Do virtual social networks destroy the social fabric?

There is some debate as to whether virtual social networks have a net beneficial or net detrimental effect on society. [1]  And it must be admitted that the question is difficult to answer. For instance, what is the social fabric that is threatened by social networks? Research on social capital could provide an answer.

Social capital is important for society

The term 'social capital' is defined differently by different researchers. [2] A very comprehensive definition comes, for example, from David Halpern. According to this, social capital is any social structure that has not yet "solidified" into a formal institution and facilitates cooperation and interpersonal trust. [3] Robert Putnam focuses more on the components of this social structure or fabric. For him, social capital consists of the connections in a social network and the norms such as reciprocity and trust that follow from them. [4a]

Many studies have examined the positive effects of social capital. They can be seen not only at the macro level (e.g. the democratic capacity, performance of social institutions, positive economic development), but also at the meso level and at the micro level (more moral behaviour, greater willingness to cooperate, better cognitive and social development of children, etc). [2] Putnam emphasizes, however, that social capital, like any other form of capital, can also be directed at malicious, antisocial purposes. [4a] In addition, compensatory and reinforcing processes between the levels are possible, e.g. when processes at the micro level (e.g. loosening of family ties) are absorbed by institutions on the meso level. [3]

Central to the understanding of social capital is that it occurs in two forms, namely as bonding and bridging social capital. [4a]

• Bonding social capital means bonds, norms, trust in groups of similar people. An increase does not have to be exclusively positive, for example when the group isolates itself from others. 
• Bridging social capital creates connections between groups and/or their members. From the individual's point of view, this can mean that they also have access to the resources of another group. It is also particularly useful when different groups face a common challenge. [3] 

Mutually reinforcing or compensating processes are also possible between the components. The net effect of changes is thus uncertain.

Social capital is a variable

Social capital can vary in a society over time or from society to society [5]. The changes over time are of particular interest here.

The book 'Bowling alone' was published in 2001. In this book, Robert Putnam explained that the social capital of US society had declined dramatically in the last decades of the 20th century. While until the 1960s the Americans became increasingly socially committed, the trend was consistently reversed in the last third. And if participation in public life is dropping - according to Putnam - democracy is in danger. [4a] Putnam had observed that since 1960 participation in social networks and organizations (e.g. membership in church groups, trade unions/parties, scouts, etc.) had declined in contrast to the rise of other organizations and social groups (e.g. environmental associations, non-profit organizations such as foundations and self-help groups). However, from Putnam's point of view, the new forms do not replace the old ones to the same extent, because membership in the new forms is much less intensive. Membership is limited to the paying of membership fees instead of taking on tasks in a community [4a]. Putnam blamed a number of factors (the rise in educational attainment, the increase in average working hours, the welfare state, the increase in spatial mobility, etc.) - and above all television. [4b]

Television destroys social capital by changing leisure behaviour. With its high proportion of the time budget, television prevents social participation, leads to a loss of confidence due to an overestimation of crime and promotes aggressiveness, especially among children. [2] Both the findings [6] and the analysis of causes did not go unchallenged. Pippa Norris notes, for example, that television as a whole does not necessarily have to have a negative effect on social capital and civic engagement. It depends on the usage behaviour. [7] This argument should also apply to the Internet and the social media. On the one hand, the usage of digital media tends to support the social capital of groups, as it enables social relationships. On the other hand, it can also reduce social capital when people withdraw from real social networks. It is difficult to establish causal relationships because real and virtual social contacts are interwoven. [8] All in all, it is therefore not surprising that different results were found for the connections between social media and social capital, depending on the design of the study. However, I would like to pick out two aspects.

Internet and social media promote extremism and polarization

The engagement mechanisms of social media sites (e.g. like or sharing on Facebook) can be responsible for people thinking and communicating in a more and more extreme manner. Kozinets et al. proved this in the area of food porn. They noticed that the pictures of burgers and cakes became more and more extreme over time. Apparently, people tried to outdo each other with ever more extreme images in order to get any feedback at all on their own posts. The formerly extreme thus becomes the new standard. The researchers concluded that social media are built for polarization and extremes. [10] This trend is reinforced by algorithms that feed users with content that is already popular anyway.

The phenomenon of group polarization can also be detected in virtual groups. People become more extreme in their beliefs the more often they spend thinking or talking about those beliefs. [11] This explains why the tone increases from anger to open hatred on some issues. Repetition increases anger. The tendency towards the extreme and group polarization may increase the bonding social capital, but not the bridging one.

Internet and social media offer a highly curated user experience

Another factor that should at best strengthen the bonding but not the bridging social capital are the possibilities for filtering. Online media not only allow us to decide with whom we connect, we can also filter the content we want to deal with. In the US, for example, 31% of social media users have changed their settings to see fewer posts from someone in their feed. [12] Algorithms reinforce this effect, in that they infer our preferences from our behaviour and subsequently show us only the content - they think - we want to see. People who get their information from such sources usually have a highly curated experience. According to the Pew Research Center, 62% of adults in the US are dependent on social media for their news. Of these, 44% are primarily dependent on Facebook and 64% will remain on a social site when using news media. [13]

To the point

Let us return to the question asked at the beginning. In view of the complex construct of 'social capital' and the wide range of possible uses of the Internet and social media, it quickly becomes clear that there can be no simple answer. Even if two events such as the rise of the Internet and the decline of social capital occur at the same time, this does not mean that one event causes the other. For example, both events can correlate randomly or they have a common cause.

But the question is probably not asked correctly either. I think it makes more sense to ask how the Internet and the social media influence the social fabric. There is evidence that they, in particular, strengthen the bonding social capital. But as the groups move closer together, the gaps between them become wider, and the bridging social capital that is important for coping with community tasks becomes weaker. The crucial point is, therefore, how can we strengthen the bridging social capital and what contribution can the Internet and the social media make?

__________

[1] Suleyman, A. (2017) "Facebook is destroying society and making users feel vacant and empty" The Independent (12.12.17). (Link)
[2] Haug, S. (1997). Soziales Kapital – Ein kritischer Überblick über den aktuellen Forschungsstand (No. Arbeitspapiere Arbeitsbereich II / 15). (Link)
[3] Halpern, D., 2005, Social Capital, Polity Press, Cambridge, UK
[4a] Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York.
[4b] Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. Political Science and Politics, 28, 664-683.
[5] Sarracino, F., & Mikucka, M. (2015). Social capital in Europe from 1990 to 2012: trends, path-dependency and convergence. (Link)
[6] Clark, A. K. (2015). Why we need to think again about the decline in social capital (Link)
[7] Norris, P. (1996). Does Television Erode Social Capital? A Reply to Putnam. PS: Political Science and Politics (Vol. 29). (Link)
[8] Rasmussen, T. (2014). Personal media and everyday life: A networked lifeworld.
[9] Carmichael, D. , Archibald, J. & Lund, G. (2015). Social Capital Theory in Social Media research. (Link)
[10] Kozinets, R., Patterson, A., & Ashman, R. (2016). Networks of desire: How technology increases our passion to consume. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5), 659-682. (Link)
[11] Cass Sunstein 2011 The Daily We – Is the Internet really a blessing for democracy? Boston Review (Link)
[12] Duggan, M. & Smith, A. (2016) The Political Environment on Social Media Pew Research Center 25.10.2016 (Link)
[13] Gottfried, J. & Shearer, E. (2016) News Use Across Social Media Platforms 2016 Pew Research Center (26.5.2016). (Link)