Bonding ties secure support while bridging ties enable advancement.

Evidence

Bonding social capital is good for undergirding specific reciprocity and mobilizing solidarity. Dense networks in ethnic enclaves, for example, provide crucial social and psychological support for less fortunate members of the community, while furnishing start-up financing, markets, and reliable labor for local entrepreneurs. Bridging networks, by contrast, are better for linkage to external assets and for information diffusion. Economic sociologist Mark Granovetter has pointed out that when seeking jobs—or political allies—the ā€œweakā€ ties that link me to distant acquaintances who move in different circles from mine are actually more valuable than the ā€œstrongā€ ties that link me to relatives and intimate friends whose sociological niche is very like my own. Bonding social capital is, as Xavier de Souza Briggs puts it, good for ā€œgetting by,ā€ but bridging social capital is crucial for ā€œgetting ahead.ā€ — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 49

Categorization

  • DEFINE: Briggs’ ā€˜getting by’ versus ā€˜getting ahead’ compression of the bonding-bridging distinction.
  • XREF: Granovetter’s weak-ties finding recurs across the reader’s network research surce. — connects to: Weak bridging ties outperform strong bonding ties for advancement — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 49; Championing community inadvertently strengthens exclusionary bonding over inclusive bridging ties — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 1443; Social capital divides into bonding and bridging forms that aid cooperation. — Robert D. Putnam, Bowling Alone The Collapse and Revival…, 48
  • QUESTION: Worth chasing: does non-enemy solidarity rely mostly on bridging or bonding tie formation?

Broader Connections