Well connected
In this weeks reading I liked the comparison of so called, ‘networks’. Say a phone network was compared to a computer network, they would seem to be a part of different realms. The vast difference between these two things hardly seem related let alone to be labelled as the same practice. I enjoyed the thorough definition and depth that Shultz delved into as he defined the common misconceptions of a ‘network’. Especially the fact that, ‘a network is never bigger than another one, it is simply longer and more intensely connected.’
He then goes into social theories and application of these theories in modern society but I was stuck on the definition of a network. By name, it a connecting source of information, Somewhere which things that are common, or simply have some sort of a linking element reside. Whether the link is physical or metaphorical or even verbal, depends on the specific type of network. This can then obviously be wound back in the spinning cycle of life to social networks and I can go back to spending 3 hours of my day on Facebook.
But my question is, have networks developed? Or have the vessels for their being merely shifted and morphed, rather than the concept itself changing? Who knows. Schultz, perhaps.
The full text is here. Happy reading.