"Social" vs. Socializing

Before Social had a capital "S"...it was called "socializing". Back then it was acknowledged that certain types people were good at certain parts of socializing.  People who were great party hosts knew lots of people.  Then there were the entertainers who could keep a partly alive.  And, finally but not least there were the wall flowers who, if you took the time to talk to them, probably had lots of knowledge and interesting things to say.  Put them all together and you had an event where ideas took hold and spread to the next party.
Those of you who are clever...which of course is all of you, will pick up on the fact that I have created a metaphor to describe what Malcolm Gladwell talks about in his book "The Tipping Point".   Ideas spread when you have "connectors" (people who link us up with the world), "mavens" (information specialists), and "salesmen" (charismatic people who can persuade others).
Perhaps you may use a different model or metaphor but its hard to argue that you need these types of individuals to help create a trend, fad or movement.  Humans simply socialize in certain ways. It is part of our DNA and part of our cultural norms.  "Social", with a capital S, does not change that.  "Social", with a capital S is a tool that can magnify how humans interact.  But if "Social", with capital S does not acknowledge the sociological behaviors of humans it can lead to dead ends and circular discussions.

• Your brand can have 5 million Facebook fans all willing to connect, but if they don't have content and information making it worthy to act upon...well then not much happens. 
• Subject matter experts sometimes have the nasty habit of blogging to an audience of other subject matter experts.  They can copy and compete against each other.  But without a good salesman thrown into the mix, the wide world never hears or gets passionate about their ideas.  

In future, I'd like to see socializing get a capital "S".  Is that too much to ask?