Chapter1: Introduction: Sociological Theory

Division of Labor

The emergence of a division of labor is one of many ways to balance exchange relations in a unilateral monopoly. If each of the Bs can provide different resources for A, then they are likely to use these in the exchange with A and to specialize in providing A with these resources. This decreases the power of A and establishes a new type of network. For example, in Figure 12.7, the unilateral monopoly at the left is transformed to the division of labor form at the right, with BI becoming a new type of actor, C, with its own resources; with B₂ also specializing and becoming a new actor, D; and with B₃ doing the same and becoming actor E.

Emerson developed an additional proposition to describe tiffs kind of change, in which each B has its own unique resources:

The more resources are distributed nonuniformly across Bs in a unilateral monopoly with A, the more likely is each B to specialize and establish a separate exchange relation with A.

Several points should be emphasized. First, the units in this transformation can be individual or collective actors. Second, the change in the structure or form of the network is described as a proposition systematically derived from operant principles, corollaries, and other theorems. The proposition could thus apply to a wide variety of micro and macro contexts. For example, it could apply to workers in an office who specialize and provide A with resources not available from others. This proposition could also apply to a division in a corporation that seeks to balance its relations with the central authority by reorganizing itself in ways that distinguish it, and the services it can provide, from other divisions. Or this proposition could apply to relations between a colonial power (A) and its colonized nations (B₁, B₂, B₃), which specialize (become C, D, and E) in their predominant economic activities in order to establish a less dependent relationship with A.

Unilateral monopoly at time1 Division of labor at time2

B₁ A C

A B₂ Changes to A --D

B₃ A E

FIGURE 12,7 Transformation of Unilateral Monopoly to Division of Labor

Social Circles

Emerson emphasized that some exchanges are intercategory and others intracategory. An intercategory exchange is one in which one type of resource is exchanged for another type--money for goods, advice for esteem, tobacco for steel knives, and so on. The networks discussed thus far have involved intercategory exchanges between actors with different resources (A, B, C, D, E). An interacategory is one in which the same resources are being exchanged--affection for affection, advice for advice, goods for goods, and so on. As indicated earlier, such exchanges are symbolized in Emerson's graph approach by using the same letter--A₁, A₂, A₃, and so forth--to represent actors with similar resources. Emerson then developed another proposition to describe what will occur in these interacategory exchanges:

The more an exchange approximates an interacategory exchange, the more likely are exchange relations to become closed.

Emerson defined "closed" either as a circle of relations (diagrammed on the left in Figure 12.8) or as a balanced network in which all actors exchange with one another (diagrammed on the right in Figure 12.8). Emerson offered the example of tennis networks to illustrate this balancing process. If two tennis players of equal ability, A₁ and A_2, play together regularly, this is a balanced interacategory exchang--tennis for tennis. However, if A₃enters and plays with A₂, then A₂ now enjoys a power advantage, ~as is diagrammed in Figure 12.9.

This is a unilateral monopoly, but, unlike those discussed earlier, it is an interacategory monopoly. A₁and A₃ are dependent on A₂ for tennis. This relation is unbalanced and sets into motion processes of balance. A₄ might be recruited, creating either the circle or balanced network diagrammed in Figure 12.8. Once this kind of closed and balanced network is achieved, it resists entry by others, A₅. A₆, A₇, . . . , A_n, because, as each additional actor enters, the network becomes unbalanced. Such a network, of course, is not confined to individuals; it can apply to nations forming a military alliance or common market, to cartels of corporations, and to other collective units.

