Social Capital, Relationships and Culture on the Internet: Embrace the revolution

26/04/2010 Bryce Sheehan 14 comments

Social Capital, Relationships and Culture on the Internet: Embrace the revolution

by Bryce Sheehan

Ever since the emergence of the Internet, some critics have been claiming it will be the downfall of our traditional society. That the Internet will lead to loss of privacy, impersonal communications and isolation. I will argue differently, that the changes in society are less of a degradation, but rather a revolution. Children and teenagers are growing up with the Internet being a large part of their social interaction; from Facebook, Twitter and MySpace and other social networking services (SNS) through to emerging Web 2.0 services, bringing an new connectedness and a social culture. These changes in social culture, enabled by the use of the Internet, will change traditional social standards. The traditional society as a community is being overtaken by digital communication, we need to embrace this revolution.

Humans have always been social creatures, craving acknowledgment and confirmations of their existence. Traditionally, the view of a social network was a village or a neighbourhood; however these neighbourhood and kinship ties are increasingly being usurped by relationships built online.

“strong, intimate ties can be maintained on-line as well as face-to-face. It is the siren call of the virtual community that is luring some people away from “real-life”. We believe that critics who disparage the authenticity of such strong, on-line ties are being unwarrantedly snobbish in disregarding the seriousness with which Net participants take their relationships” (Wellman & Gulia, 1999, p. 12).

Humans as individuals crave connection, the communication and relationship with other humans and desire community relationships with authenticity (Wesch, 2008). These connections and relationships build ’social capital’, an idea developed by L. J. Hanifan (1916). I will argue that the internet isn’t diminishing social capital, but it moving it from the physical to the digital world, as well as how the internet is shaping our culture and society beneficially. I will begin with presenting the new ways for people to connect over the internet, through SNS such as MySpace and Facebook, as well as through services such as Twitter. From there, I will present how ideological changes such as Web 2.0 are creating a new social media, largely facilitated by distribution platforms such as YouTube. Finally, I will finish on how the world is increasingly becoming more connected, and our identity and relationships are changing to accommodate this, but in no way detrimentally.

SNS have existed for a large part of the internet’s life as a way to socialise across physical barriers, and many critics of the Internet decry SNS as causing people to meet less in real life. The two dominant SNS in western spheres are MySpace and Facebook. MySpace began originally as a website for celebrities and emerging musicians, which attracted a younger demographic, who began to set up personal pages. MySpace became an attractive place to congregate online; with a large user base, it was common for entire social groups to have MySpace profiles and to ‘friend’ each other online. Many friend requests are unsolicited, or from acquaintances, creating a culture of maximising the number of friends; contributing to an individual’s social capital and self-image. Enlarged social circles, high number of friends and often large amounts of short comments left on one’s profile would often lead users into “becoming so dependent upon the community that they can be described as addicted” (Ridings & Gefen, 2004).

Facebook began as a public SNS in September 2006, aimed at a more mature audience than MySpace. Facebook is increasingly becoming a singular SNS for an individual’s social context, providing hosting services for a user’s photographs, personal videos and events. Facebook and SNS technology allows humans to “connect geographic and social extremes; migrations bring local cultures from one place to another in incessant and periodic flows; old friends cross the barriers of time and memory and meet again on Classmates or Facebook” (Paz, 2009, p. 131). Different SNS are popular for different demographics and geographic locations because of their social context, however the concept is the same; “computer-mediated communication … will do by way of electronic pathways what cement roads were unable to do, namely connect us rather than atomize us, put us at the controls of a `vehicle’ and yet not detach us from the rest of the world” (Patton, 1986).

“What are you doing?” or more recently: “What’s happening?”, is the beckoning from Twitter, a ‘micro-blogging’ SNS established publicly in July 2006. Twitter could be heralded as the SNS which began the short status update revolution. The status-update model that Twitter is based on had been part of other service’s beforehand, however the feature was often one-way. Twitter updates consisted of the mundane through to the unique. User’s could answer the question; “What’s happening?” and anyone who was interested would listen.

