More and more people are living in cities, but how does living in in the city affect the composition
and structure of personal networks? Has the role of geographical distance to network members
changed due to the mobilities turn and what is the role of ‘foci’ in forming these networks?
Contemporary society is characterised by increasing physical- and virtual mobility. Due to these
developments, the importance of the local community in forming social networks is often being
questioned (e.g. Urry, 2012). There is much disagreement among scholars on the changing role of the
neighbourhood, which resulted in three different views on the community. The ‘Community Lost’
view argues that the neighbourhood is losing its importance, while the ‘Community Saved’ argues
that social networks are persistently predominantly local. The ‘Community Liberated’ argument
affirms the prevalence and importance of local ties but indicates that networks become more
spatially dispersed and also go beyond neighbourhood boundaries (Wellman, 1979).
Wellman (1979) concludes that close ties primarily exist outside the neighbourhood and are not
organized in local solidarities. But, although local ties are not as intimate, they are still being used for
sociability and provide structural connectivity. Fischer (1982) also supports this by stating that distant
non-kin associates were less likely than nearby ones to be social companions, but more likely to be
sources of emergency loans. He also found that young, affluent, and more educated people typically
have the most non-local non-kin ties, which is due to their higher mobility. However, this group also
tends to have the most local non-kin ties. Both Wellman’ (1979) and Fischer’s (1982) findings provide
support for a synthesis of the Liberated and the Saved arguments.
Continues next page (…)
and structure of personal networks? Has the role of geographical distance to network members
changed due to the mobilities turn and what is the role of ‘foci’ in forming these networks?
Contemporary society is characterised by increasing physical- and virtual mobility. Due to these
developments, the importance of the local community in forming social networks is often being
questioned (e.g. Urry, 2012). There is much disagreement among scholars on the changing role of the
neighbourhood, which resulted in three different views on the community. The ‘Community Lost’
view argues that the neighbourhood is losing its importance, while the ‘Community Saved’ argues
that social networks are persistently predominantly local. The ‘Community Liberated’ argument
affirms the prevalence and importance of local ties but indicates that networks become more
spatially dispersed and also go beyond neighbourhood boundaries (Wellman, 1979).
Wellman (1979) concludes that close ties primarily exist outside the neighbourhood and are not
organized in local solidarities. But, although local ties are not as intimate, they are still being used for
sociability and provide structural connectivity. Fischer (1982) also supports this by stating that distant
non-kin associates were less likely than nearby ones to be social companions, but more likely to be
sources of emergency loans. He also found that young, affluent, and more educated people typically
have the most non-local non-kin ties, which is due to their higher mobility. However, this group also
tends to have the most local non-kin ties. Both Wellman’ (1979) and Fischer’s (1982) findings provide
support for a synthesis of the Liberated and the Saved arguments.
Continues next page (…)
