Essentials of Sociology. George Ritzer

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ not the people involved in the triad or the nature of their personalities. Different people with different personalities will make one triad different from another, but it is not the nature of the people or their personalities that make the triad itself possible.

      Social Networks

      Simmel’s work also informs the study of social networks (Erikson and Occhiuto 2017). The most basic social networks involve two or more individuals, but social networks also include groups, organizations, and societies; there can even be global social networks.

      Network analysts are interested in how networks are organized and the implications of that organization for social life. They look at the nodes, or positions, occupied by individuals (and other entities) in a network, the linkages between nodes, and the importance of central nodes to other nodes in the network. Figure 4.1 shows a network with low centrality and one with high centrality. In the low-centrality network, one node appears in the center, but it is actually linked to only two other nodes. The central node in the high-centrality example is far more influential. Every other node is connected to it, and there is only one link that is independent of the central node. Those who occupy positions that are central in any network have access to a great many resources and therefore have a considerable ability to gain and to exercise power in a network.

      Description

      Figure 4.1 Social Network Centrality

      Source: Social Network Centrality is reprinted by permission of S Joshua Mendelsohn.

      A key idea in network theory is the “strength of weak ties.” We are all aware of the power of strong ties between, for example, family members, or among those who belong to close-knit social groups such as gangs. However, as Mark Granovetter (1973) has demonstrated, those who have only weak ties with others (that is, they are just acquaintances) can have great power. While those with strong ties tend to remain within given groups, those with weak ties can more easily move between groups and thus provide important linkages among and between group members (see Figure 4.2). Those with weak ties are the ones who hold together disparate groups that are themselves linked internally by strong ties.

      Description

      Figure 4.2 The Strength of Weak Ties

      Source: The Strength of Weak Ties is adapted from Weak Ties in Social Networks, Bokardo, a blog about interface and product design, Joshua Porter.

      Researchers generally find that at least half of all workers in the United States have obtained their jobs through informal means, meaning referrals, rather than formal job postings (Marsden and Gorman 2001; Pfeffer and Parra 2009). It makes sense, then, to understand the strength of weak ties. If you are looking for a job, you may want to seek out the help of friends and acquaintances who have weak ties to many groups. This is because they are likely to have many diverse and potentially useful contacts with people you and your strong ties do not know at a number of different employers.

      One point worth underscoring in any discussion of social networks is the importance of internet networks, including Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter (Gee, Jones, and Burke 2017). This is another domain where weak ties can be of great importance. On Facebook, for instance, you may have hundreds, even thousands, of “friends.” However, it is clear that many of these “friendships” involve weak ties—in fact, far weaker ties than analysts such as Granovetter had in mind. It is also important to note that they leave objective traces, such as e-mail messages and writings on Facebook walls. As a result, such networks are much easier to study than, for example, those that exist in face-to-face interaction, which usually leave few material traces. This is the reason the app Snapchat was developed; it forces you to arrange for traces—such as photos—to disappear within 1 to 10 seconds.

      Groups

      We have already encountered the key sociological concept of groups at several points in this chapter, especially in Simmel’s ideas on the dyad and beyond. A group is a relatively small number of people who over time develop a patterned relationship based on interaction with one another. However, just because we see a small number of people who appear to be together—say, in a queue waiting to board a plane—that does not mean they necessarily constitute a group. Most people in a queue are not likely to interact with one another, to have the time or inclination to develop patterned relationships with one another, or, if they do interact, to do so beyond the time it takes to board the plane and find their seats.

      Types of Groups

      Several key concepts in sociology relate to groups. Consider the traditional distinction between the primary group and the secondary group (Cooley 1909). Primary groups are small, are close-knit, and have intimate face-to-face interaction. Relationships in primary groups are personal, and people identify strongly with the groups. In contrast, secondary groups are generally large and impersonal; ties are relatively weak, members do not know one another very well, and members’ impacts on one another are typically not very powerful. Members of a local parent–teacher association would be a good example of a secondary group.

      Reference groups are those that you consider in evaluating yourself. Your reference group can be one to which you belong, or it can be another group to which you do not belong but nevertheless often relate (Merton and Kitt 1950). People often have many reference groups, and those groups can and do change over time. Knowing people’s reference groups, and how they change, tells us a great deal about their behavior, attitudes, and values. We often think of reference groups in positive terms. An example would be a group of people whose success you would like to emulate. They also can be negative if they represent values or ways of life that you reject (say, neo-Nazis). The reference group to which one belongs is not necessarily the most powerful group in one’s life.

      Reference groups can be illustrated by the case of immigrants. Newly arrived immigrants are more likely to take those belonging to the immigrant culture, or even those in the country from which they came, as their reference group. In contrast, their children, second-generation immigrants, are much more likely to take as their reference group those associated with the new culture in the country to which they have immigrated (Kosic et al. 2004).

      One final set of concepts that can help us understand the sociological importance of groups is the distinction between in-groups and out-groups (Sumner [1906] 1940). An in-group is one to which people belong and with which they identify, perhaps strongly. An out-group is one to which outsiders, at least from the perspective of the in-group, belong. Thus, from your perspective, the group you sit with at your regular table in the college dining hall or fast-food court would be the in-group, while other groups at other tables might be the out-groups. The differences between these groups may be insignificant (e.g., whether they get their food in the food court from McDonald’s or Pizza Hut). However, they can also come to be so important (“jocks” versus “geeks”) that each group not only accepts its own ways but also rejects those of the others. In extreme cases this can lead to conflict between the in-group and the out-group. Research suggests that hostility often arises when members of the in-group perceive the out-group as constituting a threat to their self-interest (Rosenstein 2008). This is particularly evident in research on immigration (Schlueter and Scheepers 2010; Schneider 2008). In that case, native-born individuals (representing the in-group) may maintain discriminatory attitudes toward a growing population of СКАЧАТЬ