There was one point in one of the articles with which I could not get myself to agree. Charles Kadushin, in talking about distance between nodes, wrote "Though I am well enmeshed in a given group, I have one friend across the country who is a member of another well clustered group." Then, as a footnote, one can find, "Whether this friend is a close friend or someone I do not know very well is part of the 'strength of weak ties'...that is, someone I am not close to." (Kadushin, 12) First off, that point seems to render itself useless at first glance: "...a close friend..." and then "'strength of weak ties'...that is, someone I am not close to." Some of my close friends come from across the country or do not live in near proximity to myself. I have friends who go to schools such as in Delaware, and though that is only a couple hours north, we have remained close. To say something such as since he lives a few hours away, I don't affect his circle -- which is what these passages seem to indicate -- are preposterous. Some of my best friends go to schools in Boston (8 hour drive away from me) and in Virginia (several hours away). Is that to say because we are not in the same "neighborhood" that the connections are weak? Together we all form a strong network, all playing as central people in a mutual relationship. Another person in this group lives in Atlanta and goes to school nearby (a 10 to 11 hour drive), and is that to say that they are on the peripheral level? Absolutely not. I am closer with some of the people now that they are NOT in my neighborhood as compared to when they were. We all live in different neighborhoods.
One could say that because of the Internet we have all remained close, but that would be a lie too. Though we use instant messenging clients, email, and VOIP (including video chat), we mainly have phone conversations. But this is subject for another post...
I don't believe though, that I am the only exception to the rule...
Cross, Rob, Nitin Nohria, and Andrew Parker. "Six Myths About Informal Networks -- and How To Overcome Them." MIT Sloan Management Review 43, 3(2002): 69.
Kadushin, Charles. "Introduction to Social Network Theory." 17 Feb 2004 1-60. 09 Sept 2007
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Exceptions To The "Rules"...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
first of all the I didn't read the article. But from what you wrote,I believe that this issue is quite controversial. One could agree with it and another could disagree depending on the situation and context. many factors play a significant role in effecting the relationship.for example, time, work and distance could affect the relationship between people. Because some people have close friends that are overseas in a different country , which makes it more difficult for both to be in touch. So sometimes people prefer to have a close friend "physically" rather than having a close overseas freind that he or she might meet once a year. Forgive me if I misunderstood :).
I can see what you are saying. Then again, my friend is visiting from Poland tonight.
i understand what khaled is saying, but i have to agree with you mike. i dont believe that people have to be physically there to form a relationship. i am from Puerto Rico and have lived there my entire life, not only my closest friends are still there but also my family and just because i dont see them during the semester doesnt mean that the relationship isnt strong enough.
Like Khaled, I didn't read the article, however, from reading your post and other comments, I came to a conclusion. As it is highly controversial and different for each person, I have to disagree with you.
I feel to have a close relationship between two people, they must interact face to face regularly. I too have friends in other countries such as London, Canary Islands, and Australia, but without seeing them I feel disconnected in a way that the internet and facebook can recreate. I am open minded and can conceive that it is different for everyone, but it just doesn't work for me.
Post a Comment