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:

Proportional 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 be just as subjective as the notions
> that lead us to consider the oceans "continuous".
>
> How do you even know that a boundary exists except by virtue of a
> discontinuity in relationships? You find the edge of your body by
> recognizing that on one side of it a series of relationships hold (e.g.
> continuity of flesh for example) that do not continue across the boundary,
> no?
>
> Consider a current in the above mentioned oceans. Where does one current end
> and another begin? What are the nodes that this relationship connects?
>
> In the modern age it seems increasingly that the old, assumed boundaries
> that defined a business or book or polity (at least) as discrete are no
> longer valid to assume.
>
> Can there be a definition of any THING (i.e. a node) without reference to
> how that thing relates to other things?  Including most notably a symbolic
> representation of that thing? If so, it would seem that relationships
> logically precede things or at least the identity of things as things.
>
> It seems to me presumptive to privilege nodes over relationships.
>
> Blyden Potts

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager