6 Degrees

Duncan J. Watt’s “Six Degrees” describes a model of modern technology that explains how we are all connected. Like some of the other readings we have studied this semester, he offers few concrete conclusions (not unlike danah boyd). Watts attempts to research and study the nature of complex connected systems. He begins his analysis with the small world phenomenon. He describes the paradox of the small-world problem: “That two people can share a mutual friend whom each regards as ‘close,’ but still perceive each other as being ‘far away’ is a facet of social life at once commonplace and also quite mysterious.” This is one of several aspects of connectivity that he touches on, but does not provide a remedy for.

The main concept of the book is this notion of “six degrees of separation.” Watts states that this idea was first conceptualized by fraternity boys at Albright College, who were movie buffs and noticed a connection of all actors to Kevin Bacon (93). There was a system devised and people were given a Bacon number that corresponds to how closely they are linked to Kevin Bacon (hopefully, my Bacon number is a 6 plus).

Although this assertion would lead us to believe that this system of separation may only work for the world of actors, Watts claims it is true on a much larger scale. He states: “First, the science of networks has taught us that distance is deceiving. That two individuals on the opposite sides of the world, and with little in common, can be connected through a short chain of network ties – through only six degrees – is a claim about the social world has fascinated generation after generation.” Watts offers many examples of how this is true and how we are linked. He notes a power blackout on the Western Coast of the US caused by different lines of cable being connected and dependent on each other. He also talks about epidemics and how they are spread though our connected world. Watts argues that, when networks have been disrupted by either a collection of minor events or major shocks, we traditionally have tried to understand the disruption by re-creating events rather than studying the network’s structure. If he was writing today he might discuss the recent recession and how we may have better understood it by looking at the economy as a whole and the connections in that network.

However, true to form, this is not the end of the argument. Watts goes on to show the counter point to this line of thinking by pointing out: “But even if it is true that everyone can be connected to everyone else in only six degrees of separation, so what? How far is six degrees anyway? … So as far as extracting resources is concerned, or exerting influence, anything more than two degrees might as well be a thousand” (300). So, I guess when we look at networks on a micro-level, we are not as closely connected as we thought. As far as getting a job or causing influence, being a mere 6 degrees away from another person doesn’t mean anything. Watts notes the difference as being on a “first name basis” versus being on a “can I borrow your car” basis.

What I struggle to understand is, what exactly is Watt’s point? He seems to undermine each observation by the assertion that what he has described is largely meaningless, unpredictable, and novel. The world he describes is meaningless, the connections he describes are endlessly contingent. I have to ask: What is his point? It seems to me that in an effort to be excitedly pro-new media he has inadvertently reaffirmed that new media rests upon the socioeconomic foundation of good, old-fashioned capital.