Conceptual Ethnography
1. Integrative concepts: e.g., how ‘cognition’ uses
networks in mental operations (‘memory’)
2. How to learn from behavior: network approaches
3. Simulation: baselines and relational biases
4. How people ‘count’ on each other - examples
a)
Slovene Farmers of Feistritz, Austria – How class is counted
b)
Dukuh Hamlet and Javanese Muslim Village Elites – Are we different?
c)
Pul Eliyan Kinship in Sri Lanka – What ‘side’ are you on?
d)
Aydĭnlĭ Turkish Nomad Clan – What is our ‘group’? Are we from the same
‘root’?
Thinking Relationally
1. Categorical thinking: e.g., groups as a classificatory
partition or hierarchy of mutually exclusive classes
2. Relational thinking: e.g., who is linked to whom? What
is linked to what? On whom do people ‘count’?
3. Simulation: baselines and relational biases
a)
Slovene Farmers of Feistritz, Austria – How class is counted?
b)
Dukuh Hamlet and Javanese Muslim Village Elites – Are we different?
c)
Pul Eliyan Kinship in Sri Lanka – What ‘side’ are you on?
d)
Aydĭnlĭ Turkish Nomad Clan – What is our ‘group’? Are we from the same
‘root’?
Thinking Relationally
a. Relational Representation
4
genealogies
3
become
4
2
a parental
graph
2
3
1
1
Showing how couples are related, e.g., by sex and rank, makes it easier to
see patterns of relations. Conventional genealogical diagrams emphasize
the categorical treatment of sibling sets.
Douglas R. White and Paul Jorion.
1992 “Representing and Analyzing Kinship: A Network Approach.” Current
Anthropology 33:454-462.
1996 “Kinship Networks and Discrete Structure Theory: Applications and
Implications.” Social Networks 18:267-314.
Douglas R. White, Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej Mrvar.
1999. “Analyzing Large Kinship and Marriage Networks with Pgraph and Pajek,”
Social Science Computer Review 17(3):245-274.
b. Defining endogamy relationally
• Categorical attributes for endogamy:
– suffer from problems of specification error
• Structural endogamy is relational:
– It consists of blocks of relinkings:
• blocks of blood marriage as same-family relinking
• blocks of k-family relinkings, with depth g generations
– network cohesion is the more general concept
4
3
male lines female lines
• parental graphs identify relinkings as cycles
maximal blocks of cycles define limits of structural endogamy1
(bicomponents: sets of nodes where every pair is linked by two
ore more node-independent paths). These are relational patterns
that people recognize intuitively.
2
c. Relationally cohesive blocks in social
networks have predictable consequences
• sociological uses of this approach are discussed in
– White, Douglas R. and Frank Harary. 2001. "The Cohesiveness of Blocks
in Social Networks: Connectivity and Conditional Density." To appear in
Sociological Methodology 2001.
– Moody, James, and Douglas R. White. 2001. “, Structural Cohesion and
Embeddedness: A Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups.” American
Sociological Review 68(1).
– Powell, Walter W., Douglas R. White, Kenneth W. Koput and Jason
Owen-Smith. 2005. “The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in
the Life Sciences.” American Journal of Sociology 110(4)
d. Identifying marriage rules and strategies
relationally: controlled demographic simulation
in a science of social structure and dynamics that
includes marriage and kinship, how to
 define and evaluate marriage strategies against random
baselines?
 separate ‘randomizing’ strategy from ‘preferential’ strategy?
 detect atomistic strategies (partial, selective) as well as global
or “elementary” marriage-rules or strategies?
 detect changes in marriage rules or strategies?
D. White. 1997. Structural Endogamy and the graphe de parenté.
Mathématique, informatique et sciences humaines 137:107-125.
Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales
D. White. 1999. “Controlled Simulation of Marriage Systems.”
Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 3(2).
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/2/3/5/JASSS.html
See: http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite
the simulation technique is simple:
In each generation of marriages in an actual p-graph –
• number the set K of marriages 1 to k
• Reassign each person married into the generation to a random
marriage in K, allowing additional rules to prevent incest as defined
culturally
• But don’t change the parents: that keeps each sibling set intact
(all this is done automatically by the Pgraph software)
This gives a simulated dataset that has the same numbers of people and
of marriages, the same distribution of sibling sets, hence the same
sex ratio in each generation, etc.
applications of the simulation method to study
structural endogamy pertain to:
•
•
•
•
•
Social class,
Elite structural endogamy,
Wealth consolidation,
Community/ethnic integration,
Testing alliance, descent, and
proscriptive theories and models
… in the examples to follow
4. How people ‘count’ on each other
- Case Study examples
 Social class and structural endogamy in the Austrian village of
Feistritz: Strategic ‘counting’ of relinked kin (w/ Lilyan Brudner)
 Status endogamy in a Javanese village (Dukuh hamlet and Muslim)
elites (w/ Thomas Schweizer): ‘discounting’ differences in marriage
frequencies (they are governed by demographic constraints, not by
different consanguineal marriage preferences)
 Dual organization in Sri Lanka: Preferred marriages and sidedness in
Pul Eliya: ‘counting’ sides (w/ Michael Houseman)
 Clan Organization among Nomadic Herders: ‘counting’ on shifting and
groups with sliding scales of integration (w/ Ulla Johansen 2001)
Example 1: Carinthian Farmers
– How is class counted?
• Graphic technique: showed households as a macro-unit of analysis,
containing successive nuclear or stem families as nodes in the graph.
• Key concepts: marital relinking, parental graph (where nodes are
marriages and lines are filiation), structural endogamy, bicomponent of
the p-graph defines endogamous boundary (in those case, of social
class).
• Predicted social class and heirship among farmers from the cohesive
set of marriages in the farming valley (non heirs did not enter in the
kinship bicomponent)
1997 “Class, Property and Structural Endogamy: Visualizing Networked
Histories,” Theory and Society 25:161-208. Lilyan Brudner and
Douglas White. http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/T&S/T&Spage1.htm
SOCIAL CLASS in Feistritz: Comparison of Relinking Frequencies for Actual and Simulated Data
(*=actual frequencies greater than chance as determined by simulation)
Magnitude of Structural Endogamy with ancestors back
1,
2,
..., g generations
1
2
3
4
5
6
Actual
8*
16*
70*
179
257
318
Simulated
0
0
32
183
273
335
Actual
8*
58*
168
246
308
339
Simulated
0
18
168
255
320
347
Actual
26*
115*
178
243
278
292
Simulated
0
98
194
262
291
310
Starting from:
Present generation
Back one generation
Back two generations
Statistical
conclusion:
conscious
relinking
among
families
creates
structural
endogamy
from Brudner and White, 1997 ‘Class, Property and Structural Endogamy:
Visualizing Networked Histories,’ Theory and Society 26:161-208.
Pgraph software;
p-graph representation:
these are the heirs and
families that are relinked
The social
class of
farmstead
inheritors,
1510-1980
Here the relinking couples are correlated with the social
class of farmstead heirs (r=.54, p=.000000001); if adjusted
for types of missing data, the correlation is much higher
Example 2: Rural Javanese Elites
- Are we different than others?
•
Graphic technique: nuclear families as the unit of p-graph analysis, additional arrows for
property flows (used in the publication) showed extended family rules for partitioning
of mercantile resources and property of groups constituted by relinking.
•
Key concepts: blood marriage as a form of marital relinking, p-graph, structural
endogamy, bicomponent of the p-graph, the social biography of things (property flows).
•
Showed (1) apparent differences in marriage patterns of elites and commoners
were due to a common cultural practice of status endogamy, which for elites
implied a set of potential mates whose smaller size implied marriage among
blood relatives within a few generations, (2) given a common rule of division of
inheritance, closer marital relinkings among elites facilitated the reconsolidation of wealth within extended families, and (3) extended families so
constituted operated with a definite set of rules for the division of productive
resources so as to distribute access to mercantile as well as landed resources.
Douglas White and Thomas Schweizer, 1998 “Kinship, Property and Stratification
in Rural Java: A Network Analysis” pp. 36-58 in Schweizer and White, eds.
Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. Cambridge Univ. Press.
