The internet is a modern marvel of technology that has become a great tool for communication. The pew internet studies seen in the readings, show that the internet and technology use is effecting civic and social groups behavior. According to the study by Rainie, Purcell & Smith internet users a have stronger sense of community or belonging to a group. The study also showed high percentage of Americans achieving group goals and gaining access to internet groups.

In the Pew study conducted by Jansen, he points out that the religious groups are the largest type of communal group among Americans and they find the internet is a significant tool to communicate in a group.

I think that civic engagement and social capital exist in a cause and effect type of relationship. Civic engagement such as church groups leads to social capital like church Facbook group or vise versa. As we saw from the studies most people involved in some form of  community or group have a drive to want to join other  groups or at least have access to them.

The results of a research completed by Rainie, Purcell and Smith and another by Jansen agree on the positive effect of the internet on group life and voluntary participation in the United States. This is true for both civic and social groups as well as the religious community.

Rainie, Purcell, and Smith (2011) state, “The internet is now deeply embedded in group and organizational life in America…And social media users are even more likely to be active…”Data supports the idea that the impact of the internet is not limited to a small number of groups. In fact, latest research increasingly support the wide-ranging impact of the internet on almost all social groups, including those based on religion.  The effect of the internet in recruiting for social groups is undeniable. Rainie, Purcell, and Smith (2011) state, “With all these group invitations being passed along, it is clear there are times when people feel a social push to join groups. Some 16% of adults say they felt obligated to join a group because someone they know invited them”. Some of the people who most feel pushed into group participation include young adults, 18-29, higher socio-economic status individuals, tech users, and social media users. This is proof that being exposed to the internet can influence people to belong to groups that they might not have otherwise thought to participate in.

Civic engagement relates to social capital because participation in group life can bridge and bond people in relationships and activities that increase knowledge. These activities improve the health and value of the participants with the resulting effect of improving the whole community.

The internet has many uses such as bringing people together for the development of new relationships, the deepening of existing relationships and the increase of social capital.

I have always used the internet as a great resource to get information and also spread my own information around cyberspace. Therefore, I was not surprised to read that (according to the Pew study) most Americans attribute the internet with improved communication abilities. People agree that it is now much easier to spread the word about causes, connect with groups, and organize activities, among other things.

Unfortunately, it was sad to see that young adults are most active in gaming communities, fan groups for shows/celebrities, and fan groups for products/brands. They were least active in community groups, support groups for people who are struggling, and political party organizations. They were also the least active in religious groups (even though the other article talked quite a bit about how being involved with a religion causes you to have more trust and faith in society). All together, I am saddened for our generation. There seems to be a lack of personal responsibility, and many people my age don’t care to “make something of themselves.” I can name so many people who graduated from college and are still living with their parents, not working or investing in anything other than Halo Reach. It’s interesting how technology seems to improve older people’s lives (because they are simply adding it into their day-to-day activities), and honestly seems to negatively impact younger people’s lives. Perhaps it is because younger people have always had technology, and their lives can revolve around it.

Civil engagement and social capitol are related because the more involved you are in your community, the more bridging capitol and bonding capitol you will build. The more people you know, the easier it is to find a job, spread the word about a good cause, or just get information. They go hand-in-hand, and I think it is very important to invest in our community and meet new people.

According to Rainie, Purcell and Smith (2011) study, 75% of Americans are active in using either the internet or cell phones and other devices, and that “internet and cell phone owners are more likely than non-technology users to be active in groups.”They also argued that some factors such as: age, gender, racial, ethnic and social status can influence how much people are active in certain group. For example, they noted that women are more than men, African American more than Hispanic to participate in church or support groups. Additionally higher educated people and those who lived in the same community for longer time are more likely to participate in groups. On the other hand, factors such as lack of interest in participating with groups, health issues, and time pressure are reasons that might prevent people to participate in groups. Generally speaking, people who use the internet more they also participate more in “charitable, donations, volunteering, attending meetings and events and taking leadership roles “(20) .

Whereas, Jansen (2011) noted that “with regard to technology, religiously active Americans use the internet, email, broadband, cell phones and social media platforms at similar rates to other Americans”(2). He asserted that being women, African Americans, parents, highly educated, earn high income are more likely to participate in these religious groups. Jansen concluded that 72% of those people who they are active in religious groups said that internet has no impact on their involvement with groups.

