Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0004
J. Fuhse
Ethnic categories and cultural differences are rooted in the structure of social networks. The segregation of migrant groups in networks of personal relationships determines the extent to which cultural differences can be bridged and the salience of ethnic categories in multicultural societies. In line with relational sociology around Harrison White, the chapter develops a theoretical account of interethnic relations that examines the interplay of network patterns and meaning (categories and cultural differences). It draws on diverse theoretical strands from symbolic interactionism and social anthropology to Norbert Elias’s configurational sociology. This combination leads to conjectures about the ethnic pattering of networks and sociocultural constellations that resonate with empirical research from the sociology of migration.
{"title":"Ethnic Categories and Cultural Differences","authors":"J. Fuhse","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"Ethnic categories and cultural differences are rooted in the structure of social networks. The segregation of migrant groups in networks of personal relationships determines the extent to which cultural differences can be bridged and the salience of ethnic categories in multicultural societies. In line with relational sociology around Harrison White, the chapter develops a theoretical account of interethnic relations that examines the interplay of network patterns and meaning (categories and cultural differences). It draws on diverse theoretical strands from symbolic interactionism and social anthropology to Norbert Elias’s configurational sociology. This combination leads to conjectures about the ethnic pattering of networks and sociocultural constellations that resonate with empirical research from the sociology of migration.","PeriodicalId":103982,"journal":{"name":"Social Networks of Meaning and Communication","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121679582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0007
J. Fuhse
Social networks are dynamic structures of expectations that arise and continuously change over the course of social events. The conceptualization of these events with various key notions of sociological theory is discussed: The concepts of behavior, action, and social practices attribute events to individuals, whereas exchange, interaction, communication, transactions, and switchings are located between actors. Action, social practices, interaction, transactions, and communication involve the processing of meaning. I argue that an ideal conceptualization of events in networks should focus on observable processes between actors, and that it has to incorporate meaning, as a key interest of relational sociology. This suggests the concept of communication as a basis for the theory of social networks.
{"title":"Events in Networks","authors":"J. Fuhse","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Social networks are dynamic structures of expectations that arise and continuously change over the course of social events. The conceptualization of these events with various key notions of sociological theory is discussed: The concepts of behavior, action, and social practices attribute events to individuals, whereas exchange, interaction, communication, transactions, and switchings are located between actors. Action, social practices, interaction, transactions, and communication involve the processing of meaning. I argue that an ideal conceptualization of events in networks should focus on observable processes between actors, and that it has to incorporate meaning, as a key interest of relational sociology. This suggests the concept of communication as a basis for the theory of social networks.","PeriodicalId":103982,"journal":{"name":"Social Networks of Meaning and Communication","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131891464","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0005
J. Fuhse
This chapter develops a relational sociological account of the interplay of networks of social relationships with wider culture around the notions of role and institution. Roles mediate between the structure of social networks and institutionalized cultural patterns: On the one hand, they can emerge in small-scale network contexts and crystallize as long as the network structure persists. On the other hand, communication draws on institutionalized models to reduce its complexity and uncertainty. Relational institutions thereby imprint social networks by role categories. Such relational institutions include cultural models for actorhood, for social relationships (“relationship frames”), and for patterns of relationships. The chapter combines the general perspective of relational sociology with arguments from social network research, role theory, philosophical anthropology, and neo-institutionalism.
{"title":"Roles and Institutions","authors":"J. Fuhse","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter develops a relational sociological account of the interplay of networks of social relationships with wider culture around the notions of role and institution. Roles mediate between the structure of social networks and institutionalized cultural patterns: On the one hand, they can emerge in small-scale network contexts and crystallize as long as the network structure persists. On the other hand, communication draws on institutionalized models to reduce its complexity and uncertainty. Relational institutions thereby imprint social networks by role categories. Such relational institutions include cultural models for actorhood, for social relationships (“relationship frames”), and for patterns of relationships. The chapter combines the general perspective of relational sociology with arguments from social network research, role theory, philosophical anthropology, and neo-institutionalism.","PeriodicalId":103982,"journal":{"name":"Social Networks of Meaning and Communication","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131149860","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0006
J. Fuhse
The chapter offers a relational-sociological account of gender, romantic love, and personal relationships. It conceptualizes gender as a social category that prescribes particular kinds of social relationships within and between genders. Traditionally, friends are supposed to be of the same gender, whereas romantic love has long been reserved for heterosexual relationships. Friendships connect transitively to form cliques, whereas romantic love is exclusively dyadic. Romantic love and gender, but also friendship and family, are cultural models (institutions) that bring order into personal relationships. They make for patterns of structural equivalence, with different patterns by type of relationship. The statistical analysis of confiding relations in the 2004 U.S. General Social Survey shows them to be remarkably gendered. Close personal ties to friends, neighbors, and even siblings run predominantly to members of the same gender. Women maintain more family relations, and men confide more in work colleagues.
