« Ozzie on Us on Email |
Main
| HeadCloud: Telepathy of Sorts »
October 2, 2003
the value of urban tribes
Posted by danah boyd
This week, Ethan Watters' book
"Urban Tribes" hits the bookstores. After the popular reception of his New York Times article
"The Way We Live Now: In My Tribe," Watters started documenting different forms of "urban tribes." These collectives are often comprised of tightly-knit groups of overeducated, unmarried, 25-39 year old friends who came together in cities to provide support and companionship. Watters argues that the power of these collectives allows people to postpone marriage as the primary support networks are embedded in the tribe. He also argues that Robert Putnam's theory of "Bowling Alone" fails to take into account these new formations which encompass many of the community behaviors that Putnam argues are missing in contemporary culture.
While it's primarily a generation book, Watters' ideas are fascinating, as they blend academic ideas, journalism and personal anecdotes. Plus, he is pointing at a phenomenon that is quite relevant to the emergent YASNS phenomenon. I would posit that if you look at the structure of how the Friendster meme spread, you will be able to see the role of these tribes. Peer pressure in the densely knit tribes required participation and the bridges between tribes generated the spread. Normally, this type of spread is common in colleges or other environments with strong clustering; Friendster suggests that clusters do exist in the post-college urban world.
Comments (6)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: guests
- RELATED ENTRIES
- › Spolsky on Blog Comments: Scale matters
- › "The internet's output is data, but its product is freedom"
- › Andrew Keen: Rescuing 'Luddite' from the Luddites
- › knowledge access as a public good
- › viewing American class divisions through Facebook and MySpace
- › Gorman, redux: The Siren Song of the Internet
- › Mis-understanding Fred Wilson's 'Age and Entrepreneurship' argument
- › The Future Belongs to Those Who Take The Present For Granted: A return to Fred Wilson's "age question"
1. zephoria on October 2, 2003 6:58 PM writes...
PS: For those in San Francisco, Ethan Watters will be speaking at The Commonwealth Club of California, San Francisco tonite at 6:30PM: http://www.commonwealthclub.org/sf.html
Permalink to Comment2. jeff on October 3, 2003 9:50 AM writes...
There's a _scathing_ but extensive review of Urban Tribes over at Peter Merholz's blog:
Permalink to Commenthttp://www.peterme.com/archives/000167.html
3. Adrian Chan on October 3, 2003 3:31 PM writes...
I have lived in an urban tribe for the past 10 years right here in Ethan's hometown of San Francisco. There's no question that tribes are a real and functional (even when dysfunctional) alternative to nuclear family models for some people and for some period of time. They are, like any social system, good for their members only insofar as their members renew their membership! Urban tribes can be characterized by some pretty strong bonds, but that doesnt stop them or their members from falling apart. They are not blood relations (filial systems) or mafia/gang systems (hierarchies, coercion, obligation).
Permalink to CommentI think though that there are only analogies to the social software phenomenon. Because tribe, friendster, etc operate off of weak ties and extrapolated connections. Ask not what you can do for your tribe, but what it will do for you. That would be the test of an online tribe!
4. zephoria on October 3, 2003 8:22 PM writes...
Jeff - thanks for the pointer! I am definitely aware of the critiques of Ethan's writing.
I guess the value i draw from the book has less to do with the writing and more with it being a first pop-culture pass at trying to explain certain phenomenons that are contemporarily present. I also do believe that he is getting at something in his arguments against Putnam, even if it's a little hard to swallow the writing. I also do think that he puts forward a framework that should be investigated sociologically.
Permalink to Comment5. Jen on October 7, 2003 7:11 PM writes...
Let me first admit I've neither read the book nor read any reviews, though I did attend his lecture last week.
However, I left the lecture feeling as if he's yet another writer who has charted something as it finally gains enough critical mass that even middle class conventional folks like himself finally noticed it. Meaning, I can imagine that any urban dwelling folk outside mainstream culture since cities have existed have formed their own families, whether out of friendship or just need. It's now just interesting to mainstream America because so many otherwise "marketable" folk (meaning, people who could get married or form long term relationships but are choosing not to) are now choosing this path. The one thing that was pointed out that is likely contributing to this is the liberation of women from needing to be dependent upon a male partner to having careers of their own. But otherwise, I felt as if there wasn't anything dramatically new here.
Permalink to Comment6. jo snarky on November 3, 2003 9:02 PM writes...
You mean to tell me that cute, white, pseudobohemian yuppies in their thirties who aren't married get together and hang out in *groups*!???!!! That is like so cool. Just more proof that in publishing, as everywhere else, it's definitely not what you know, it's how skillfully your tribe, or should I say "Grotto" courts the press and writes blurbs for each other's jackets.
Permalink to Comment