Both of the articles pointed out the importance of the group work and how these groups can strengthen the ties in our communities. The internet and the SNSs faster the work of these groups and helped it to expand and enlarge itselves to help as many people in the society. The more civic engagements the more benefits people would get and the higher the social capital. Therefore, either we do not engaged in any social groups and not be an important part of the society, or we all engage in different social groups, work hand in hand to eliminate our social problems such as class, racism, and discrimination and build better America, just like Shakespeare’s stated in his famous quote “to be, or not to be, that is the question”

I mentioned in some of my previous blog entries and comments to other’s blogs that I’ve become numb to the egocentric posting habits of what seems to be the vast majority of social media users these days. To borrow a quote from the movie Easy A, “Your generation loves to share their thoughts, and I have to tell you, they’re not all gems.” I gravitated away from Facebook and towards Twitter because I feel that I have access to more valuable content.

All that said, the Pew research studies this week demonstrated that social media and online groups do have an upside. Generally, people who use the internet are more likely to be involved in community and organizational groups than people who don’t use the internet. The Rainie, Purcell and Smith paper also found that Twitter users are more civically engaged than just about anyone else. This doesn’t surprise me. The internet gives us more effective and efficient ways to communicate with each other when we aren’t face-to-face. It also provides us with more access to information. We have an opportunity like never before to inform and involve ourselves, and many people are taking advantage. Jansen’s research found similar results of community involvement among religiously active internet users and non-religiously active users. Members of religious groups generally had greater feelings of efficacy when it came to making a difference in their communities.

The Wojcieszak  and Mutz study looked at exposure to political discussion and contrasting views via online channels like social network sites. If you use social media, even a little bit, I’m sure you’ve witnessed some political diatribe at one point or another. The authors of this study found examples of reinforcement of like-minded views but also positive political discussion in non-political channels. I personally feel that political and religious discussions are too emotional for mass discussion online. I can’t think of a time when people with polar opposite opinions ever altered their stances or even came to an understanding. It’s always an argument (particularly online) if you don’t fundamentally agree. If you do agree, then you simply reinforce each other.  However, it’s hard to avoid these arguments. The authors pointed out that “just as politics often comes up in face-to-face contexts when discussing other issues such as movie listings, personal gossip, or children’s problems at school, the same is true of online exchanges.”

People are going to the internet to connect with other people for various reasons. The decision to participate in online groups or communities depends on the individuals ties to technology. It was noted that most people that are active in groups are active in just over 3 different types of groups and would more likely be an owner of a cellphone.

The internet is bringing more people together faster and most people who are tech users are trusting of their group members opinions and views. Participation is voluntary, however, there is temptation that could sway a person to participate in a group that may genuinely not want to. The internet is a big book of unending information most Americans regardless of their race or social status will utilize the internet in one way or another in a voluntary fashion, it is hard to force someone to use the internet.

Civic engagement and social capital complement one another. Of the internet communities religious and church groups were found to be the more popular surveyed. In addition, church groups had a larger pool of participants the level of trust in their groups and communities was higher. The participants of religious groups will experience higher social capital due to these factors and the relationships are deeper because more often than not members of the same church will be participating in online activities together as well.

At my church they have just started to form groups by requesting the members of the church to text their hobbies and interests to a number that filters to different group leaders within the church. Technology is connecting people with like interests and creating social capital to help people gain relationships, knowledge, and resources much like a physical community would offer.

Social capital develops around the available resources provided by an individual’s network. People can acquire collective benefits (social capital) through the cooperation among their networks. The more resources you share and the more connected you are, the more social capital you gain. You can increase your value.

The types of interaction we choose in our online participation can lead to potential benefits and drawbacks.  Norris made a positive association with bridging social worlds: connecting two incongruent sides via the powers of the internet.  There is hope that the internet could bring people together in a way that facilitates more tolerant understanding. Certain interaction could allow people to connect despite differences and surpass traditional societal barriers.  That is, if we make the leaps to connect to the others. The superfluous amount of choices and possibilities allow us to explore without leaving our comfort zones.  We can stay in our own like-minded groups and filter out ‘the other’ (view/ interest/background/belief). But if we stay in our own circles, we risk surrendering a broader social understanding.

The Ellison article discussed how a people use Facebook to connect.  Facebook’s most significant use of social capital is its ability to maintain relationships. Even weak ties can lead to a broader social capital, where users have the potential for each other’s resources in the future. Facebook has the ability crystallize relationships that might have dissipated in the real world. (Ellison, 886). While Facebook doesn’t cross vast cultural jumps, it does allow for a slightly broader base of exposure. If we add more people, there is an increased likelihood we might see into their world.

