The Global Sociology Blog

So, this graph is current making the rounds of the sociosphere (via):

So, women rule, right? Well, no.Let’s not get carried away.

First, the fact that women do more of something does not mean they “rule”. It just means they do more of it. So, the labels “matriarchy” and “patriarchy” are, I think, not applicable here.

Second, we already know that in the family structures, even before the emergence of social networking platforms, women did most of the work of maintaining social relationships with other family members and relatives. Who writes Christmas cards? Who calls relatives to check on them? Etc.

Third, the graph might give the idea that women then, through their “dominance” over social networking platforms, collect more social capital in Bourdieu’s sense:

“Social capital is the sum of resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of  more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition.” (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992: 119)

When it comes to social networking platforms, beyond the quantitative aspects (how many people are on Facebook or Twitter), one needs to ask what exactly people do with these platforms. And this is where Putnam’s distinction between different types of social capital comes in: bridging (or inclusive) and bonding (or exclusive)

“Bonding social capital tends to reinforce exclusive identities and maintain homogeneity; bridging social capital tends to bring together people across social divisions. Each form is helpful in meeting different needs. Bonding social capital is good for ‘undergirding specific reciprocity and mobilisin [sic] solidarity’, while serving as ‘a kind of sociological superglue’ in maintaining strong in-group loyalty and reinforcing specific identities. Bridging connections ‘are better for linkage to external assets and for information diffusion’, and provide a ‘sociological WD-40′ that can ‘generate broader identities and reciprocity’ (Putnam 2000: 22-3).” (Field 2003: 32-3)

So I submit the following: bonding = weakness of strong ties, and bridging = strength of weak ties.

At one of the sessions I attended at the ASA this year (I don’t have my notes handy, sorry), the case was made that women use social networking platforms to maintain bonding capital. They network with people they already know, their in-group. On the other hand, men use social networking platforms to, well, network outside of their immediate in-group, that is, men use these technologies to increase their bridging capital and gain access to other networks.

So bridging capital involves greater social power as it is capital that really increases one’s network whereas bonding capital keeps one within one’s network. One could argue that there is greater benefit to bridging capital than to bonding capital. Also, men are able to “bridge” because many women take care of the “bonding”. Gender division of labor and all.

So, do women rule the social web? I don’t think so.