“The vast majority of the information I am interested in comes to me, rather than me having to go out and find it. Social networks such as Twitter and Tumblr are excellent examples of this. By choosing who to follow, each individual can create their own ideal flow of information that contains exactly what they are interested in.” (Holden, 2009).

These short, unimportant updates allow people to know each other across geographical divides. Sometimes, feeling at home can be just knowing what your relative ate for breakfast. It comes down to: “I want you to know what I’m doing because I know you”. Sometimes it is the perspective or retelling of the mundane which sparks interest or prompts reconnection.

Services such as Twitter are used as prime examples of Web 2.0 technology. The cultural ideology of Web 2.0 isn’t a static definition, it’s based on various factors; openness, participation, contribution, collective intelligence and community. These ideals easily resemble the ideologies of collectivist countries, in order to bring forth an egalitarian culture; however the Internet is not so political.

“This immaterial economy is based on a massive collaborative process of work, with a transformation of the value theory from a value based on the quantity of abstract working time, using a Marxist approach, to a value based on the production of commons.” (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007, p. 63). Another aspect of Web 2.0 is ‘mashups’ or combining sources of data in order to gain insights. Two web services launched recently: Foursquare and Gowalla, combine GPS location with a SNS. Adding people you know as friends allows you to see the places they ‘check in’. These location updates provide an easy way to broadcast to friends where you are at any one time. Services like these are redefining the local meeting place, as well as encouraging interaction with the real world social community.

The Internet isn’t changing culture in regards to communication, but also broadcasting. Through various means, the Internet is transforming the traditional broadcasting and publication processes which shape our culture. As Greg Downey reviewing Jonathan Zittrain describes: “Both the Internet and the PC, he argues, have expressed a property he calls “generativity” or “a system’s capacity to produce unanticipated change through unfiltered contributions from broad and varied audiences” (Downey, 2009, p. 964, Zittrain, 2008). This generativity results in a ‘participatory media’, where users are producers of media, often transforming existing media, recreating culture with the users at the helm.

“Personal home pages turn average users, who are normally consumers of conventional media like TV, radio, or newspapers, into “producers of mass communication content.” In the past few years, this trend has become a widespread phenomenon with numerous different applications; Internet users write public blogs and publish private photos” (Dominick, 1999, p. 652).

The results of this remixed media is a product of the new internet culture; Old media is changed to fit a new situation and context, becomes uniquely personal and opinionated eg: (blimvisible, 2007). This production and expression is indicative of the changed social structure: the creation of Internet-based broadcast platforms and the movement from consumers to producers of media. The ease of transmission and distribution of information and media not only allows users to reach worldwide audiences, it also threatens intellectual property owners.

“Filmmakers and cinematic mega-corporations ask themselves if movie theaters, already diminished by television, video, and the pirated circulation of films, will survive the easy dissemination of films via Internet. Faced with the rise of Amazon and Google, writers and editors doubt the future of the printed book, and from there the future of libraries. The music industry’s major labels see their sales plummet thanks also to pirated circulation and Web dissemination.” (Canclini et al., 2009, p. 140).

Services such as YouTube are often described as being Web 2.0, due to it’s participatory and new media culture. Remixed content is often removed after demands from copyright holders, even though it often falls under fair dealing for research and study, review and criticism, ‘reporting the news’, legal advice or parody and satire. “Self-production will not develop if people do not have models produced by cultural industries to copy, parody, sample and compare.” (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007, p. 53). Never before has cultural media been changed by the hands of so many people; it is important that keeping with the ideals of Web 2.0, access and the ability to remix media is kept open.

Increasingly, smartphone and mobile access to the internet enables users to be involved in social media even while they are away from their computer. Even developing nations often have high rates of mobile phone usage (Timmons, 2007, Tryhorn, 2009, Virki, 2007, Engeler, 2010). Twitter began as an Short Message Service (SMS) based service at its conception, and still is; SNS can be built on existing technologies allowing access anywhere to the largest population possible. In developed countries, smartphones have leapt from simply being for corporate use and are now in the hands on ordinary users. A rich browsing experience, as well as native applications for SNS, can mirror the experience while using the SNS on a computer.