STATUS ENDOGAMY in a Javanese Village (Dukuh Hamlet, Muslim Elites),
Test of Actual versus Simulated Marriage among Consanguineal Kin
key: A
B
TA
TS
=
=
=
=
frequency of actual marriages with a given type of relative
frequency of simulated random marriages with a given type of relative
total of actual relatives of this type
total of simulated relatives of this type
Javanese elites
A S TA TS p=
1: 1 0 4 3 .625
2: 1 2 2 3 .714
3: 2 1 3 2 .714
4: 0 1 6 7 .571
0 0 11 11
0 0 4 4
0 0 2 2
0 0 3 3
0 0 3 3
0 0 4 4
0 0 1 1
0 0 3 3
0 0 3 3
0 0 5 4
0 0 2 2
0 0 4 4
0 0 1 2
0 0 2 3
type
FBD
MBD
FZDD
ZD
Z
BD
ZSD
BDD
ZDD
FZ
FZSD
FZD
FBDD
MZ
MZSD
MZD
MBDD
MZDD
Dukuh Hamlet
A S TA TS p=
0 1 9 12 .591
1 0 11 16 .429
0 0 11 0
0 0 18 24
0 0 36 43
0 0 22 27
0 0
8
8
3-Way Test
type
FBD
MBD
FZDD
ZD
Z
BD
BDD
0 0 21 27
FZ
0 0 13 14
0 0 3 2
0 0 18 23
FZD
FBDD
MZ
0 0 13 14
0 0 6 5
MZD
MBDD
p=1.0
p=1.0
p=1.0
p=1.0
Statistical
conclusion: there
are no preferred
marriages
among elites
beyond status
endogamy,
although blood
marriages are
common
Hence: the
same system of
marriage rules
operates for
elites as for
commoners
Example 3: Kandyan Irrigation Farmers in Sri Lanka
– What ‘side’ are you on?
•
Graphic technique: nuclear families as the unit of p-graph analysis, analysis of blood
marriages, sibling sets and of inheritance or bequests revealed an underlying logic of marital
sidedness.
•
Key concepts: bipartite graph and sidedness (empirical bipartition of a matrimonial
network, reiterated from one generation to another following a sexual criterion).
• “This remarkable work, among other merits, has that of reconstituting the
near-totality of the data of Leach’s study of Pul Eliya, reexamined by
means of the PGRAPH program. It reveals that Leach had not seen, and
could not for lack of requisite tools of analysis, that marriages were
organized in response to a logic that the authors call dividedness and in
another form sidedness: invisible to the untrained eye, the matrimonial
network is bipartite, the marriages of the parents and those of the children
divide themselves into two distinct ensembles (which have nothing to do
with moieties)” (review by Georg Augustins, L’Homme 2000)
Michael Houseman and Douglas White. 1998 “Network Mediation of Exchange Structures:
Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka” pp. 59-89 in Schweizer
and White, eds. Kinship, Networks, and Exchange. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Frequencies of Actual versus Simulated Consanguineal Marriages for Pul Eliya, Sri Lanka,
Type
Actual Simul
of Mar. Freq. Freq.
Total
(2)Patri-Sided?
Total Fisher|-----Blood Marriage------|
Actual Simul Exact
type
P-graph notation
12:
5
0
40
38 p=.042 MBD(1)GF=FG
2:
1:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:
9:
10:
11:
13:
14:
15:
16:
17:
18:
19:
20:
21:
22:
23:
24:
25:
26:
3
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
39
56
6
3
5
18
17
18
9
4
6
25
14
7
8
8
9
3
8
3
13
15
11
11
11
40
57
6
1
3
15
12
12
5
5
3
27
10
3
4
2
3
0
2
0
8
13
5
5
4
.317
.508
.538
.800
.444
.558
.433
.661
.399
.600
.400
.528
.600
.727
.692
.818
.769
1.000
.818
1.000
.636
.551
.352
.352
.749
FZD
FZ
FFFZDSD
FFMZDSSD
FFMBDSDD
FMBSD
FMBDD
FMZDD
FMMBSSD
FMMFZSSD
FMMFZDSD
MBSD
MFZDD
MFFZDSSD
MFFZDSD
MFMBDSSD
MFMBDD
MFMBDDDD
MFMFZSSD
MFMFZDDD
MMZSSD
MMBDD
MMZSDD
MMBDDD
MMZDDD
GG=FF
GG=F
GGGG=FGFF
GGGF=FGGFF
GGGF=FFGFG
GGF=FGG
GGF=FFG
GGF=FFF
GGFF=FGGG
GGFFG=FGGF
GGFFG=FGFF
GF=FGG
GFG=FFF
GFGG=FGGFF
GFGG=FGFF
GFGF=FGGFG
GFGF=FFG
GFGF=FFFFG
GFGFG=FGGF
GFGFG=FFFF
GFF=FGGF
GFF=FFG
GFF=FFGF
GFF=FFFG
GFF=FFFF
Actual
Simul
yes
yes
no
no
yes
conclusions:
(1) MBD is a
preferred
marriage
(2) All blood
marriages
are patrisided