Closed circle Close network

A_I A₂ A_I A₂

A₃ A₄ A₃ A₄

FIGURE 12.8 Closure of Intracateaorv Exchanges

A₁

A₂

A₃

FIGURE 12.9 Imbalanced Intracategory Exchange

Stratified Networks

The discussion about how interacategory exchanges often achieve balance through closure can help us understand processes of stratification. If, for example, tennis players A_I, A₂, A₃, and A₄ are unequal in ability, with A_I and A₂,having more ability than A₃ and A₄, an initial circle might form among A_I, A₂,, A₃ and A₄, but, over time, A_I and A₂, will find more gratification in playing each other, and A₃ anti A₄might have to incur too many costs in initiating invitations to A_I and A₂,. An A_I and A₃ tennis match is unbalanced; A₃will have to provide additional resources--the tennis balls, praise, esteem, self-deprecation. The result will be for two classes to develop:

Upper social class A_I -- A₂,

Lower social class A₃-- A₄

Moreover, A_I and A₂, might enter into new exchanges with A₅and A₆ at their ability level, forming a new social circle or network. Similarly, A₃ and A₄ might form new tennis relations with A₇ and A₈, creating social circles and networks with players at their ability level. The result is stratification that

reveals the pattern in Figure 12.10

Upper sooial class Lower social class

A_I A₂ A₃ A₄


A₅ A₆ A₇ A₈

FIGURE l2,10 Stratification and Closure Exchanges

Emerson's discussion of stratification processes was tentative, but he developed a proposition to describe these stratifying tendencies:

The more resources are equally valued and the more resources are unequally distributed across a number of actors, the more likely is the network to stratify by resource magnitudes and the more likely are actors with a given level of resources to form closed exchange networks.

Again, this theorem can apply to corporate units as well as to individuals. Nations become stratified and form social circles, as is the case with the distinctions between the developed and underdeveloped nations and the alliances among countries within these two classes. Or this theorem can apply to traditional sociological definitions of class, because closed networks tend to form among members within, rather than across, social classes.

CONCLUSION

Since Emerson's pioneering work, network exchange theory has gone in many directions. Two additional approaches within Emerson's tradition are reviewed in the Web site for this book (see the theories of Linda D. Molm and Edward Lawler). Emerson's key insight was borrowed from Georg Simmel: Study the nature of social relations because these are driven by exchange forces. This insight has allowed theorists to talk about social structures-conceptualized as social networks--while still referring to the psychological forces that drive actors in these networks. Moreover, because the actors can be individual people or collective actors such as corporations or nations, the micro-macro problem of connecting people to structure is obviated. Work in exchange networks continues and represents one of the leading edges of theorizing in sociology.

Chapter13: Interaction Theory
Early Interactionist

EARLY AMERICAN INSIGHTS INTO INTERACTION

William James's Analysis of "Self"

Charles Horton Cooley's Analysis of Self

John Dewey's Pragmatism

Mead's Thought on Pragmatism,Darwinism, and Behaviorism

George Herbert Mead's Synthesis

Conceptualizing Structure and Role

Robert Park's Role Theory

Jacob Moreno's Role Theory

Ralph Linton's Role Theory

THE RISE OF SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

Ethnomethodological Theory

STATUS AND POWER THEORIES OF EMOTION

Early Interactionist

The first sociological theorists in Europe were concerned primarily with macro-level phenomena, but with the beginning of the twentieth century, theorists in Europe and America turned to the analysis of micro-level processes. They began to understand that the structure of society is, in some ultimate sense, created and maintained by the actions and interactions of individuals; so increasingly, they sought to discover the fundamental processes of interaction among people. This burst of creative activity generated a wide range of micro-level theories that will, for the sake of simplicity, be labeled "interactionism" The rise of interactionism also marks the beginning of American theory as an active contributor to the theoretical canon of sociology" Hence, it is appropriate that we begin with the American contribution to interactionism, turning later to the European micro-oriented tradition that emerged in the early decades of this century.

EARLY AMERICAN INSIGHTS INTO INTERACTION

A philosopher at the University of Chicago, George Herbert Mead (1863-1931), made the great breakthrough in understanding the basic properties of human social interaction. His was not a blazing new insight but, rather, a synthesis of ideas that had been developed by others. Yet, without his synthesis, the study of interaction would have been greatly retarded. To appreciate Mead's genius, let us first review those from whom he drew inspiration, then explore how he pieced their ideas into a model of interaction that still serves as the basic framework for most interactionist theories.