networks. individuals not only belong to social groups, they also are connected to each other...
TRANSCRIPT
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 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
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.
Implications for social order
Ties between individuals create strong groups.
What about relations across groups? Are groups doomed to fight with each
other?
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
Max Gluckman
Gluckman
Ethnographic studies of tribal societies provide empirical evidence of the importance of ties across groups
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
Georg Simmel
Simmel
Describes how societies at different times have different structures of social ties
Simmel on group membership
Membership in groups imposes obligations, provides benefits
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
Concentric group affiliation
Based on ‘organic’ criteria Initial membership in a group
determines membership in all other groups
Example: Australian aborigines
Concentric group formation
Example: medieval Europe Membership in a local community
implies membership in wider groups The Catholic Church Their region Their state, etc.
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
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
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
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
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
Mark Granovetter
Heterogeneity cross-cutting cleavages social order
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
Social ties
Are Strong Weak Absent
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
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
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
The role of weak ties
Removal of weak ties does more damage to transmission probabilities than removal of strong ties (304)
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
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
Networks: Draw the theory
Ties across groups
Trust, information
Acts that reduce conflict
Social order
Networks
How do we know if network theories have merit? Look at the empirical world
Ashutosh Varshney
Varshney
Provides empirical evidence of the role of social ties in reducing inter-group conflict
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
Varshney
Why? Ties between people of different
religions (fostered by association membership) help them to minimize the escalation of conflict