LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  August 2004

SOCNET August 2004

Subject:

Re: Characteristics of a relation

From:

Paul B Hartzog <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:55:18 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (96 lines)

***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/ *****

I just want to follow up on Blyden's post below, because so much of my
own work deals with the differences and distinctions between an
"object-oriented" ontology and one that is "relational."

An object-oriented ontology views objects (things) as primary, and
relationships as outside of the "boundaries" of that object.
Relationships are something and object "enters into."

A relational ontology views relationships as fundamentally constitutive
of what an entity actually IS. Relationships are not something "entered
into" because the entity has no real properties outside of its existence
"in relation" to everything else.

I was led to relational ontology through studying ecosystems, where
biological networks are intrinsic to what a species "IS" in nature, its
very being. Niches in ecology (which are relationships like
predator/prey) exist PRIOR TO the species' that come along to fill
them. The relationships persist, but the relata change.

It was no large effort to realize that this applies to social networks
as well.

In political science, we use "Constructivism" which posits a fundamental
co-constitution between structures and agents, and gets us a lot further
along in recognizing the relationships, but falls short of true
relationality, because it focuses on structure and agents as objects and
not on the relations in the system.

Eventually, I reached a win/win solution with all of this, which is to
visualize the whole debate as squares on a chessboard. Are they white
squares on a black board, or black on white? Does it matter? When we
choose to, we can focus on the "nodes" in a network as long as we are
clear that boundaries and identity are interpenetrated and permeable.
At other times, we can focus on the "relations" in a network, as long as
we accept that those relations evolve over time and can be extrinsic or
intrinsice to the entities in those relationships.

Would really love some feedback on all this. :-)

thx,
-Paul

-----------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask]
http://www.panarchy.com
-----------------------------------------------
The Universe is made up of stories, not atoms.
-----------------------------------------------

On Wed, 2004-08-11 at 12:50, Blyden B. Potts wrote:
> "I would add to this by suggesting that a relation cannot be defined without
> also defining a node.... A relation is a means to specify a specific
> association between *particular* nodes."
>
> Or maybe nodes are ways of defining entities from a particular set of
> relationships?
>
> "A node is a distinct and bounded measurable entity (often referred to as
> ego or an agent or an actor). Nodes can be people, books, businesses,
> countries, you name it. If it's discrete and non-trivial then it works.
> Oceans, for example, wouldn't work by this defition. They are continuous,
> not contiguous."
>
> The "boundaries" that lead us to see people, books, businesses, countries,
> etc as "distinct" or "discrete" might