Socially Wealthy
David Brooks had a column on social wealth, and I’ve been trying to write about it for days. The gist is that while we speak somewhat (not enough) about monetary poverty, we rarely discuss whether people have social capital:
I summarize all this because loneliness and social isolation are the problem that undergird many of our other problems. More and more Americans are socially poor. And yet it is very hard for the socially wealthy to even see this fact. It is the very nature of loneliness and social isolation to be invisible. We talk as if the lonely don’t exist.
Talking about social wealth, it turns out, is just as squirmy as talking about monetary wealth. I mean, there are clearly people who talk about their monetary wealth, but I feel pretty squirmy when they do. I can guesstimate someone’s salary based on the nature of their position, but there’s something very different from assuming someone earns $80,000 per year and having someone concretely tell you, “Hey, did you know my salary is $80,000 per year? And I spend it on X, Y, and Z.”
It feels equally weird to consider — aloud — your social wealth. Inside your brain, sure. But admitting whether or not you’re socially wealthy? It turns out that it’s a hard thing to say aloud without sounding like you’re bragging or overstating.
And then the flip side is that unlike your salary, which is likely unlisted unless you hold a certain position, your social connections are numerically there for everyone else to see. At the very least, we can see follower counts and friend counts. We can see who has hundreds of career connections on LinkedIn, and who hasn’t organized their connections in those public spaces.
I don’t agree with many of Brooks’ assertions — I actually think that heavy internet users are just as likely to be socially rich offline and their online behaviour is a mirror of how they move through the brick-and-mortar world — though I did agree with this:
Such big subjects didn’t come up in the Zuckerberg hearings because socially wealthy and socially poor people experience Facebook differently and perceive reality and social problems differently.
His point: people in public office by default tend to meet and know a lot of people due to their position. They are socially rich. They are there representing people who may be socially poor, but they have no clue how the other side processes the social site.
Unlike Brooks, I don’t think the problem is just online. I think the problem is offline, too. And that the socially poor have always existed and been swept under the mental rug by the socially wealthy because they cannot imagine a world where people do not have friendships, or — at the very least — connections.
Because like monetary poverty, there is also a wide range to social poverty. You don’t have to be friend-savvy or friend-rich to have a basic network; to live above the social poverty line. You just need to have basic connections; people you can call on to help you out or give support. Your friends, family, community, coworkers; they’re all part of that network; and it exists offline just as much as it exists online. But Brooks is distinguishing between those who live near the social poverty line and the social 1%. That wide discrepancy between those who move through the social world with ease, and those that struggle with connections.
I rarely agree with Brooks, and this is just one more case of that, but the topic itself — social wealth — definitely resonated with me. It made me take a long hard look at my connections and where I fall on the social wealth continuum.
7 comments
I’m a little confused: by social wealth is Brooks referring to the important connections that are gained (and can be taken advantage of) by having a large network of family, friends, and acquaintances? Does social wealth refer to the professional (and their for economic) advantage of social networks? Or the fact that having close relationships with friends and family enriches our lives in other ways, making us happier and more fulfilled?
There is definitely a lack of community and connection for many in our society. We have to seek out connections in a way that most people didn’t 100 years ago. And I don’t think social media has much to do with it.
So … I haven’t read (and don’t care to read) the article. I do agree that there’s such a thing as social wealth and that it’s interesting and worth understanding and studying. I work near sociologists who I believe call this, or something much like it, interpersonal ties — a quick search suggests Wikipedia may have a decent summary, for those interested. My understanding is that interpersonal ties matter a ton and explain all kinds of things. I have to admit that on a day-to-day basis or as a mechanism of comparison (me to you), knowing our online social wealth doesn’t seem that interesting or important. Indeed, that seems like one of the nice things about at least some parts of the internet — I can show up out-of-nowhere on an infertility message board and get useful support and information even if I was not at all previously part of that community and did not have interpersonal ties (that I knew of, anyway) with anyone who has experienced infertility.
I flagged this article on Facebook because I too found it so interesting. I’ve been mulling over a post on friendships, inspired by something else I found on social media, but this might tie in there too…
Ha I don’t even want to read this; I feel like it would totally increase my social anxiety. The vast majority of people I’ve known in my life are decent and honourable though, that must count for something.
A little different, but similar: I showed this TED Talk to a class this week, and one of the strands we talked about was social capital. https://www.ted.com/talks/j_d_vance_america_s_forgotten_working_class
This is fascinating. There are a lot of things that contribute to social wealth. Perhaps those people who live in the same towns all their lives, with the same people, doing the same things, might be the most socially wealthy, with ready-made support systems and a feeling of belonging in a community.
As a person without children, I definitely feel socially poorer than those who automatically have a community based around schools. Many of us can give examples about being dropped by friends who instead focus on the friends they make through their children’s schools or sports teams or other activities. And after 12 years of school, those friendships become entrenched. And we become isolated. Socially poorer. Forced to make much more of an effort to link up with friends, family and, perhaps especially, community.
The internet for me makes me much more socially wealthy, because my “social wealth” are the people I chat to or interact with every day on the internet. And yet, being able to do this probably allows me to avoid getting out in my community, contributing to my social poverty. And now I’m depressed because I just referred to my “social poverty.”