(from the Buddha’s advice to Sigala)
In order to instantiate the many qualities and attributes that have been gathered so far, we need some system framework, some structure through which these qualities can flourish. We need an architecture that can sufficiently model relationships, including both the offline and online contexts. This requires the identification and organisation of primary features of the landscape of human relationships.
Once again we can draw on the insights expressed by the Buddha in the Sigalovada Sutta.These teachings have been observed by scholars to be an effective application of what’s called Ockham’s razor. We choose a particular model, already used in (Trafford 2010), in which relationships are viewed as spanning six directions – the four cardinal points plus above and below – according to the type of relationship: parents [East], teachers [South], spouse and children [West], friends and associates [North], servants and employees [nadir], ascetics and brahmans [zenith]. A very visual depiction has been provided by Dattajeevo (2005:206), which we largely reproduce below:
It was conceived 2,500 years in the context of a particular caste in Indian society and the above is a particular interpretation from Thai society. Some alterations would likely be needed for it to be more acceptable to secular society, especially the fact of equal partnership in marriage and other long-term relationships. This might be represented as a couple side by side and children as shared dependents. However, overall such changes should be few in number in order to faithfully represent most situations around the world.
The first major insight from such a model, one that can greatly enrich SNS, is the separation of concerns, illustrated in this case by orthogonality between relationship types. We thus have a multi-dimensional structure for relationships that contrasts with a flat landscape of ‘friend’-only. Applying this online would mean that when someone sends us a request to connect, we are less likely to feel that we face a dilemma of whether or not to accept since we can more accurately determine the nature of the relationship. Furthermore, we are more likely to offer to share granular details that contextualise such a relationship in terms of spatial location and place1.
The accumulation of dubious ‘friend’ connections in an SNS has prompted some drastic ‘unfriending’ and even initiatives to create systems that decide that we can have at most an arbitrary number of friends2. In contrast, Sigala’s architecture means parents and children can (and are encouraged) to connect, which some find difficult to do in systems like Facebook3,4. Similarly, this multidimensional model removes the current awkwardness for teachers who receive connection requests from their pupils and struggle with privacy settings5. Likewise, when we meet someone at a conference we can classify them appropriately as a business associate.
In addition, we can recursively extend the connections outwards to form a multidimensional lattice. Here we may talk about the comparative strength of the respective architectures by appeal to molecular structures. For example, diamond, is very tightly packed with each atom having 4 strong covalent bonds, spanning 3D in the shape of a tetrahedron. It thus has great hardness or tensile strength (you can’t scrape it away) and furthermore these bonds have the same strength in every direction. On the other hand graphite, which has identical chemical composition, being an allotrope of carbon (C), is physically very different; it only forms strong bonds in 2D, has a low measure of hardness and is layered (think of a pencil) 6,7.
We can say that SNS in which there is just one connection type is like this latter case–relationships may become brittle, whereas having multiple connection types is more akin to the strength of diamond. If we accept the value in modelling relationships in multiple dimensions, then this invites us to change our analysis of social graphs likewise – to be be analysed in at least 3D. The strength of a network thus depends on its lattice arrangement with the strength of the bonds suggesting the importance of weightings in relationships.
But what about network efficiency? It is a long-established theory that weak ties may be more efficient for information flow outside a social circle or group8. Some SNS have been designed to optimise network efficiency by increasing the amount of information flow and utilising weak ties; it can be asserted that they even reduce strong ties to weak ties by reducing connections to the one type, ‘friend’. This position is reinforced online by content syndication (status feeds) and various other ‘affordances’ to further the information flow. And then there is a converse consequence – the latter can act to weaken ties in that information and data displace directed one-to-one interpersonal communication. This is then mutual reinforcement that diminishes strong ties.
In contrast, we focus on long-term endurance and trust in developing relationships within such circles and groups; if cultivated properly they can expand in a sustainable manner. What actually makes a relationship strong is determined – at least in the context of the teachings to Sigala – by qualities of behaviour, as elaborated in the next section.
Next, the explicit labelling of these relationships along the lines of the 6 directions helps us to identify and hence deal with the complexities of a multitude of relationships. This is thus a more faithful reflection of society and provides the following benefits:
- It makes it easier to involve parents in
networks, so that they can contribute to well-being
of their children.
Technically it may allow for them to set up accounts for young children and moderate them, instil good habits etc. - By making explicit different kinds of relationships, the design gives more attention to supporting diverse types of what is termed bridging social capital, i.e. connections between people of different backgrounds and perspectives, hence facilitating denser networks (think of the difference between a plain milk chocolate bar and one that is packed with nuts, raisins etc).
- The networks themselves are not just friends of friends (friend networks), but parents of parents (ancestry), teachers of teachers (expert knowledge transfer), etc., and then the various permutations parents of friends (heterogeneity across ancestry); and so on. The successive iterations can scale up to encompass the human population as a whole within a vision of social cohesion, guided by a sound global ethic.
We go on to describe … suitable modes of conduct in each direction.
Notes
1 Some anthropologists are keen to distinguish between (X,Y,Z)ccoordinates and the more elusive qualities of a particular place, its atmosphere.
2 A photo-sharing oriented SNS, designed especially for mobile users, allows a maximum of 50 friends, and is promoted as complementary to Facebook. It at least recognises distinction between close and distant relationship. See e.g. Maggie Shiels BBC column: Social gets personal as new network limits friends 19 November 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11793847
3 Jimmy Smallwood BBC Radio 5 live, BBC News Magazine, 10 December 2010. Facebook: Should parents ‘friend’ their children? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11968954
4 This also removes the need to have separate SNS dedicated just for family members.
5 Jean Mackenzie, BBC: Newsbeat. 10 February 2011. Schools need rules for teachers on Facebook, union says, http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12417183
6 Material properties of diamond, Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_properties_of_diamond;
7 Diamond and
Graphite, Eastern New Mexico University,
http://www.enmu.edu/services/museums/miles-mineral/diamond.shtml
8 See Noah E. Friedkin, 1982. Information Flow Through Strong and Weak Ties in Intraorganizational Social Networks, Social Networks (3) , pp. 273-285.