1 / 38

Networks

Networks. Networks. Individuals not only belong to social groups, they also are connected to each other through network ties. These ties can connect people from different groups. Ernest Gellner. Ibn Khaldun and Gellner. Sociology of Arab societies

amelie
Download Presentation

Networks

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Networks

  2. Networks • Individuals not only belong to social groups, they also are connected to each other through network ties. These ties can connect people from different groups.

  3. Ernest Gellner

  4. Ibn Khaldun and Gellner • Sociology of Arab societies • Arid territories unable to sustain agricultural cultivation  people engage in herding • Livestock moveable (unlike agricultural crops) – easily stolen • Individuals therefore have a desire to secure their property

  5. Gellner, cont’d • This desire leads individuals to group together for mutual protection • This principle leads to a system of strong, self-policing tribal groups that defend themselves by threatening to retaliate indiscriminately against the individual members of any aggressor group. It provides an incentive for groups to police their own members so as not to provoke retaliation.

  6. Implications for social order • Ties between individuals create strong groups. • What about relations across groups? • Are groups doomed to fight with each other?

  7. Intergroup relations are complex • To forestall a situation in which one powerful tribe becomes able to inflict unacceptable costs on others, tribal loyalties and coalitions must be impermanent. In such a system, groups are far from eternal enemies. Rather, they have continually changing connections to each other. This is partly because people can switch groups – "treason" is acceptable. Patterns of alliances shift. • This impermanence allows the system as a whole to remain in equilibrium, producing a fluid kind of order • In other words, connections across groups help to reduce intergroup conflict

  8. Max Gluckman

  9. Gluckman • Ethnographic studies of tribal societies provide empirical evidence of the importance of ties across groups

  10. Gluckman • In most tribal societies, there are rules that prohibit individuals from marrying people within their group • Marriages to outsiders creates social connections between different tribal groups • The weak ties can help to reduce conflict between groups

  11. Georg Simmel

  12. Simmel • Describes how societies at different times have different structures of social ties

  13. Simmel on group membership • Membership in groups imposes obligations, provides benefits

  14. Two patterns of group affiliation • Concentric • Based on ‘organic’ criteria • E.g., ascription • Characteristic of premodern societies • Juxtaposed • Based on ‘rational’ criteria • E.g. interest • Characteristic of modernity

  15. Concentric group affiliation • Based on ‘organic’ criteria • Initial membership in a group determines membership in all other groups • Example: Australian aborigines

  16. Concentric group formation • Example: medieval Europe • Membership in a local community implies membership in wider groups • The Catholic Church • Their region • Their state, etc.

  17. Concentric group-formation • Individuals do belong to multiple groups • BUT • These groups are not in conflict • As a result, they do not compete for the individual’s attention • Key point: individuals treated as members of groups rather than as individuals

  18. Juxtaposed group formation • Based on ‘rational’ criteria • E.g. individual preferences/interests • Initial group affiliations (family, religion, neighborhood) do not determine group affiliations • The isolated individual can become a member in whatever number of groups he chooses

  19. Juxtaposed group-affiliation  individuality • The more groups an individual belongs to, the less likely it is that someone else will belong to the same groups • The uniqueness of people’s patterns of participation  individuality

  20. Consequences of the 2 patterns of group affiliation for individuality • Concentric (‘organic’) pattern  conformity with the initial group • Juxtaposed (‘rational’) pattern  individuality • Thus: social structure produces individuality • Cf. Durkheim on egoistic suicide

  21. Juxtaposed group-affiliation socially heterogeneous groups • The Renaissance brought together people from a large variety of different groups • This broke down the isolation of social groups • Increased the heterogeneity of social groups

  22. Mark Granovetter

  23. Heterogeneity  cross-cutting cleavages  social order

  24. Granovetter on weak ties • The strength of a social tie is a function of the amount of • Time • Emotional intensity • Intimacy • Reciprocal services • Characteristic of the tie

  25. Social ties • Are • Strong • Weak • Absent

  26. Strong ties • The stronger the tie between any two individuals in a social network, the larger the proportion of the individuals in that network to whom they will both be tied (300) • Reasons • 1. stronger ties involve larger time commitments • 2. cognitive balance: I want my friend’s friends to be my friends • If my friend’s friend is my enemy, this strains my relations with my friend

  27. Strong ties produce no bridges • A bridge is a line in a network which provides the only path between two points • In a tight network, everyone is strongly linked together • There are few, if any, bridges to other tight networks

  28. All bridges are weak ties (303) • In large networks, bridges (in the sense of specific ties providing the only path between two points) are rare • However, local bridges can represent the shortest path between two points

  29. The role of weak ties • Removal of weak ties does more damage to transmission probabilities than removal of strong ties (304)

  30. Implications for social order • A community characterized by strong ties will be divided into a number of tightly-organized cliques • There will be few, if any, bridges between cliques (by definition) • Consequently • Community cooperation  minimal between cliques • Trust  minimal between cliques

  31. Implications, cont’d • Hence, strong group solidarity  social conflict, social disorder • Local cohesion may co-exist with global fragmentation and disorder • Example: Boston’s West End (Gans) • Example: cf. Banfield’s Montegrano

  32. Networks: Draw the theory Ties across groups Social order Trust, information Acts that reduce conflict

  33. Networks • How do we know if network theories have merit? • Look at the empirical world

  34. Ashutosh Varshney

  35. Varshney • Provides empirical evidence of the role of social ties in reducing inter-group conflict

  36. Varshney • Conflict between Muslims and Hindus in India • In cities where voluntary associations include only members of one religious group, religious violence is high • Where voluntary associations include both Muslims and Hindus, violence is low

  37. Varshney • Why? • Ties between people of different religions (fostered by association membership) help them to minimize the escalation of conflict

More Related