Mark Granovetter: “People dating on the internet is interesting and confusing at the same time”

He doesn’t have Instagram and says he uses Facebook very little. However, his theory published in the 1970s about ‘weak ties’, those that go beyond friends and family (to lifelong ‘acquaintances’, and who now plague our online contacts), revolves around the same center of the essence of social networks. The sociologist Mark Granovetter (USA, 1943) was the one who realized that we are more likely to find work thanks to the neighbor on the fifth floor than by the action of our own brother, paradoxical as it sounds. Now, in a connected world, he says he is fascinated by how human beings have taken these ‘weak links’ to the internet, to the workplace, and how emotional relationships arise directly from online platforms. Still, he doesn’t think it’s possible for these digital interactions to replace real-life ones. “In the end, even though I have met you on the internet, I will want to be in the same room as you at some point,” he tells ABC in person and out loud at the headquarters of the BBVA Foundation in Bilbao, hours before receiving the Frontiers of Knowledge Award in the category of Humanities and Social Sciences. – You are famous for your theories about the so-called ‘weak links’. What are these links and how do they affect us? Think about the people with whom you have a close relationship, such as family and friends. They probably know the same information as you, because they move in the same circle. Now reflect on those people you know, but with whom you do not have a close relationship. Those are the weak links and they are the ones that provide us with new information, because they are related to other different circles. Strong ties are very important for social support or emotional bonds; but weak links, despite their name, have much more strength to gather information. MORE INFORMATION This is Vega-C, the European rocket that wants to compete against Elon Musk’s space fleet This is the deepest image of the universe, an ‘appetizer’ of what we will see with the new James Webb telescope – His work around the ‘weak ties’ was initially rejected by a magazine. However, it became the most cited work in the social sciences. That’s how it is. The problem is that when I first wrote that article, the original title was ‘Alienation reconsidered’ (translated into something like ‘alienation reconsidered’). At that time, the editor of that magazine sent it to the reviewers and perhaps sent it to European alienist theorists, close to Marxism, and who think that only Marx understood that concept. And if I didn’t interpret it the same way, I was wrong. No more. Everything went well when I got that idea out of the studio. So it was much better. – And this did not affect the core of your theory? – It was a small change in emphasis. Alienation was never the main focus of the theme, so I didn’t mind changing it either. – Social networks have changed our way of relating. How do they fit into your theories? Obviously, when I wrote the study they did not exist, because they did not appear until the early 2000s. But I think the surprise is that social networks reinforce my theory. At that time it was difficult to maintain this concept of weak links. However, the online world makes it possible to maintain hundreds of weak links that you would otherwise find it very difficult to keep active. – Every time there are different types of social networks: to look for work, to find love, to make friends… Should we create a new category of weak links? – Most of the weak links that are maintained in social networks are from people you already know in real life, do not create them from scratch from the online world. Although it is true that some platforms encourage people to meet for the first time through a computer or a mobile phone, and that is something new that we do not know how it will evolve. For example, in applications with video calls you can see their face, their gestures, hear their voice… that is much closer to real life. I’m not sure how this is going to play out, but I don’t think it’s ever going to replace meeting people in real life, because after a while, you’re going to want those people to be in the same room as you. – Did you expect a revolution of such caliber? – It is something very interesting: social networks become a great tool to find work and that was already pointed out in my theory. But the human being also has other needs. There are studies going back 100 years on how we find our partners. Those studies always indicated that you met people through friends, or friends of friends, relatives… Until five or ten years ago, where people matched through different applications. That’s a big surprise, and it’s a very interesting and confusing phenomenon at the same time. In fact, I am looking for a student to study why the same mechanisms that are used in dating are not followed also between employers. For example, to meet someone, we have brief encounters that do not have to have any consequences. Or yes, depending on the affinity. But this does not happen in the world of work, where in most cases, even with interns, the relationship continues even when it does not work out. Here we have a divergence between finding romantic partners and employees. It is something fascinating that would need study. – It talks about love, but also its counterpart, hate, spreads differently through social networks. – Effectively. Hate also spreads through these new social links, especially through closed circles that close in on themselves and do not listen to anyone else. It is something new, where really painful situations occur. – Can the ‘influencers’ become a kind of ‘strong links’? – Anyone who thinks that an influencer is a strong link, is confused: they are paid according to a number of followers, which they can influence, it is true; but it is not the same the other way around, because in most cases these ‘influencers’ do not know their followers. It is an asymmetric relationship. – Do you use social networks? – A little nothing more. I prefer real life. I do not belong to that generation that constantly uses social networks, like my students. Although they are very useful for me, for example, to meet once a month with my colleagues. Before, all this was much more complex: you had to cross the country to do it; now you just have to go to the computer. Still, I don’t think they will ever replace personal ties, although in some cases they reinforce them. For example, my students share photos with their friends, comment on them, talk… It’s something important for that generation. But it is complicated, because although it has enriched them, on the other hand it has also impoverished them. – Sociology tries to explain human relationships, but these are very changeable, more so in these times. For example, movements like ‘Me too’ have made us reflect on different behaviors, accepted just a few years ago but now cause some situations to ‘squeak’ us. – Before social networks, social movements already existed. In the 1920s, one emerged that proclaimed the idea that women had the right to vote. Now it shocks us for the opposite, but at that time it was considered something radical. In the 1960s in the US there was a very important civil rights movement that produced significant changes; And there were no social networks. In the case of ‘Me too’, I think it has been very much driven by the internet. And something similar has happened with the LGTBI movement. These are phenomena that would have gone ahead just the same, but possibly more slowly. However, the opposite phenomenon also occurs: social networks can be used to oppose the movement. It is something very complex and interesting. -Max Weber, one of his idols, delved into the importance of religion, specifically Protestantism, in the rise of capitalism. How do religions influence today’s world? Do they have the same weight as before? -When I said that Weber was my idol, I did not think about his arguments about religion, although they were very interesting. I believe that in the country, the United States, there are two aspects: there are those for whom religion is very important, almost the center of their lives; and those who don’t see it that way. And this divergence is much larger than it was in the past, so this is a very complicated issue. It’s not something Max Weber wrote about because you didn’t see anything like it in his time. So we need another Max Weber to write on this topic.