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
no
yes
Correlating Actual versus Simulated non-MBD marriages for Pul Eliya,
showing tendency towards a Patri-Sided (Dravidian) Marriage Rule
Actual
Simulated
Patri-Sided
18
5
Unsided
0
7
p=.0004
p=.000004 using the
binomial test of an
expected 50:50 split)
Marriage sides in Pul Eliya, with compound IDs for males,
(this slide was
made with
Pajek, output
for web
viewing)
red lines for females
Correlating Balanced vs. Unbalanced cycles in Actual
versus Simulated marriage networks for Pul Eliya,
showing a perfectly Sided (Dravidian) Marriage Rule
A. Viri-sidedness
Actual
Balanced Cycles (Even length) 25
Unbalanced Cycles (Odd Length) 10
Expected
17.5
17.5
p=.008
(all exceptions involve relinkings between nonconsanguineal relatives)
B. Amblilateral-sidedness
(women‘s sidedness adjusted by inheritance rules) - not shown in
figure but shown in final publication (Houseman and White 1997)
Actual
Balanced Cycles (Even length) 35
Unbalanced Cycles (Odd Length) 0
Expected
17.5
17.5
p=.00000000003
Example 4: Social Dynamics of a Nomadic Clan
– Are we from the same ‘root’? What is our ‘group’?
Johansen’s
genealogical
scroll
3
4
to p-graph for
entire society
4
2
3
2
1
1
We numbered each person and gave one line for each marriage
with number of ego, ego’s mother, father and spouse.
Using Pgraph and Pajek, this gave a graph for the nomadic clan,
ready for analysis
2004 Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems: Process
Models of a Turkish Nomad Clan. Douglas R. White and
Ulla C. Johansen. 2004. Boston: Lexington Press.
p-graph of the conical nomad clan
Relational answers to Johansen’s ethnographic questions
1 “Was there a single root to the nomadic clan?”
2 “How are kinship units formed and why do units of different scale bear
the same name (such as aile for family, minimal lineages, and larger joint
families; kabile for tribes or smaller lineages). Are such kinship groupings
the result of marriages?”
•
To the extent that marriages relink different families into socially cohesive sets or
bicomponents (in which each node is connected by at least two independent paths to other
nodes), patterns of “structural endogamy” defined by relinking reinforce and redefine the
effective units and subunits formed by consanguineal kinship links among families.
•
The index of relinking of a kinship graph is measure of the extent to which marriages
take place among descendents of a limited set of ancestors. For the nomad clan
genealogies index of relinking is 75%, which is extremely high by world standards.
•
Here is a picture of the structurally endogamous or relinked marriages within the
nomad clan (nearly 75% or all marriages):
1. An apical ancestor of the 90% of those
down to today’s nomad clan members
2: The polysemy of aile and kabile
as embedded units of shifting scale
• It is through selection by relinking that a single “root” ancestor
emerges as a statistical tendency, although there are original seven
independent lineage founders.
• By the same token, smaller subsets of kinsmen come to have cohesive
units defined by the intersection of blood kinship (often patrilineal)
plus intramarriage.
• This is also the key to how preferences for “close” marriages (FaBrDa
or FaFaBrSoDa) and “distant” marriages coexist: families establish
cohesive relations at all levels, from the minimal lineage to the other
lineages of the clan, as will also be seen in questions of support for
leadership.
2. Structural endogamy of the nomad clan
Each marriage is contained in a cycle of previously linked marriages
Question 2: to what extent is staying together as a clan
a result of marital cohesion?