Conclusion

Comparing Internet social ties to traditional relationships does not factor the Internet itself into conclusions. Never before in human history has there been a tool such as the Internet which enabled seamless communication and information access. The Internet is not going to go away, and society will have to adapt to the changes that will happen. Existing communication mediums were largely restrictive by geographical factors; to communicate with people, you would need to see them in person (in the case of a local community), or find their contact details through a real-world source (in order to contact them by mail or telephone). The extent to which computers and networks have been integrated, culminating in the Internet, bridges geographical divides, allowing communication between people with similar interests. These people can then build relationships, be they weak or strong, and share experiences and information.

“The ubiquity of PCs and networks–and the integration of the two–have thus bridged the interests of technical audiences and artistic and expressive ones, making the grid’s generativity relevant not only to creativity in code-writing as an end, but to creativity in other artistic ventures as well, including those that benefit from the ability of near-strangers to encounter each other on the basis of mutual interest, form groups, and then collaborate smoothly enough that actual works can be generated.” (Downey, 2009, p. 96).

The collaboration between complete strangers contributes to the new form of social capital; people are creating relationships “by fewer degrees of separation than we supposed, in a social space which is growing ever smaller, more techno-connected, a more networked planet.” (Paz, 2009, p. 131). Previously, the structure of a person’s information and resource network was directly limited by their geographic situation, now with the Internet a person’s social network can easily span the globe. The Internet has potential for people to make connections “without regard to race, creed, gender or geography” (Wellman & Gulia, 1999, p. 1).

Community on the Internet is taking a shape far different from the traditional society hierarchy. The value of weak ties on the Internet in order to source information is far greater than that in traditional society, and weak cooperation leads to far greater amounts of valuable weak ties (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007). Just as it is important to distinguish a person’s community and their society, physical and virtual communities must be viewed as mutually exclusive social organisations (Katz, 2004). These individual organisations provide different forms of social capital, and although some of its members may be members of both organisations, the interactions can be just as beneficial.

“Our analyses have implications for communication praxis. One is that the pessimists have overlooked many positives conferred by mediated communication. Rather than indulging in self-serving hand-wringing over the seemingly continual eroding of physical community and social capital, cynics may find it more useful to look at how the fundamental attributes of social capital are alive and well in virtual communities, and what might be done to foster them. Moreover, theorists of virtuality might benefit from a broader understanding of what is termed social capital.” (Katz, 2004, p. 361)

In the same way as the telephone and later the television eventually integrated fully into society, I believe the Internet will do the same. Maybe we are already at that point? We should still be wary of creating a ‘Solid State Society’, created in fiction by Masamune Shirow or a futuristic dystopia envisioned by Isaac Asimov; but that isn’t to say we should be xenophobic. The Internet is here to stay, an increasingly integral part of our culture, creating disruptive changes in society’s idea of ’space’. I think we should embrace the changes that will develop through the internet, impacting our social culture.

“Many authors have developed the idea that the world is shifting from an industrial economy to an informational and immaterial economy with the rise of pervasive Internet practices as a central component” (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007, p. 63).

People want to connect because they’re alone. It doesn’t matter who you are, or how well I know you, I want to interact with you. We aren’t losing friends. We aren’t weakening our relationships. We’re reconnecting. Broadcasting. I am here; I exist; and I acknowledge you.

References

Aguiton, C., Cardon, D. (2007). The strength of weak cooperation: An attempt to understand the meaning of web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 51-65.

blimvisible (2007). Us. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yxHKgQyGx0

Canclini, G., Néstor, & Schwartz (2009). How digital convergence is changing cultural theory. Popular communication, 7(3), 140-146. translated by Margaret Schwartz.

Dominick, J. (1999). Who do you think you are? personal home pages and self presentation on the world wide web. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 76, 646-658.

Downey, G. (2009). The future of the internet-and how to stop it. Technology and Culture, 50, 962-964.

Engeler, E. (2010). Cell phone use surging in developing countries. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35539966/ (accessed Sunday April 4, 2010).

Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 67, 130-138.

Holden, S. (2009). Google is dead? Teacher: The National Education Magazine, November, 66.

Katz, et al. (2004). Personal Mediated Communication and the Concept of Community in Theory and Practice, chapter 9, 315-371. Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.

