***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org *****
I was asked by Barry Wellman to supply the abstracts of the three articles just published on "Sociologica" (free access, at the moment at least)
Here there are:
1) A. Abbott: Reacting to the original papers outlining the importance of “social mechanisms,” this paper contrasts two views of the social process, the mechanismal and the relational. In the sources here analyzed, the mechanismal perspective is largely based on methodological individualism and generally presupposes rational, or at least intentional, action. A fundamental assumption of this approach is that the meaning of an action is given in itself. The relational view by contrast holds that the meaning of an action arises only from its relation to other actions, both temporally and structurally. The relational view takes not actors but interaction as primitive and focuses on the scene (context) of action rather than the intentions of actors. The paper investigates these differences by examining the Elsterian mechanisms of “endowment” and “contrast,” both theoretically and through the example of application of students to institutions of higher education in America.
2) M. Granovetter: Granovetter conveys to French readers of some of his 1973-1990 essays what they all have in common, and how his thought evolved over this period. He relates how early social network analysts rebelled against Parsons’ neglect of individuals and social networks by devaluing the importance of culture and norms, and how their later work tried to restore the proper balance. Comparing economic sociology in the French and Anglo-Saxon traditions, he concludes that while the former is often considered more attuned to power and institutions, the differences are smaller than has typically been imagined. While some adherents of the “New Economic Sociology” may have excessively privileged the causal role of social networks, he argues that his own work and the main thrust of this movement have always identified networks as a proximate and intervening cause that links the behavior of individuals to the development and operation of social institutions.
3) M. Mizruchi: In recent years, sociologists have paid increasing attention to the economy. Two broad fields have emerged, both of which have roots in classical sociology: political economy and economic sociology. Political economy has focused primarily on the embeddedness of economic activity within larger political institutions. Economic sociology has focused primarily on the behavior of firms within product markets and the meanings that economic actors draw from the cultures in which they operate. I argue that the two approaches are fully compatible, and that network analysis has the potential to provide a synthesis between them. I illustrate this with a discussion of the field of power structure research-an area in which scholars have examined the relations between corporations and the state. I discuss the decline of power structure research, and argue that renewed attention to this area could provide a means of linking political economy, economic sociology, and the study of social networks.
The issue includes also a debate among John Goldthorpe, Paul DiMaggio, Mike Savage and others about the concept of "cultural capital".
I hope you will enjoy reading,
Department of Social Sciences
University of Turin
Via S. Ottavio 50
10124 Turin (Italy)
tel. ++39 011 6702641
mobile ++39 338 2997966
Leggi GRATIS le tue mail con il telefonino i-mode™ di Wind
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.