interactions based on general inclination of people to behave in a socially and morally acceptable way (Putnam, 2001; Harvard Kennedy School, 2012).

The definition of weak ties can be applied to bridging or linking social capital in that the social ties only link together people who are of perhaps different societies (i.e. in terms social class, race, and religion and therefore might not have much in common). The reason for this linkage might be due to an ability they all have to gain access to certain resources or share them (Putnam, 2001). An example will be a work-place setting (Harvard Kennedy School, 2012). For weak ties hierarchical influences are not necessary because the ties are weak anyway. Negative ties or broken trust might not exist with weak ties, thin trusts and bridging social capital because of the lack of strong emotional bonds between the parties involved. The absence of a tie should not be confused for a weak tie. When a tie is absent it is when the relationship between two or

42 more people is negligible so for example, a ‘nodding’ relationship, or a ‘hello’

relationship between a shop owner/vendor and a customer. In this regard, when people know each other by name, it is not necessarily an indication that they have any tie at all, unless the relationship is significant to both of them (Granovetter, 1973). The figure below attempts to present all the various social relationships within the different categories mentioned.

Figure 2.2 Various social ties within a social network

The arrows on the side reflect the fact that weak ties can develop into strong ties and vice versa. People can have no tie, to building weak ties which later become strong ties and the reverse. The sections above describe the dynamics of the network system. The next section therefore explores the social network system which is made up of different types of relationships and how these impact on mental wellbeing.