Patton, P. (1986). Open Road. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Paz, J. (Jul 2009). Techno-cultural convergence: Wanting to say everything, wanting to watch everything. Popular Communication, 7(3), 130-.

Ridings, C. & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang out online. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(1).

Timmons, H. (2007). For the rural poor, cellphones come calling. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/technology/06iht-wireless07.1.5582419.html (accessed Sunday April 4, 2010).

Tryhorn, C. (2009). Developing countries drive explosion in global mobile phone use. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/02/mobile-phone-internet-developingworld (accessed Sunday April 4, 2010).

Virki, T. (2007). Global cell phone use at 50 percent. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2917209520071129 (accessed Sunday April 4, 2010).

Wellman, B. & Gulia, M. (1999). Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone: Virtual Communities as Communities. Routledge: New York.

Wesch, M. (2008). An anthropological guide to youtube. Retrieved from http://youtu.be/TPAO-lZ4_hU

Zittrain, J. (2008). The Future of the Internet And How to Stop It. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Communities and Web 2.0 communication, culture, Facebook, internet, myspace, relationships, social capital, social networking sites, twitter, web 2.0, youtube

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by steam cleaner mop reviews about 1 month ago. Reply

Are you serious? I am not so sure about the legitimacy of your facts. Seems kinda bogus.

steam mops reviews
Written by invest liberty reserve about 1 month ago. Reply

An absorbing discourse is designer mention. I reckon that you should pen author on this content, it might not be a inhibition individual but generally fill are not sufficiency to speak on much topics. To the succeeding. Cheers like your Social Capital, Relationships and Culture on the Internet: Embrace the revolution – Online Conference on Networks and Communities.
Written by chanel bags about 2 months ago. Reply

This particular chanel handbags adult men would likely take his or her fashion advised women pals coupled,
Written by Lee-Ann Khoh about 2 years ago. Reply

I think depending partly on your age and/or how comfortable you are with the notion of technological progress and societal shifts, the internet is either some grand mysterious entity or simply an extension of ourselves. People who condemn the internet overlook that it can be used for both good (e.g. reducing geographical barriers to communication and collaboration) and bad (e.g. cyberbullying, which I talk about in my paper), and this is more about people using it than the technology itself. One could sit at the computer all day neglecting real life social interactions and friendships, but one could similarly spend all day/night socialising without enjoying any meaningful relationships or getting any work done, and neither extreme is any better than the other.
Written by Nat about 2 years ago. Reply

Bryce,
Your statement “The traditional society as a community is being overtaken by digital communication, we need to embrace this revolution.” Is similarly to a point I am making in my paper on professional development. The need for the information professionals to embrace web 2.0 and become leaders in its use thus professional development is the best avenue to do this.

As I’m reading through more and more papers, I’m finding a comment thread regarding the internet and its ties to the physical world. “value of weak ties on the Internet in order to source information is far greater than that in traditional society, and weak cooperation leads to far greater amounts of valuable weak ties (Aguiton and Cardon, 2007).” Other papers have similarly argued that community ties strong or weak are important and both have a place in relationships both online and offline. Conversely it is the online weak ties that are of most value.

Inline with comments from Keith Law, I also hope that the Canclini et al comment “writers and editors doubt the future of the printed book, and from there the future of libraries” will not come true. I believe that information professionals including the librarian are needed as an authoritative voice on information content and its validity.

Your ending comment “I am here; I exist; and I acknowledge you” was a nice touch.
Written by KayeE about 2 years ago. Reply

Thanks Bryce – Good paper and I enjoyed reading it. I particularly liked your comment that “community on the Internet is taking a shape far different from the traditional society hierarchy”. We are in many ways travelling a new road with the Internet and it is very different to the norms and values of our traditional society. I am a great advocate of the Internet and how it can add to a person’s social experience yet I am aware that there are many dangers as well. A number of times you mention critics of the Internet or SNSs in particular – I would be really interested in reading some of these views – do you have any details of references that I could read?

