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

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