Testing the Hypothesis of Relinking and Kinship Cohesion:
Relinked
Marriages
Non-Relinking
Marriages
Totals
villagers who became clan members
2**
1**
3
clan Husband and Wife
148
0
148
“ Hu married to tribes with reciprocal exchange 12
14
26
“ Hu left for village life
13
23
36
“ Hu married to village wife (34) or husband (1) 11
24
35
“ Hu married to tribes w/out reciprocal exchange 2
12
5
“ members who left for another tribe
0
8
8
villagers not joined to clan
1
3**
4
* tribes
**non-clan by origin
Totals
189
85
274
Pearson’s coefficient r=.95 without middle cells
Legend: Each marriage is classified as to whether or not it is part of the giant
bicomponent of relinked marriages, and then by clan or various types of non-clan
membership of the couple. Cells in which the relinked vs. non-relinked marriages are
predicted are shown in bold, and are segregated by the four larger cells in the table.
The correlation (Pearson’s coefficient) between couples in relinked marriages and
residence with the clan is .95.
Conclusion
• It is possible to construct a field of
conceptual ethnography where cognition,
social structure, and culture are integrated.
• Cognition ‘counts upon’ the social network,
relationally
• Culture and cohesive integration can be
defined relationally, utilizing networks.
END
Summary: Random Baseline Models
for the Study of Social Rules
1999 “Controlled Simulation of Marriage Systems.” Journal of Artificial Societies
and Social Simulation 2(3). Douglas R. White.
http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/2/3/5/JASSS.html software and statistical
methodology for comparing systems of marriage-rules to random baseline
models with controls for demographic variability.
1.
For the Austrian study, random baseline models established the preference for
relinking with relatives within 3 generations.
2.
For the Javanese study, the lack of difference between commoner and elite
marriages is supported, in spite of differences in frequency of different
marriage types.
3.
For the Pul Eliya study, random baseline models established the patri-sided
marriage rule for blood marriages, and the absence of a genealogical rule for
determining the marriageability of distant affines.
A single root to a nomadic clan with 10 lineages?
• The number of descendants of each ancestor is a simple genealogical
calculation from the p-graph.
• It turns out that there is one single apical ancestor for 90% of clan
between generations 3 and today’s clan members.
• This occurs because descendants of the “root” ancestor relink with
others, so nearly everyone becomes a descendant of the root, and
because those who do not relink tend to leave the clan.
• The “root” ancestor occurs at the generation where a single effective
“matchmaker” effectively relinks all the sibling sets in the clan through
the marriages of his children, one of them becomes the “root.”
The Social Dynamics of a Nomadic Clan
•
In sum:
– 1 Who stays and who returns to village life is predicted from kinship bicomponent
membership (structural endogamy).
– 2 Bicomponent relinking also plays a role in the emergence of a root ancestor, and of
more localized root ancestors for different levels of kinship groupings.
– Dynamic reconfigurations of political factions and their leaders are predicted from
ensembles with different levels of edge-independent connectivity.
– An index of the decline of cohesion of the clan is the fragmentation of cohesive
components in later generations...
•
•
Key concepts: bicomponent, edge-independent paths, connectivity.
Graphic technique: nuclear families as the unit of p-graph analysis.
Ulla Johansen and Douglas R. White. 2001. “Collaborative Long-Term Ethnography and
Longitudinal Social Analysis of a Nomadic Clan in Southeastern Turkey.” In press,
Chronicling Cultures: Long-Term Field Research in Anthropology, edited by Robert V.
Kemper and Anya Royce. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
SUMMARY
Analyzing cohesive groups in genealogical and kinship networks
•
Bicomponents have special application to
kinship networks when genealogies are
represented as p-graphs. They are trivially
easy to compute for large graphs (even to
1,000,000 nuclear families in Pajek, which
converts GED files to p-graph format).
•
a p-graph is an asymmetric and acyclic
digraph in which each node has a
maximum of two parental nodes, one in a
paternal line of filiation and the other in
a maternal line.
•
When Pajek analyzes bicomponents, it
ignores the orientation of arcs, and finds the
maximal cohesive subgraphs of a
genealogical network. A giant maximal
cohesive subgraph is the unique subgraph
(if any) that encompasses a number of
nodes in the graph many times greater than
any other bicomponent.