Thanks,
Kaye
- Written by Bryce Sheehan about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Here are just a few from the Conference here:
  
  http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/the-importance-of-online-identity-and-the-dangers-of-it/
  
  http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/identity-and-privacy-concerns-in-teenagers%e2%80%99-online-social-network/
  
  http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/bullying-2-0-the-rise-of-cyberbullying/
  
  http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/addictive-web-2-0-features-losing-contact-from-physical-world/
  
  Sorry for the late reply, I have been pushed for time recently. If I come across some more, I will add them.
Written by Stevie Marshall about 2 years ago. Reply

Nice paper.

My own paper http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/commodifying-community/ explores social capital on the Internet. I look at Robert Putnam’s work on social capital, particularly ‘Bowling Alone’ (Putnam 2000) where he identified a decline in the social capital in the latter part of the 20th century. This was caused by generational differences which he claims are best characterised by an increase in the pressures of time and money, improved mobility creating an urban “sprawl” effect, and an increase in the penetration of mass media devices like the television. I like how social media on the net easily combats all three of these reasons, and in the case of mass-media, Youtube creates an alternative that actually increases social currency.

As I outline in my paper, there is a price to be considered for all this extra social capital before we fully ‘embrace the revolution’. That price is the ultimate commodification of our social capital. Primarily to line the pockets of venture capitalists and enterprising marketers.
Written by Keith Law about 2 years ago. Reply

“Faced with the rise of Amazon and Google, writers and editors doubt the future of the printed book, and from there the future of libraries.”
I hope this quote is totally wrong. I have tried ebooks and other than as a reference they do not have the comfort and efficiency of a paper book. I remember claims of paperless offices being the new future and I think this quote will go the same way as the paperless office.
Here is some data about book sales in the United States. Essential the prediction is for ebooks to be 13% of the total sales by 2015. I think the libraries are safe. Libraries already lend DVD and all sorts of media and could easily lend ebooks and kindle. I doubt there is any real threat to libraries in the near future.
Association of American Publishers Annual Book Sales (Polls major publishers and uses U.S. Census data)
2008 Total Book Sales: $24.3 billion
Annual Change: -2.8 percent
2007 Total Book Sales: $25.0 billion
Annual Change: -3.2 percent
2006 Total Book Sales: $24.2 billion
Annual Change: -3.59 percent
2005 Total Book Sales: $25.1 billion
Annual Change: +5.91
2004 Total Book Sales: $23.7 billion
Annual Change: +1.3 percent
Source: Association of American Publishers
(Book Sales Statistics, 2010)
Business Week website gives a much more recent set of statistics and opinion. The website states:
“U.S. book sales will rise 5.8 percent through 2015 as more people buy digital versions for Apple Inc.’s iPad and Amazon.com Inc.’s Kindle, even as traditional book sales drop, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. said.
Industry wide sales will increase to $24.9 billion in 2015 from $23.5 billion this year, Goldman Sachs analyst James Mitchell said in a report today. E-book sales will jump more than fourfold in the period to $3.19 billion while print book sales probably will fall 4.9 percent to $21.7 billion, he said.” Can you believe Goldman Sachs?
(Bensinger, 2010)

“People want to connect because they’re alone. It doesn’t matter who you are, or how well I know you, I want to interact with you. We aren’t losing friends. We aren’t weakening our relationships. We’re reconnecting. Broadcasting. I am here; I exist; and I acknowledge you.”

This is a gross generalisation. True there may be a percentage of the population who feel that way but I’m sure most people including youth still prefer a physical relationship. Some of us like to be alone other than for our close personal relationships and see the Internet as a tool and information system rather than a way of life. We interact widely on the Internet when there is a need but this need is not social.

WORKS CITED
Bensinger, G. (2010, April 12). Bloomberg Business Week. Retrieved April 28, 2010, from Business Week: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-12/u-s-book-sales-to-increase-on-e-books-goldman-says-correct-.html
Book Sales Statistics. (2010). Retrieved April 28, 2010, from Booksahead.com: http://booksahead.com/?page_id=129
- Written by Bryce Sheehan about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  “I hope this quote is totally wrong. I have tried ebooks and other than as a reference they do not have the comfort and efficiency of a paper book. I remember claims of paperless offices being the new future and I think this quote will go the same way as the paperless office.”
  
