One of the more powerful concepts that i learned in the last few years is the notion of “familiar strangers.” The term comes from Stanley Milgram and it refers to the people that we see regularly in a non-intimate fashion that we develop a sense about, but never directly interact with. A good example is the person that one sees on the bus every morning. If that person fails to appear, we notice. What is cool about familiar strangers is that when we see them out of the context of non-interaction, we will immediately interact with them, because there is a presumption of shared knowledge. The further we are from our normal interaction with this person, the more likely we are to connect. Thus, we are likely to treat our bus buddies in New York as close friends if we run into them in Italy.
Underlying this behavior between familiar strangers is the function of multiple contexts in common. In common social introductions, we proceed through a ritual of figuring out what we have in common – what people/institutions/cities/interests we have in common. We do this to develop a common grounding. Likewise, when we see someone in an additional social setting, we feel as though we have exponentially more in common with which to bond.
The power of the familiar stranger is ringing loudly in my head right now because i continue to talk with folks about LinkedIn. I fear that too many of the social software folks don’t realize why context is essential for giving folks a reason to interact, to connect, to bridge one’s social network. People are not simply motivated by what they need or could give, but by what fundamental reasons they have to connect… Introduction rituals are essential for connections and to properly do so, one needs more contextual information than a limited version of one’s resume. Social negotiation, even in the professional realm, is not limited to strictly business… it is inherently social.
[Of course, i fear that my concerns are written off because i’m perceived as just young and naive and lacking “genuine” social networking experience. This is my current frustration in the social software community. My gut feeling says that i have something to offer these researchers… i just need to figure out how.]
Interesting stuff, seems like every year or two another crucial Milgram discovery comes to my attention, guess I should just go straight to the source.
As for the social software, you definitely have something to offer. Its just a bit of an odd community. Take a look at Tom Coates excellent post on the Excesses of Social Software as well. [ http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2003/01/the_excesses_of_social_software.shtml ]. It points out a bit of the way that the current social software fad ignores the broader contexts.
“What is cool about familiar strangers is that when we see them out of the context of non-interaction, we will immediately interact with them, because there is a presumption of shared knowledge.”
Sure, unless you live in Toronto, in which case there will be an initial embarrassed moment of recognition followed by an aversion of eyes and denial. What you are describing is more likely to happen in an American city.
Paul – is it really about “American culture” or that the context shift concerns contexts that are considered socially unacceptable? For example, i would imagine that seeing someone at a business meeting after seeing them in a BDSM club would be embarrassing anywhere if your BDSM participation is closeted. My guess is that Milgram was not just articulating an American phenomenon, but i could be convinced otherwise. Please tell me more about why you think it is American-centric!
William – “The Familiar Stranger” is definitely one of my favorites. Thank you kindly for the pointer – Tom Coates’ perspective is quite appreciated!
zephoria, I was lamenting Canadian diffidence more than I was complaining about US-centrism in your post. But now that you mention it 🙂 I think the notion still applies here but is less often expressed through a “Hello” on the bus. Torontonians are less likely to acknowledge the familiarity and stick to minding their own business. It’s so refreshing to come to a place like NYC where people enjoy minding others’ business. It’s a significant cultural difference. Americans are on the whole more gregarious but I’m not sure of the implications for the universality of any sociological theory. BTW: you’re post mentioned Milgram but your response mentioned Goffman. Did you mention Goffman earlier somewhere?
Paul – sorry, i was reading Goffman’s “Asylums” when i responded to the last post and just transposed them; i meant Milgram (and thus went back and fixed it).
I guess the trick of what Milgram is saying is that even in NY (or Toronto), people will be aware of others without every saying hello or acknowledging their presence; it is only when the person is seen in another context that they’re likely to interact. Of course, the probability that they will interact is context-dependent. If they are seen on another bus in another city, likelihood is small, but if someone who is easily recognizable from a Toronto bus is seen at a conference in Tokyo, what’s the probability that one will ask the other “Are you from Toronto?” The intimacy of a conference is inviting for striking up a conversation based on the recognition of one another…
familiar stranger: stanley milgram
danah boyd does a nice explanation of familiar strangers in context. apophenia: the familiar stranger…