Robin Dunbar argues that our ‘social brain’ is only capable of having networks of about 150 people (Rainie & Wellman, 2014). Some would argue this number is too small, and if you consider every person you have interacted with in your life that would be the case. However, not every person you have met will be considered part of your social network, as different interactions have different levels of depth. Therefore, if you look at those people you would interact with on a frequent basis, (friends, relatives, neighbors, workmates, and families) that number of 150 people makes sense. There are many ways in which network size matters which Dunbar has given examples of.
Firstly, he argues that “the larger the network the more ties that can pass along information.” (Rainie & Wellman, 2014) In this case, the size of your network matters because with every person you meet comes an opportunity for them to teach you, or for you to teach them. Additionally, with this passing along of information usually comes more knowledge, more sharing and more communicating which would all be considered positive effects of the passing along of information. This matters in our daily lives because we would be nothing without our ability to learn, to grow and to share. Additionally, as human beings, social interaction is a necessary part of our lives, therefore the larger our network, the more people we will have the occasion of sharing with.
This idea of passing along information ties in well to Duncan’s following point: “The larger the network the more health benefits,” because “larger networks provide more social support.”(Rainie & Wellman, 2014 ) From a general perspective, it is true that the larger the network, the more people you would have to communicate with and the more supported you may feel. However, this is not the case for everyone and may greatly depend on each individual’s network. Some may have a huge network of surface level relationships, and therefore may not feel supported at all, which would do the opposite of providing health benefits. On the other hand, others with smaller networks may have a higher number of intimate relationships within their network. This would presumably make for a more supported person than one who has a bigger network made up of more shallow relationships.
Duncan contests this idea by stating that “although some might think that smaller networks will have higher – quality relationships-quality compensating for the lack of quantity – in fact, quantity goes along with quality. Not only do larger networks provide more support, but each person in a larger network is likely to be supportive.” (Rainie & Wellman, 2014) However, this arguably depends on each individual’s degree of sociability and whether they would engage with their peers for support in the first place. Some may even have many strong relationships but may not like to burden their friends with their problems and therefore cannot count on them for support. It is also difficult to say whether “each person in a larger network is likely to be supportive” without looking at the depth of each relationship.
Lastly, Duncan argues that “network size also matters because people can often reactivate latent ties when they travel to a place where they know people or they rekindle a common interest.” (Rainie & Wellman, 2014) As someone with ties all over the world, I have experienced the power of having a network that expands further than my neighborhood or country. Wherever I go in the world, the odds of someone in my network also being there are extremely high. In that sense, the nature of my personal network allows me to have many relationships that are not sustained through constant contact, but are sustained by my ability to run into them, and meet with them every few years, wherever we may be in the world.
A New York Times article entitled “How connected is your community to everywhere else in America?” also evaluated network sizes by looking at different American’s Facebook friends depending on their location. The writers had some interesting findings. According to this article, depending on where people reside in America, they are more or less likely to have a network that expands to all parts of America, or to just remain within their state or near state borders (Badger & Bui, 2018). Badger and Bui describe patterns that seem to correlate with the size and breadth of networks, stating that “counties with more dispersed networks — where a smaller share of Facebook friends are located nearby, or among the nearest 50 million people — are on average richer, more educated and have longer life expectancies.” (Badger & Bui, 2018) Although this pertains more to breadth and reach of networks, this ties into Duncan’s idea that the larger the network, the more information is spread (relating to higher education), and the more health benefits you receive (relating to longer life expectancies).
All in all, network size can matter in many different ways, whether it can provide health benefits in the way of social support, whether it can increase the likelihood of ties abroad, or whether it can aid the passing of more information. However, what is arguably more important than size, is the composition of these networks, the quality of these relationships, and the way in which each individual decides to engage with those within his or her social networks that truly determine whether network size matters.
Citations:
Badger, E., & Bui, Q. (2018, September 19). How Connected Is Your Community to Everywhere Else in America? Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/09/19/upshot/facebook-county-friendships.html
Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2014). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.