Fall 2010 - This fall I have to write four articles, and I want to develop the theme for a book, so I will do these here, plus some themes for the fall 2010 networks seminar.
- 1 Book theme: from Machine learning to Dynamics
- 2 Making and Expanding databases
- 3 Cross-Cultural Consequences of Regionally Fluctuating Inequality
- 4 Causality, Morality, Inequality, Envy, and Anger in Human Exchange Systems
- 5 Annales Sociologiques
- 6 Discussion topics for SocSci 289A
- 7 Networks and Globalization Policies
- 8 SSHA in Chicago
- 9 June 15-30 Causality meeting at MPI for Mathematics in the Sciences, Leipzig, along with invitations to MPI for Social Anthropology, Halle
Book theme: from Machine learning to Dynamics
Causal graphs lead from static timeless predictions to bifurcations to the mechanisms for generative processes and metastable dynamics.
Multilevel peer effects and empirical causalities in the evolution of human societies.
Making and Expanding databases
R programs for converting databases to *.Rdata *.rar file, right click and save
Cross-Cultural Consequences of Regionally Fluctuating Inequality
Causality, Morality, Inequality, Envy, and Anger in Human Exchange Systems
(French journals: was a "big problem" posed and a logico-deductive argument?
The reticular approach to kinship L’approache réticulaire de la parenté Chapter 5, Penser la Parenté: Méthodes, modèles, debates Annales Sociologiques (include connection to algebraic terminological models)
Douglas R. White and Michael Houseman
The reticular approach to kinship poses questions of: How is social structure shaped by specific structural choices in kinship networks? How do kinship groups, as identified in actual networks, form social organizations with mutually adjusted behavioral expectations? How does the reticular approach to kinship help to identify kinship positions and their mutual relationships? Many examples of ethnographic network analysis identify organizations in these terms except that the groups and positions are implicitly recognized rather than formally named (White 2010b). “Mutual adjustments … based on agreements, in turn, are the same things as mutual systems of obligations and privileges or rights and duties. This inevitably involves the creation of sanctions” (Leaf 2009:17-18). Not all networks or components of networks are organizations, but “the members of organizations can form networks, and groups of organizations can form networks” (Leaf: 80).
The network approach to kinship develops most profoundly out of the introduction of mathematics into Anthropology, as in André Weil (1949) contribution to Elementary Structures." The effects of this approach have been profound, but also in unexpected ways.
What is added or taken away by mathematics in the study of kinship? For one, kinship and organizational networks are multilevel. Harary and Batell (1981) formalize this notion as a particular type of system, one that is by definition multilevel and potentially recursive: a network in which a node at one level may contain a network of relations at the next level. Imagine, for example, “drilling down” from a network of organizations to an organizational node, which opens up a view of the networks of individuals within it. This multilevel construct is used recurrently in this project to locate how various ethnographic networks are embedded. It focuses on actual network ties rather than idealized positions, and sociocentric networks not jus not just interpersonal ego networks.
André Weil was one of the first network mathematicians to identify how various ethnographic networks are embedded. Rather than simply focus on networks of relations among individuals he shows how kinship and marriage structure is also a network of relations among families or types of marriage, and of marriage cycles, wherein integration is achieved in larger groups. For classical Australian societies, he showed that who is specified as what kind of kin – in terms of social categories satisfies conceptual axioms – that affords everyone a category of spouse, consistent with categories of parents, children, and children’s spouses, and that integrates all the segments of the society. Systems of this type were later shown (by Lounsbury) to fall into Sir Henry Morgan’s (1870) larger category of “classificatory systems,” many of which form algebraic permutation groups (identities, reciprocals, and closures) that integrate the society. Weil spawned an industry of formulating algebraic models of “closed” kinship groups that later stimulated the study of how kin terms themselves are related by the algebraic relation of kin-term products (the English terms “brother” of “father” defining the category “Uncle”, for example). These sociocentric and cognitive-linguistic networks of terminologies complemented the more classical and contemporally genealogical approaches from W. H. R. Rivers (1910) to Appadurai (1986), focused on kinship as a means of transmission, succession and inheritance among individuals. The “kinship systems” of Lévi-Strauss and many others combine these approaches into identification of clusters of related features and principles that govern exchange along lines of kinship, marriage, and norms of interpersonal kinship behavior. The principles of generalized and random exchange and the special case of restricted or direct exchange articulated by Lévi-Strauss provide the foundations of a general theory by which the constraints and preferences surrounding marriage – and the human invention of marriage itself – provide alternative means of organizing social integration and disjuncture.
Organizations or whole communities studied by anthropologists are located in a network of networks, of which kinship networks and their multiple levels are an important component. The reticular approach focuses on organizational behavior shaped by findings about network structure in relation to kinship. The <<approache reticulaire>> to kinship began to be recognized in France (Augustins 2000, Barry 2000) with the publication of White and Jorion (1992), Houseman and White (1996, 1998a, 1998b), and White and Schweizer (1998).
Here we focus on actual network ties rather than idealized positions, not just interpersonal networks.
The long-term study of Aydιnlι Yörük Turkish nomads (Johansen and White 2002, White and Johansen 2005), for example, builds on such constructs for studying ethnographic networks and multilevel anthropology, and is credited by Leaf (2009:167) as “the best general approach to describing networks [against random baseline] simulation” [uses] the network analysis of Douglas White ….” “[H]e has formulated definite ways to express the expectations for … patterns implicit in the stated organizational rules and compare them with patterns in the networks (see White 1999). This generates the possibility of finding the often dynamic relationships between the networks and the stated organizational charters over time…. [M]ultiple network analyses in a single community can be treated as overlays, which can let us see how the organizational consequences of such organizational rules interact, relating, for example, marriage networks to economic networks. For a demonstration of the way that a variety of these ideas and techniques can come together in a single ethnographic analysis, see White and Johansen’s Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems: Process Models of a Turkish Nomad Clan (2005)” (Leaf 2009:173).
Augustins, Georges. 2000. Review of Thomas Schweizer and Douglas White, Kinship, Networks and Exchange. L'Homme 154-155: 783-786.
Barry, Laurent, et al. 2000. Glossaire de la Parenté. L'Homme 154-155: 721-732 (entries: dividedness, matrimonial network, nexus endogame [structural endogamy], sidedness).
Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. The Social Life of Things. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, William H. R. 1910. The Genealogical Method of Anthropological Inquiry. Sociological Review 3: 1-12.
Michel BERGÈS 2008. Claude Lévi-Strauss et les réseaux : parenté et politique.
Discussion topics for SocSci 289A
The mathematics of Zipf - having the properties of successive occurrences of "a system with an unbounded number of possible states", "expected for a system evolving to a stable state between order and chaos." Bernat Corominas-Murtra and Ricard Solé 2010, "Universality of Zipf's law", Physical Review E, 82:011102 abstract. Zipf's is also analogous to the special case of a frequency power-law distribution where the product of frequency by quantity (or by rank in the Zipf) is constant.
Networks and Globalization Policies
2011 (forthcoming) Networks and Globalization Policies. A lead article, in Balázs Vedres, and Marco Scotti (editors). Networks in Social Policy Problems. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Policies for Coexistence v Self destructive goals of Winner take all in Globalization
Cambridge University Press decided to offer a contract for our edited volume. The title that we converge towards is “Networks in Social Policy Problems,” and the proposed date for final manuscripts is the end of November. The reviewers and editors at CUP all agreed that there is a niche for a volume that translates network science ideas for a policy-oriented audience, interested in creativity and innovation, covert networks, food-health-energy security, threats to biodiversity, networked organizations, and markets and economies in crisis.
Mongolia-marriage - relevant to the article and the causality model.
"In form the traditional Mongolian wedding was an agreement between two families, with elaborate transfers of bridewealth in livestock from the groom's family and a dowry of jewelry, clothing, and domestic furnishings from the bride's. The wedding, which was a contractual agreement between families rather than a religious ceremony, was marked by celebratory feasting that brought together as many of the relatives of the bride and the groom as the families could afford to feed."
