Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Kin, Friends, Community-Social Network Analysis Theories and Analysis-Lecture-Sociology, Lecture notes of Social Networks Theory and Analysis

Network approaches to kinship examine the structure of marriage rules and the strategies for social bonding across generations. Kinship Networks, Large Kinship Nets, Friendship on Frat Row, Evolving Network, Name Generators, Guanxi, Clientalistic Cultures Kin, Friends, Community, Social Network Analysis Theories, Sociology, David Knoke, Minnesota State University (MN), United States of America (USA)

Typology: Lecture notes

2011/2012

Uploaded on 01/25/2012

desmond
desmond 🇺🇸

4.8

(12)

328 documents

1 / 11

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
KIN, FRIENDS, and COMMUNITY
Anthropologists were among the earliest developers of social
network ideas to study kinship patterns of pre-industrial societies
and small rural communities. Moreno, of course, invented
sociograms to map children‟s friendship patterns. And many
sociological network analysts studied interpersonal ties within
large modern communities. The ethnographic research tradition
remains a robust contributor to social network analysis today.
Siegfried F. Nadel argued that the role system
of a society forms the matrix of its social
structure: “We arrive at the structure of a
society through abstracting from the concrete
population and its behaviour the pattern or
network (or „system‟) of relationships obtaining
„between actors in their capacity of playing
roles relative to one another‟.” (Nadel 1957:12)
pf3
pf4
pf5
pf8
pf9
pfa

Partial preview of the text

Download Kin, Friends, Community-Social Network Analysis Theories and Analysis-Lecture-Sociology and more Lecture notes Social Networks Theory and Analysis in PDF only on Docsity!

KIN, FRIENDS, and COMMUNITY

Anthropologists were among the earliest developers of social

network ideas to study kinship patterns of pre-industrial societies

and small rural communities. Moreno, of course, invented

sociograms to map children‟s friendship patterns. And many

sociological network analysts studied interpersonal ties within

large modern communities. The ethnographic research tradition

remains a robust contributor to social network analysis today.

Siegfried F. Nadel argued that the role system

of a society forms the matrix of its social

structure: “We arrive at the structure of a

society through abstracting from the concrete

population and its behaviour the pattern or

network (or „system‟) of relationships obtaining

„between actors in their capacity of playing

roles relative to one another‟.” (Nadel 1957:12)

Kinship Networks

Network approaches to kinship examine the structure of marriage

rules and the strategies for social bonding across generations.

Kinship involves complex interlocked role

relations, prescribing expected rights & duties

of the actors occupying distinct positions

  • Sexual relations & reproduction rights
  • Child-rearing obligations
  • Dowries, land & property inheritance
  • Cohesion/solidarity & collective action

In Anatomy of Kinship (1963) Harrison White used matrix algebra to simplify complex classificatory rules regarding marriage and parentage. These rules generate clans among people in the same kinship situation. The resulting classificatory kinship system operates as an abstract group. White showed how to classify existing clan systems into a few basic types, revealing a wider variety of clan systems than anthropologists had previously hypothesized.

Friendship on Frat Row

Theodore Newcomb (1953) started a fraternity at Bennington College

in the 1930s. In return for free room and board, 17 fratmen filled out

weekly sociometric rankings. These 15 NEWFRAT matrices, stored in

UCINET, are a classic dataset on the evolution of friendship choices.

The usual story about Newcomb‟s fraternity is

that structural convergence occurred as those

transferring college students met and formed

friendships. That interpretation comes from

network summary measures, or aggregated

blockmodels, indicating that structural change

operates through structurally equivalent actors.

However, convergence remains a controversial conclusion, because as

much as one-fifth of the friendship ties changed during in the final weeks.

Moody et al. (2004) use network “movies” to argue that “the overall

structure does not converge on a single form, and that the process of

change is heterogeneous with some actors forming stable relations while

others dance between friends throughout the observation period.”