这一章提供了关于性别、浪漫爱情和个人关系的关系社会学解释。它将性别概念化为一种社会范畴，规定了性别内部和性别之间的特定社会关系。传统上，朋友应该是同性的，而浪漫的爱情一直是异性恋的专属。友谊的联系是短暂的，可以形成小团体，而浪漫的爱情则完全是二元的。浪漫的爱情和性别，还有友谊和家庭，都是为个人关系带来秩序的文化模式(制度)。它们形成了结构等价的模式，根据关系的类型有不同的模式。2004年美国综合社会调查(U.S. General Social Survey)对信任关系的统计分析显示，信任关系具有明显的性别差异。与朋友、邻居、甚至兄弟姐妹的亲密关系主要由同性成员维系。女性维持更多的家庭关系，而男性则更多地向同事倾诉。
{"title":"Love and Gender","authors":"J. Fuhse","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0006","url":null,"abstract":"The chapter offers a relational-sociological account of gender, romantic love, and personal relationships. It conceptualizes gender as a social category that prescribes particular kinds of social relationships within and between genders. Traditionally, friends are supposed to be of the same gender, whereas romantic love has long been reserved for heterosexual relationships. Friendships connect transitively to form cliques, whereas romantic love is exclusively dyadic. Romantic love and gender, but also friendship and family, are cultural models (institutions) that bring order into personal relationships. They make for patterns of structural equivalence, with different patterns by type of relationship. The statistical analysis of confiding relations in the 2004 U.S. General Social Survey shows them to be remarkably gendered. Close personal ties to friends, neighbors, and even siblings run predominantly to members of the same gender. Women maintain more family relations, and men confide more in work colleagues.","PeriodicalId":103982,"journal":{"name":"Social Networks of Meaning and Communication","volume":"366 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122847466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-21DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0003
J. Fuhse
Social groups were a key concept in early sociology (German formal sociology, symbolic interactionism). Since the 1960s, they have been replaced by “social network” as the prime concept for informal social structures. We rarely find the bounded and internally homogeneous social units suggested by the group concept in the real world. Instead, individuals are embedded in a complex mesh of social relationships. Building on relational sociology, we can reconceptualize groups as a particular case of densely connected network patterns of social relationships. These exist only by degree, to the extent that they are reinforced by a social boundary separating the group members symbolically from the outside world and by foci of activity for the group to meet. Densely connected groups develop a particular group culture, and they frequently use symbols to signal group membership and the cultural difference to other groups and to the wider cultural context (group style).
{"title":"Groups and Social Boundaries","authors":"J. Fuhse","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190275433.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"Social groups were a key concept in early sociology (German formal sociology, symbolic interactionism). Since the 1960s, they have been replaced by “social network” as the prime concept for informal social structures. We rarely find the bounded and internally homogeneous social units suggested by the group concept in the real world. Instead, individuals are embedded in a complex mesh of social relationships. Building on relational sociology, we can reconceptualize groups as a particular case of densely connected network patterns of social relationships. These exist only by degree, to the extent that they are reinforced by a social boundary separating the group members symbolically from the outside world and by foci of activity for the group to meet. Densely connected groups develop a particular group culture, and they frequently use symbols to signal group membership and the cultural difference to other groups and to the wider cultural context (group style).","PeriodicalId":103982,"journal":{"name":"Social Networks of Meaning and Communication","volume":"212 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129592607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：