The weakness of local networks lies in their self-containment, for they lack input as well as outreach. In a classic study of urban politics, Herbert Gans found that neighborhoods with the highest levels of solidarity often were unable to block unfavorable policies and programs for lack of ties to possible allies elsewhere in the city. It was for this reason that Gans referred to them as “urban villagers.” As the opposite of local networks, cosmopolitan networks offer little solidarity and have little capacity to comfort and sustain members. But members benefit from a constant flow of new information and from the great reach of their influence, even if it tends to be somewhat lacking in strength. Local networks tend to be small. In contrast, cosmopolitan networks can be huge. Thus, while the “urban villagers” lacked ties even to their local city government, cosmopolitan network ties often lead into the White House.
* ally: 동맹국, 협력자