An Evolving Network

“Two groups follow a simple convergence story -- with their nominations getting progressively more stable as time passes. The first of these groups … has 7 members, including the cluster at the right of the movie (1,6,13,8) and presents a gradual convergence of nomination patterns, while the second (with 6 members) does not converge on stable nomination patterns until week 5. Finally, group 3 (with 4 members, including hanger-on nodes 10 & 15) never seems to settle on a particular nomination pattern, but changes nominations steadily over the observation period.”

Name Generators

Instruments that measure ego-centric networks in community or national

surveys must use an open-ended “name generator” rather than an

enumerated checklist. The 1985, 1987 & 2004 GSS quex: “From time to

time, most people discuss important matters with other people. Looking

back over the last six months, who are the people with whom you

discussed matters important to you. Just tell me their names or initials.”

For each pair of alters: “Are (Name) and (Name) total strangers? Especially close?” After asking about every alter‟s gender, race, age, occupation, etc.: “Here is a list of some of the ways in which people are connected to each other. Some people can be connected to you in more than one way. For example, a man could be your brother and he may belong to your church and be your lawyer. When I read you a name, please tell me all the ways that person is

connected to you.” →→

Spouse, parent, sibling, child, other family, coworker, member of group to which you belong, neighbor, friend, professional advisor or consultant, other

Just the Facts, Ma’m

The 1985 GSS module uncovered many factoids about the social

composition of adult Americans‟ egocentric discussion networks

 Median size = 3 alters; 25% have 0-1 alters, 25% have 5-  Half of alters are ego‟s kin; only 20% have no kin in their networks  Alters know one another: mean density = 0.61; only 5% all strangers  High race/ethnic homogeneity; only 8% have any alter diversity  Substantial sex diversity: 78% have at least one alter of opposite sex (most often a spouse, sibling, or parent)

“The GSS survey network data describe relatively small, kin-centered, dense, homogeneous social environments surrounding Americans. … To the extent that success of „networking‟ as an instrumentally oriented pursuit depends on access to diverse others, those best situated to make use of it are the young and middle-aged, the well-educated, and those living in larger places” (Marsden 1987:130). The 2004 GSS survey found significantly smaller ego-nets & more isolates.

Clientalistic Cultures

Clientalistic systems are prevalent in Mediterranean, Asian, and

Latin American cultures having heavily collectivist conceptions

of social organization, such as Catholic or Confucian ethics.

“Patron-client systems combine strong emotional,

particularistic ties with simultaneous but unequal

exchanges of different types of resources. …

Clients exchange personal loyalty, deference, and

awe for the protection, understanding, and

material benefits provided by their patrons.”

(Knoke 1990:142).

Most cliques and entourages surrounding a patron are modeled

after patriarchal clans and extended families. Kinship forms the

inner hub, grounded in familial intimacy and trust. The spokes

are friends and acquaintances who perform brokerage services,

manipulating others‟ resources for their own profit. The result is a

hierarchical status structure connecting higher and lower strata.

Fischer, Claude. 1982. To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Knoke, David. 1990. Political Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Marsden, Peter V. 1987. “Core Discussion Networks of Americans.” American Sociological Review 52:122-131.

Moody, James, Daniel McFarland, Skye Bender-de Moll. 2004. “Dynamic Network Visualization: Methods for Meaning with Longitudinal Network Movies.” (Downloaded October 2, 2004) <www.sociology.ohio-state.edu/jwm/NetMovies/Sub_CD/dynamic_nets_public.html>

Nadel, S. F. 1957. The Theory of Social Structure. London: Cohen & West.

Wellman, Barry. 1979. “The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers.” American Journal of Sociology 84:1201-1231.

White, Douglas R., Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej Mrvar 1999. “Anthropology: Analyzing Large Kinship and Marriage Networks with Pgraph and Pajek.” Social Science Computer Review 17(3):245-274.

White, Harrison C. 1963. An Anatomy of Kinship: Mathematical Models for Structures of Cumulated Roles. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yi, Lee Mei and Paul Ellis. 2000. “Insider-Outsider Perspectives of Guanxi.” Business Horizons 43:25-30.

References