•
The giant maximal cohesive subgraph
of a kinship network identifies families
who are relinked, a social group with
potentially important substantive
properties in terms of those who might
•
Analytically, the giant bicomponent of a
kinship graph contains the information
necessary to analyze the cohesive marriage
structure of a social group. (White and
Jorion 1992, White 1997, 1999)
–
–
–
–
constitute a social class;
be more likely to participate in
community activities and officeholding;
recognize kinship/affinity connections;
be less likely to emigrate from the
community, etc.
Question 4: How did leaders emerge out of the
background of followers in their lineage and their clan?
•
Tanidik kisiler (=known persons) emerge as leaders partly by force of their
personality, but also by the extent of their support network not only from their
lineage, but in support that is distributed across lineages.
•
Hence the hypothesis that “distributed cohesion” is a basis for sets of people
who are the support group for competing leaders has two aspects:
– such groups overlap, cross-cross, and may contain structural “holes,” but are
stronger to the extent that the span larger segments of the entire clan, and do not
consist of just a localized and partial faction
– the level of cohesion can be measured by the number of edge-independent paths
between pairs within the group, including the leader. This is equivalent to the
maximum flow capacity for between each pair, where a single parent-child link is
considered to have a capacity of unity. This measure can be computed in UCINet.
Hierarchical Clustering of Maximum Flow Values
When maxflow is computed for the 243 couples in the bicomponent of the
kinship graph, a strong centralized pattern is evident.
atemporal perspective: six groups and their
leaders (index of relinking=.74)
Group
Cohesion
I
5
II
4
III
6
IV
7
V
8
VI
3
Statics and dynamics of leadership groups
e
c
a
b
d
f
Clan
center
leadership
cam
Example 5: The “Invisible State” in Tlaxcala
•
In Press. Douglas White, Michael Schnegg, Lilyan Brudner, and Hugo Nutini.
Conectividad Múltiple y sus Fronteras de Integración: Parentesco y
Compadrazgo en Tlaxcala Rural. In, Jorge Gil and Samuel Schmidt, eds.,
Redes Sociales: Teoría y Aplicaciones. México, DF: UNAM Press.
•
In contrast to the Austrian study, the Mexican case established a network basis
for the observed cross-village egalitarian class structure.
The structurally cohesive group defined by marital ties of Mexican villagers was
restricted to a core that included families with several generations of residence
and excluded recent immigrants and families in adjacent villages. The
structurally cohesive group defined by compadrazgo (ritual kinship established
between parents and godparents), on the other hand, crosscut this village
nucleus and integrated recent immigrants.
As a test of the hypothesis that bicomponent and connectivity structures are
cohesive, we used bicomponent membership to predict participation in civil and
religious organizations and activities
•
•
•
Graphic technique: nuclear families as the unit of p-graph analysis and of the
compadrazgo network, i.e., multiple networks.
Bicomponent predictions of political and religious
participation
Belén Ancestors‘ (N=252 generations 2-4) Core/Periphery Positions in kinship and marriage
Relinked
Giant component
Ayuntamiento Civil/Religioso
55
Non-Ayuntamiento
43
Small Components
13
3
31
20
Born Outsiders
1
86
Kinship Relinking Predicting Ayuntamiento Civil/Religioso (r=.53, p<.0001)
Belén Compadrazgos (N=1458) Core/Periphery Positions
Relinked
Giant component
Ayuntamiento Civil/Religioso
65
Non-Ayuntamiento
49
Small Components
2
0
16
10
Born Outsiders
0
1316
Compadrazgo Relinking Predicting Ayuntamiento Civil/Religioso (r=.39,
p<.0001 excluding outsiders; with outsiders r=.72, p<.0001)
Dual Organization and Balance (Duality and Clustering) in
kinship networks: Bipartite and k-Partitite Graphs
•
•
•
•
•
.
The “Glossaire de la Parenté” (Barry et al., 2000
L’Homme 154-55) includes two definitions that
exemplify contributions of network and p-graph
analysis to the study of dual organization:
Pratique matrimonial - refers to effectively realized
unions (see also “alliance”) as contrasted with the
idea of matrimonial norms.
Réseau matrimonial / matrimonial network - the set
of marital links or alliances developed around ego
(egocentric network) or a given (residential, social,
etc.) dataset (sociocentric network); the formal
properties derived from this set of relations.
