Network theorists attempt to illustrate the social situation of individuals through the observation of their relationships with other people. They note relationships that individuals have with one another and use statistical measures in order to visualize them. Network analysts describe the relationships between individuals and use this information in order to make inferences and conclusions pertaining to the group based upon its observed dynamics. 

There has been debate over the importance of weak and strong ties in regard to an individual’s social situation. Network theorists have described a tie as a relationship between individuals that is characterized by four main components: time, emotional intensity, intimacy, and reciprocal services (i.e. “if you scratch my back, then I’ll scratch yours”). In network sociology, a weak tie is defined as local bridges between two disparate social groups. Some sociologists have argued that weak ties have a greater impact on an individual’s social capital because they are exposed to a group of individuals that are not part of their immediate social network. On the other hand, network theorists have argued that the importance of strong ties has been largely ignored. Sociologists have argued that these tight in-group relations between individuals of social groups are imperative for the transmission of information.

This theory was studied by observing employees in Silicon Valley that were attempting to unionize. Network theorists had individuals in the company write down two names: the name of the person they get advice from (i.e. a weak tie) and the person they consider as a friend (i.e. strong tie). The theorists attempted to understand the differences between whom individuals interact with at work and whom they choose to spend time with outside of the company’s walls. This distinction illustrates the difference between weak and strong ties—that is advice networks at work and friendship networks that extended beyond the physical space of the corporation. Using this information, the researchers were able to create network sociograms that depicted both the friendship and advisory networks of the company.

While sociologists were investigating this information, they were able to observe and apply their data to an attempt to unionize at the company. This group of employees’ attempt to unionize failed and the sociologists were able to use their network data to explain this phenomenon. They concluded that the unionization attempt failed because, while the individuals that were spearheading it were influential in the advice network, they lacked the strong ties in the friends network necessary to form the union. Specifically they did not have ties to influential members of the corporation (i.e. bosses and members of the board). Without the support of influential strong ties in their immediate social networks these individuals were unable to properly form a union. In other words, weak ties in the advisory network introduced them to individuals of power; however, their inability to form strong, friendship bonds with them detrimentally affected their attempts to form a union. 

The passage and the figures are in agreement that strong ties have the ability to transmit information effectively within a social network such as a company. They also agree that these ties can aid in the development of friendship bonds with individuals of power. 

Passage 1

Passage adapted from Samuel Adams’ “Letter to James Warren: November 4, 1775.”

We may look up to Armies for our Defense, but Virtue is our best Security. It is not possible that any State should long remain free, where Virtue is not supremely honored. This is as seasonably as it is justly said by one of the most celebrated Writers of the present time. Perhaps the Form of Government now adopted and set up in the Colony may be permanent. Should it be only temporary the golden opportunity of recovering the Virtue & reforming the Manners of our Country should be industriously improved. Our Ancestors in the most early Times laid an excellent Foundation for the security of Liberty by setting up in a few years after their Arrival a public Seminary of Learning; and by their Laws they obliged every Town consisting of a certain Number of Families to keep and maintain a Grammar School. I shall be very sorry, if it be true as I have been informed, that some of our Towns have dismissed their Schoolmasters, alleging that the extraordinary Expense of defending the Country renders them unable to support them. I hope this Inattention to the Principles of our Forefathers does not prevail. If there should be any Danger of it, would not the leading Gentlemen do eminent Service to the Public, by impressing upon the Minds of the People, the Necessity & Importance of encouraging that System of Education, which in my opinion is so well calculated to diffuse among the Individuals of the Community the Principles of Morality, so essentially necessary to the Preservation of public Liberty.

There are Virtues & vices which are properly called political. "Corruption, Dishonesty to ones Country Luxury and Extravagance tend to the Ruin of States." The opposite Virtues tend to their Establishment. But "there is a Connection between Vices as well as Virtues and one opens the Door for the Entrance of another." Therefore "Wise and able Politicians will guard against other Vices," and be attentive to promote every Virtue. He who is void of virtuous Attachments in private Life, is, or very soon will be void of all Regard for his Country. There is seldom an Instance of a Man guilty of betraying his Country, who had not before lost the Feeling of moral Obligations in his private Connections.

Passage 2

Passage adapted from the "First Inaugural Address" of Thomas Jefferson (March 4th, 1801)

Let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. And let us reflect that, having banished from our land that religious intolerance under which mankind so long bled and suffered, we have yet gained little if we countenance a political intolerance as despotic, as wicked, and capable of as bitter and bloody persecutions. During the throes and convulsions of the ancient world, during the agonizing spasms of infuriated man, seeking through blood and slaughter his long-lost liberty, it was not wonderful that the agitation of the billows should reach even this distant and peaceful shore; that this should be more felt and feared by some and less by others, and should divide opinions as to measures of safety.

But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest government on earth.