I always fear that I am living in a bubble, choosing to filter my own world and allowing it to be filtered for me. I strive to increase my understanding of others, and I try to be more flexible in my sociability. I see the internet as a unique place to transcend traditional barriers. Though I will always be at risk for subconsciously filtering my own world, I can at least attempt to meet new people through SNS sites.

My experience on Facebook is similar to the Ellison article. (I, too, am an undergraduate white female – as the majority in the study). I mostly use the site to maintain relationships, but I also use it (information-seeking) to find out more about non-friends (if they are visible) and pages. I also see evidence of in comments between mutual friends who are seeking emotional support, are looking for tips, information, events, etc.

Though I have not yet fully read the Graduate’s article on CouchSurfing, I plan to read it in time to comment more on this week’s blog entries. I glanced over it and saw a lot a truths in their observations. CouchSurfing is one SNS site that I am engaged in. It is all about trust and creating connections. CouchSurfing users can provide information, connection, participation in events, host events, and a literal resource of opening their homes to travelers. Here is a link to my page. Though I am not the most active user, it could provide a cursory introduction to those unfamiliar with the site. You can also see a lot of evidence of the sense of community belonging and reciprocity in my profile, comments, and connections. I hope to stay involved over time and increase my connections others so I can take greater advantage of the site.

This weeks readings started with the notion of social capital and bridging and bonding social capital. Norris (2004) defines bridging social capital as social networks that bring together people of different sorts, and bonding social capital brings together people of similar sort. Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe (2011) were among the first to explore the relationship between social capital and specific communication practices on the most popular SNS among US undergraduates, Facebook. In Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe’s (2011) reading they stated that bonding social capital describes benefits from close personal relationships, which might include emotional support, physical succor, or other ‘large’ benefits (such as willingness to loan a substantial sum of money).Bridging social capital, the benefits derived from casual acquaintances and connections, can also lead to tangible outcomes such as novel information from distant connections and broader world-views.

From my experience using SNS I would agree with both Norris and Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe. Ellison, Steinfeild, & Lampe (2001) state “the extant literature on this topic suggests that Facebook is used more for communication among acquaintances and offline contacts than it is for connecting with strangers”. This is very true for me because I mainly use Facebook to stay connected to my family and friends, and I do not use it to meet strangers. However, I have met new people on Facebook and built relationships, that was not my main purpose or intention. So, the bridging that Norris talked about also applied to me.

After reading the articles related to social capital and SNS, all of the authors of the article share a common interest with this certain topic. The general idea of SNS and social capital is to bring people together that share either a common ground or have the same ideas as their friends and/or followers. Norris stated that “Bridging social capital refers to social networks that bring people together of different sorts and bonding in social capital brings together people of a similar sort” (Norris, 2004). In my opinion this just lays out how Norris felt how people should interact online and what the goal of social networking is all about. When people use SNS it can affect how social capital is structured for individuals who enjoy SNS. Ellison, Steinfield and Lampe share the same ideas on SNS, but they are primarily focused on one SNS which is Facebook. How we interact online shows positive correlations of bringing people together and having a social bond. Social networking gives people more of an open field to explore new and existing friends, family, co-workers, and colleagues. It also helps us keep with information that goes on in the world and sometimes our own neighborhoods. My experience with SNS usually it to keep in contact with friends and family. and it keeps me in the loop about information I may have not heard about or gives me more of a clearer picture about something I knew nothing about. Social capital just helps us  create more of a fun environment to explore groups and have the same interests as yourself and others. When people create chat room groups or certain groups for people who have a certain interest, it brings about how social capital is used online.

One thing in the Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe study that really struck me was the idea that those who have an over abundance of Facebook friends are actually considered less socially attractive. The feeling that these people were “friending out of desperation” was something that I always felt, and I know that feeling is shared by many who deal with Facebook. I had Facebook for a very brief period of time, and during that time I never exceded 100 ‘friends.’ I never felt the need to be connected to people that I did not have a personal connection with in my offline life. However, I would constantly receive friend requests from those I barely knew, and it always seemed like they had hundreds of ‘friends.’ The idea of the “Friendster whore” is very real, and one of the more interesting things about Facebook (in my opinion.)
However, amassing a large network of weak or latent ties on Facebook can be extremely beneficial in some situations. Friends of mine who have bands, are artists or have started new businesses, for example, have a large number of ‘friends’ on Facebook. This is extremely beneficial to their “networking” abilities, but has little to no effect on their actual social life.