  I am the same; I love reading paper books and have a subscription to WIRED, even though all their content is mirrored online. Taken in the context of the argument, however, it is not assailing the demise of analogue media. My emphasis in using that quote was on the two comments: “…already diminished by television, video, and the pirated circulation of films, will survive the easy dissemination of films via Internet” and “The music industry’s major labels see their sales plummet thanks also to pirated circulation and Web dissemination”.
  
  “This is a gross generalisation.”
  
  Very true, to a point. Admittedly, I found my last paragraph to be the best I could muster to finish off a paper which would undoubtedly polarise people. However, in order to balance the argument, I counter myself with: “We should still be wary of creating a ‘Solid State Society’, created in fiction by Masamune Shirow or a futuristic dystopia envisioned by Isaac Asimov; but that isn’t to say we should be xenophobic”. Sure, many people still use the internet as an information technology tool and barely else, but in their case one would assume that those people would not use social media extensively and their social capital would be largely, if not entirely, traditional. Therefore, no social capital movement would occur, and the whole paragraph (or paper for that matter) would not apply to them.
  
  “We interact widely on the Internet when there is a need but this need is not social.”
  
  Whether the interaction is for recreation or through necessity, as soon as you interact, social cues, etiquette and communication occur, which is undeniably (or not, as you suggest) social. ‘Social’ in the sense of society and communication, rather than drinks and socialising.
Written by Josh v about 2 years ago. Reply

Great paper Bryce,

I feel we experience the social effects (even within this course/conference) of web technologies saturating and revolutionizing our lives more and more… Although, we still have to choose to engage with these technologies as social platforms – there is plenty of room to ignore the revolution : )

I agree with your points about generating social capital across our online networks. I feel our online and offline realities seamlessly blend to form a new type of interaction. “‘Virtual reality is not “real”, but has a relationship to the real’ (Turkle, S. 1997) and the situations and communities that we encounter online are extensions of the physical world.” (From my paper – Cut and Paste Identities: Creating our own Realities Online)

While this definately is a revolution in communications, I still feel that it’s not all positive and many aspects of socializing across the web are impersonal and invasive to our privacy. Do you think by embracing these technologies as a social platform users should change how they communicate? Or should these technologies change to accomadate our interactions?

Thanks Bryce, I enjoyed reading your paper…

: )

Josh v

http://networkconference.netstudies.org/2010/04/cut-and-paste-identities-creating-our-own-realities-online/
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply

An outstanding paper Bryce, well argued and supported by lots of evidence and points to support it. Well written too. I do not agree with you personally, I feel it is splitting society and isolating people, but I point out that much of what you write is true. I agree with you that it has integrated into our society especially in Australia. The fact that I cannot accept Twitter and Facebook people as ‘friends’ is simply my view, perhaps generational which is strange as I have been a techno person since 1981. Yet I see from your paper the value of those weak ties as being valuable (Aguiton & Cardon, 2007). So perhaps my perception of the definition of ‘friend’ should change, so your paper has gotten me thinking. Your conclusion is very good.

It would be splitting hairs to criticise and there is a word limit, though perhaps the work of Robert Putnam with Bowling Alone could have been mentioned see Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowling_Alone – though many would argue about the term social capital so I would mention that whilst it is contested as a term a definition to those new to it might have been added.

Aguiton, C., Cardon, D. (2007). The strength of weak cooperation: An attempt to understand the meaning of web 2.0. Communications & Strategies, 65(1), 51-65.
- Written by Bryce Sheehan about 2 years ago. Reply
  
  Thanks! I had seen ‘Bowling Alone’ mentioned on the Discussion Forums, unfortunately I never investigated it, nor did I realise that it centred around social capital. If I had known about it beforehand, I would have definitely used some references.
  - Written by Michael N about 2 years ago. Reply
    
    That’s ok Bryce it would not have detracted from your paper not using it, the main thing is to be aware that it is an influential but not perfect view of American life which in some ways has come true. Just in the future if you were ever interested some of his assertions are a bit like Tofflers in that things Puttnam wrote about, such as massive community fragmentation where we communicate with millions rather than just the neighbours, are now proved to be mostly true.