Sidedness - Structure “à cotés” (Houseman and White
1996) - Empirical bipartition of a matrimonial
network, reiterated from one generation to another
following a sexual criterion, as for example where the
network takes the form of intermarriages between
opposing two sets of lineages.
Dividedness - Structure “en partage” (Houseman and
White 1996) - Empirical bipartition of a matrimonial
network, not reiterated from one generation to the
next, where the network takes the form of intermarriages between two ensembles of sibling groups.
•
References:
•
Laurent S. Barry et al. 2000, “Glossaire de la
Parenté,” L’Homme 154-55 (Question de
Parenté): 721-732, Postface by Lévi-Strauss.
Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1996
«Structures réticulaires de la pratique
matrimoniale» L'Homme 139:59-85.
Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1998
“Network Mediation of Exchange Structures:
Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul
Eliya, Sri Lanka.” pp. 59-89, In, Thomas
Schweizer and drw, eds.. Kinship, Networks,
and Exchange. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1998.
“Taking Sides: Marriage Networks and
Dravidian Kinship in Lowland South America”
Pp. 214-243, In, Maurice Godelier, Thomas
Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat, eds.,
Transform-ations of Kinship, Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Hage, P., and F. Harary. 1983. Structural
Models in Anthropology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), and other books.
•
•
•
•
References
• see 1999 Analyzing Large Kinship and Marriage Networks with Pgraph and Pajek Social
Science Computer Review 17(3):245-274. Douglas R. White, Vladimir Batagelj and Andrej
Mrvar. Contains a manual for p-graph kinship analysis, where nodes are marriages and
lines are filiation (parentage), and discussions of software programs up to 1999 (others
available from Michael Schnegg). http://vlado.fmf.uni-lj.si/pub/networks/pajek.
•
1997 Structural Endogamy and the graphe de parenté. Mathématique, Informatique et
sciences humaines 137:107-125. Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
•
See also: 1983 Hage, P., and F. Harary. Structural Models in Anthropology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), and other books by Hage and Harary.
•
1996. Schweizer, Thomas. Muster sozialer Ordnung. Berlin: Deitrich Reimer Verlag.
II. Analyzing genealogical and kinship networks, Review of Order 2:
Networks and Balance (Duality and Clustering), Bipartite Graphs
•
•
•
•
•
The “Glossaire de la Parenté” (Barry et al., 2000)
includes two definitions that exemplify contributions
of network and p-graph analysis to the study of
dual organization:
Pratique matrimonial - refers to effectively realized
unions (see also “alliance”) as contrasted with the
idea of matrimonial norms.
Réseau matrimonial / matrimonial network - the set
of marital links or alliances developed around ego
(egocentric network) or a given (residential, social,
etc.) dataset (sociocentric network); the formal
properties derived from this set of relations.
Sidedness - Structure “à cotés” (Houseman and White
1996) - Empirical bipartition of a matrimonial
network, reiterated from one generation to another
following a sexual criterion, as for example where the
network takes the form of intermarriages between
opposing two sets of lineages.
Dividedness - Structure “en partage” (Houseman and
White 1996) - Empirical bipartition of a matrimonial
network, not reiterated from one generation to the
next, where the network takes the form of intermarriages between two ensembles of sibling groups.
•
References:
•
Laurent S. Barry et al. 2000, “Glossaire de la
Parenté,” L’Homme, 721-732. special issue on
Question de Parenté, Postface by Lévi-Strauss.
Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1996
Structures réticulaires de la pratique
matrimoniale L'Homme 139:59-85.
Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1998
Network Mediation of Exchange Structures:
Ambilateral Sidedness and Property Flows in Pul
Eliya, Sri Lanka. pp. 59-89, In, Thomas
Schweizer and drw, eds. Kinship, Networks,
and Exchange. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Houseman and D.R. White 1998.
Taking Sides: Marriage Networks and Dravidian
Kinship in Lowland South America Pp. 214-243
in Transformations of Kinship, Maurice
Godelier, Thomas Trautmann and Franklin E.
Tjon Sie Fat, eds. Smithsonian Institution Press.
Hage, P., and F. Harary. 1983. Structural
Models in Anthropology (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press), and other books.
•
•
•
•
p-graph of the conical nomad clan
Structural endogamy of the nomad clan
Each marriage is contained in a cycle of previously linked marriages