Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism

Much thinking about digital cities is in terms of community groups. Yet, the world is composed of social networks and not of groups. This paper traces how communities have changed from densely-knit “Little Boxes” (densely-knit, linking people door-to-door) to “Glocalized” networks (sparselyknit but with clusters, linking households both locally and globally) to “Networked Individualism” (sparsely -knit, linking individuals with little regard to space). The transformation affects design considerations for computer systems that would support digital cities. 1 From Little Boxes to Social Networks The developed world is in the midst of a paradigm shift both in the ways in which people and institutions are actually connected. It is a shift from being bound up in homogenous “little boxes” to surfing life through diffuse, variegated social networks. Although the transformation began in the pre-Internet 1960s, the proliferation of the Internet both reflects and facilitates the shift. The “little boxes” metaphor (from Malvena Reynolds’ 1963 song) connotes people socially and cognitively encapsulated by homogeneous, broadly-embracing groups. Members of traditional little-box societies deal principally with fellow members of the few groups to which they belong: at home, in the neighborhood, at work, or in voluntary organizations. They work in a discrete work group within a single organization; they live in a household in a neighborhood; they are members of one or two kinship groups; and they participate in structured voluntary organizations: churches, bowling leagues, the ACM, and the like. These groups often have boundaries for inclusion and structured, hierarchical, organization: supervisors and employees, parents and children, pastors and churchgoers, organizational executives and members. In such a society, each interaction is in its place: one group at a time. Much social organization no longer fits the little-boxes model. Work, community and domesticity have moved from hierarchically arranged, densely knit, bounded groups (“little boxes”) to social networks. (Formally, a group is a special type of social network, but it is cognitively easier to compare the “group” metaphor with the “network” metaphor.) In networked societies, boundaries are more permeable, interactions are with diverse others, linkages switch between multiple networks, and hierarchies are both flatter and more complexly structured. The change from groups to networks can be seen in many milieus and at many levels. Trading and political blocs have lost their monolithic character in the world system. Organizations form complex networks of alliance and exchange, often in transient virtual or networked organizations. Workers (especially professionals, technical workers, and managers) report to multiple peers and superiors. Work relations spill over their nominal work group’s boundaries, and may even connect them to outside organizations. In virtual and networked organizations, management by network has people reporting to shifting sets of supervisors, peers, and even nominal subordinates. Rather than fitting into the same group as those around them, each person has her own personal network. Household members keep separate schedules, with family get-togethers – even common meals – on the decline. Instead of belonging to two stable kinship groups, people often have complex household relations, with stepchildren, ex-marital partners (and their progeny), and multiple sets of in-laws. Communities – in the flesh as well as in the ether – are far-flung, loosely-bounded, sparsely-knit and fragmentary. Most people operate in multiple, partial communities as they deal with shifting, amorphous networks of kin, neighbors, friends, workmates, and organizational ties. Their activities and relationships are informal rather than organizationally structured. If they go bowling, they rarely join formal leagues [7]. Only a minority of network members are directly connected with each another. Most friends and relatives live in different neighborhoods; many live in different metropolitan areas. At work, people often work with distant others and not those sitting near them [8]. This is a time for individuals and their networks, and not for groups. The proliferation of computer-supported social networks fosters changes in “network capital”: how people contact, interact, and obtain resources from each other. The broadly-embracing collectivity, nurturing and controlling, has become a fragmented, variegated and personalized social network. Autonomy, opportunity, and uncertainty are the rule. Complex social networks have always existed, but recent technologica l developments have afforded their emergence as a dominant form of social organization. Just as computer networks link machines, social networks link people. When computer-mediated communication networks link people, institutions and knowledge, they are computer -supported social networks. Often computer networks and social networks work conjointly, with computer networks linking people in social networks, and with people bringing their offline situations to bear when they use computer networks to communicate. The technological development of computer-communications networks and the societal flourish of social networks are now affording the rise of “networked individualism” in a positive feedback loop. Just as the flexibility of less-bounded, spatially dispersed, social networks creates demand for collaborative communication and information sharing, the rapid development of computer-communications networks nourishes societal transitions from little boxes to social networks [1] How has this transition come about? What implications does it have for computing, humanity and society? To address these questions, I build this article around a tripartite typology: