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
Social
order
Acts that
reduce
conflict
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