SSHA in Chicago
- How can I use Pajek to analysis a DAG (pgraph) to produce a matrix that has the number of common descendants of two ancestors?
- And to produce a partition that counts the number of descendants of each ancestor?
Then use UCInet to compute pairwise k-cohesion. Then correlate the entries in the two matrices. Does more pairwise cohesion --> more common descendants?
"Kinship networks from social and genetic perspectives" Family/Demographic Session 14 on Biological and social aspects of Kinship. Session organiser: Patrick Heady. Social Science History Association, Chicago. 18-21 Nov. 2010. There is increasing interest on the part of demographers and family historians in kinship connections that reach beyond the reproductive couple and the co-residential household. Biological and social theories of kinship offer different ways of understanding these connections. Biological (a.k.a. evolutionary) theories use the idea of "inclusive fitness" to explain how patterns of mutual care, partner choice, and property transmission may vary in relation to each other and to the economic environment. Socio-cultural theories of kinship look at family ties as instances of wider patterns of social classification and interaction. Long thought - particularly by socio-cultural anthropologists - to be incompatible, there have recently been significant attempts at a rapprochement between the two perspectives. In these two sessions we hope to contribute to this process - and demonstrate its relevance to historical and demographic concerns - with the following papers. SSHA session abstracts Paper: "Kinship networks from social and genetic perspectives" Abstract. A simple way to construct kinship networks from genealogical data that enables analysis of kinship structure and genetic transmission is to let mated pairs or unmated individuals be nodes and the arcs between nodes be the link between child and parent. This parental-graph forms a directed asymmetric graph (p-DAG). Individuals may have more than one line of matings or progeny. Pseudo- or p-generations are constructed by line-length minimization of the p-DAG. These are not unique whenever generational length differs for males and females. P-graph frequencies of types of mating (or marriage) and their overlaps are unique. Given the numbers of offspring of distinct mating types their effects of inbreeding can be partitioned. A simulator such as Repast, using random permutations of who mated with whom within pseudo-generations, is used to compute, for a given p-DAG, a statistical baseline for random mating, given the composition of families by generation within the network. P-DAGs and computations are illustrated for real populations, including expected frequencies for matings classified by type and departures from expectation that are statistically significant. This allows for study of kinship structure and how structured deviations from random mating affect inbreeding and avoidance of genetic inbreeding effects for specific populations and for kinds of kinship structure. Findings from the case studies have relevance to historical and demographic concerns.
June 15-30 Causality meeting at MPI for Mathematics in the Sciences, Leipzig, along with invitations to MPI for Social Anthropology, Halle
KASS at MPI for Social Anthropology (Kinship and social security)
Edited by Patrick Heady and Martin Kohli, Family, Kinship and State in Contemporary Europe, Vol. 3: Perspectives on Theory and Policy. www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/8364792.ctl - Cached
Edited by Patrick Heady and Peter Schweitzer, Family, Kinship and State in Contemporary Europe, Vol. 2: The View From Below: Nineteen Localities. www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/8364788.ctl - Cached
what the guys need for leipzig contact From: "lilyan white" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, May 5, 2011 11:11 am To: email@example.com Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version | Download this as a file | View Message Details
- your mobal phone in germany
- a map and the address of the max planck mathemtical institute and to be aware there are two mx planks
- map and address of the guesthouse chopinstrasse 27 and it is near the institute and train station
- info on how to make a call to the institute from outside germany and how to call inside of germany and they need the phone number of the institute and also the guesthaus and how during the week to reach offices there, incl your gsthouse theresa petsch phone is 011 49 prefix from outside germany and within leipzig the whole number without prefixes, ie local number is 341 9959 x 678
- plan for contacting you by phone, they need a 10 dollar calling card for germany just for this, ie as the cost is 3.00 a minute and as you will have the keys and if there is a problem to email you, also my phone number if there is a mixup of serious proportions and i should have each of their email addresses