Kronenfeld & White on Kinship and Cognition

From InterSciWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject: some references to cite Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 11:03:47 -0800 From: David Kronenfeld <david.kronenfeld@ucr.edu> To: Doug White <Douglas.White@uci.edu>, Doug White <drwhite2@gmail.com>


Doug, --- I'm working on a book MS describing my take on culture as a collective cognitive system. At one point in it, in reference to the role that social groups and social relations play in (collective) culture, I would like to cite a couple (just a couple) of your pieces that best provide an up-to-date entry point into and summary of your work/approach to social networks. What do you suggest ? Thanks,

               david

David:

My chapter in your Companion of course makes that argument.

Mark Pagel's. 2011. Wired for Culture: Origins of the Human Social-Mind. Norton & Company is all about this topic

And the argument is made in 2011 Douglas R. White. Kinship, Class, and Community. Chapter 10, pp. 129-147: In, John C. Scott and Peter Carrington, Eds., Sage Handbook of Social Networks. Table of Contents. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper 11-04-015. Preprint at World Cultures eJournal 18(2): article 2. 30pp. pdf http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/pdf/Kiinship_Class_CmtyCh10.pdf i.e., that socially cohesive network structure and structural cohesion, especially structural cohesion in kinship networks create collective cognitive systems related to the kinds of cultural system integration also described by Pagel 2011 and in Kinship, Class, and Community. Chapter 10.

-------- Forwarded Message -------- 

David Kronenfeld

Doug: identification of the structurally cohesive kin groups wherein my theory of cohesive subgroups will show the most likely boundaries for shared culture. That's because everyone in these structurally cohesive kin groups are multiply connected, others not.


Forwarded Message --------

Subject: Fwd: some references to cite Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:48:41 -0800 From: Doug White <drwhite@uci.edu> To: Dave <david.kronenfeld@ucr.edu>, drwhite <drwhite@uci.edu>

The argument is made in 2011 Douglas R. White. Kinship, Class, and Community. Chapter 10, pp. 129-147: In, John C. Scott and Peter Carrington, Eds., Sage Handbook of Social Networks. Table of Contents. Santa Fe Institute Working Paper 11-04-015. Preprint at World Cultures eJournal 18(2): article 2. 30pp. pdf http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/pdf/Kiinship_Class_CmtyCh10.pdf i.e., that socially cohesive network structure and structural cohesion, especially structural cohesion in kinship networks create collective cognitive systems related to the kinds of cultural system integration also described by Pagel 2011 and in Kinship, Class, and Community. Chapter 10.Kinship Network Analysis

There is an interesting contrast between my article above, which focuses if structural cohesion in kinship networks so that each node is a marriage or if not married, an individual, and there are multiple nodes for individuals married more than once. Named persons in these cases will show individual names as labels for individuals. This also allows the identification of the structurally cohesive kin groups wherein my theory of cohesive subgroups will show the most likely boundaries for shared culture. That's because everyone in these structurally cohesive kin groups are multiply connected, others not.

The Kinship Network Analysis by Hamberger, Houseman and White is a very different structure -- not structurally cohesive -- since every node in the kinship graph is an individual -- and these networks are unlikely to show the most likely boundaries for shared culture. Culture-wise they may roll over into what may not be relatively homogeneous distinct cultural cognitive groups.

Hamberger et al analyzes their structures similarly to Levi-Strauss's theory that kinship is constructed laterally by marriage networks that "roll over" outside of, say, of common descent groups which of course are more likely to be extended affinal networks where there are not relatively homogeneous distinct cultural cognitive groups.