Akademisk Avhandling Som För Avläggande Av Filosofie Doktorsexamen Vid Stockholms Universitet Offentligen Försvaras I Hörsal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
T h e G e n e r a l So c io l o g y o f H a r r iso n W h it e Akademisk avhandling som för avläggande av filosofie doktorsexamen vid Stockholms universitet offentligen försvaras i hörsal 8, hus D, Södra huset, Frescati, måndagen den 2 juni 2003, kl. 10.00 av Reza Azarian Fil. kand. Sociologiska institutionen Stockholm 2003 Stockholms universitet ISBN 91-7263-603-4 106 91 Stockholm ISSN 1403-6851 Abstr ac t In this thesis the main features of Harrison C. White’s general sociology are studied. Since the 1960s White has played a crucial role in the development of the social network approach. He is well known for both the fecundity of the analytical tools he has developed over the years and for the original contributions he has made to several sub fields of the discipline. White has also developed an unconventional and highly individual approach to social reality that, as the end-result of a sustained synthesizing effort, has grown out of a long and persistent endeavor. Yet, more than a decade after its publication, this general theoretical approach still remains largely unexplored. The main argument of this study is that White’s approach represents one of the mast persistent, elaborated and systematic efforts to enrich the analytical rigorous of the social network approach by adding the substantive theoretical insights that have been elaborated mainly within the symbolic interactionist perspective and the tradition of phenomenological sociology. In this study, first the premises of White’s approach are examined. It is demonstrated how White uses social networks as an analytical tool in order to obtain causal explanations of social phenomena. It is also shown how White re- conceptualizes the notions of social relationship and embeddedness. Furthermore, it is also discussed how White, on the basis of these conceptual innovations, develops a novel image of modern social contexts. This study proceeds by presenting the set of new basic concepts that are derived from this image, seeking to locate these concepts within the larger and more familiar context of theoretical sociology. It is also demonstrated in this study that White’s particular image of modern social contexts leads him to pose new questions and to develop new modes of analysis to answer them. White’s view of modem societies radically alters the very nature and state of the question of social order as well as the premises of its answer. As White dismisses the conventional formulations of the problem of social order, he considers the issue to be a question of identifying the small enclaves of regularity within the social landscape that is dynamic, indeterminate and shifting. In more concrete terms, it becomes a question of identifying the limited, local and stable patterns or configurations of relationships that prove sustainable and thus observable, despite all the dynamics of embeddedness and connectivity. Finally, the basic theoretical features of White’s model of production markets are presented and discussed. Production markets is a topic to which White has devoted a great deal of interest. Ever since the mid-1970s he has produced a long series of work with the ambition of developing a sociological account of these markets. This account represents the most extensive application of White’s general sociology, where he fleshes out his abstract ideas and arguments and where one finds a concrete case of his account of the emergence of social structures and local orders out of network ties and flows. The main conclusion of this study is that, despite all its shortcomings, the general sociological perspective that White has developed is an important contribution. It provides sociology with a new foundation and shows the direction towards which the discipline should be moving. Keywatds: Harrison C. White, sociological theory, contemporary American sociology, relational sociology, social networks, social structures, structural analysis, economic sociology, production markets. T h e G e n e r a l So c io l o g y o f H a r r is o n W h it e Stockholm Studies on Social Mechanisms Edited by Peter Hedström and Richard Swedberg T h e G e n e r a l So c io l o g y o f H a r r is o n W h it e Re2a A2arian Department of Sociology jg Stockholm University ^ ©Reza Azarian 2003 Printed in Sweden Täbykopia AB, Stockholm 2003 ISBN 91-7265-603-4 ISSN 1403-6851 F o r N adja IlocBflmaeTCfl HaAe Co n t e n t s Acknowledgements ix 1. Introduction 1 2. FOUNDATIONS 17 N e t w o r k as a n An alytical T o o l 18 N e t w o r k as a T h e o r e t ic a l C o n c e p t 26 M o d e r n T ies 36 St o r y 48 C ontemporary So c ia l C o n t e x t s 51 3. Ke y Co n c e p t s 57 M u l t ipl e E mbeddedness 58 C o n t r o l 65 M o d e s o f Co n t r o l 71 Co n t r o l a n d Ag e n c y 7 8 Id e n t it y 83 4. St r u c t u r e s a n d D isc ip l in e s 93 So c ia l Str u c tu r e 94 Structural E q u iv a l e n c e 102 Comparability 113 D isc iplin es 117 5. P r o d u c t io n M ark ets 127 P r o d u c t io n M arkets as D ist in c t O rganizations 129 P r o d u c t io n P rocess 133 C om parable P r o d u c er s 141 T h e Buyer Sid e 148 P r o d u c t io n M ark ets as D isc iplin es 151 On e Wa y M irror a n d Term s of Tr a d e 154 6. An Asse ssm e n t 163 A Str a teg ic T u r n 165 T h e O n t o l o g ic a l D im e n s io n 168 Su bjectiv e D im e n s io n o f T ies 175 T h e Methodological D im e n s io n 187 So m e Critica l R em arks 189 Ap p e n d ix 193 R e f e r e n c e s 231 A cknowledgements I am grateful to a number of people, who have helped me write this dissertation. First of all I would like to thank my thesis advisor, Richard Swedberg (now at Cornell University), for his confidence in my ability to do the job and for his support along the way. I am also indebted to Harrison White (Columbia University) for the interest that he showed for my work and for the time he devoted to my interviews. I am also grateful to all the other people who, either in personal interviews or otherwise, have answered my questions: Andrew Abbott (University of Chicago), Karen Barkey (Columbia University), Peter Bearman (Columbia University), Matthew Bothner (Columbia University), Ronald Breiger (Cornell University), Ronald Burt (University of Chicago), Craig Calhoun (New York University), Randall Collins (University of Pennsylvania), Paul DiMaggio (Princeton University), Thomas Fararo (University of Pittsburgh), Eric Leifer, Peter Marsden (Harvard University), Michael Schwartz (State University of New York -Stony Brook), Charles Tilly (Columbia University), Arthur Stinchcombe (Northwestern University), Barry Wellman (University of Toronto), Christopher Winship (Harvard University), and Michael Useem (University of Pennsylvania). For their interest and constructive comments I also thank all those who participated in the two seminars that were held on parts of this dissertation at the Department of Sociology, Stockholm University: Göran Alirne, Partik Aspers, Pär Bendz, Ulla Bergryd, Alexandra Bogren, Jenny-Ann Brodin, Carl le Grand, Magnus Haglunds, Peter Hedström, Karin Helmersson Bergmark, Erik Ljungar, Jens Rydgren, Tiziana Sardiello, Arni Sverrisson, and Lars Udehn (Mälardalen University College). For valuable suggestions and comments on my work I am also grateful to Filippo Barbera (Turin University), Christofer Edling (Stockholm University), Johan Heilbron (Lille University), Elisabet Lindberg (Stockholm University), Per-Anders Linden (Stockholm University), and Ralph Schroeder (Chalmers University of Technology). In conducting my research I have been assisted by a number of other people as well: Michelle Ariga, Maria Bagger-Sjöbäck, Abbas Emami, Saemundur Karlsson, Eva Lundin, Mattias Smångs, Adrienne Sörbom, and Yvonne Åberg all at Stockholm University, have helped me with various practical and technical issues. I am also grateful to my friend, Jonathan Laurence (Harvard University), for helping me with the English and to my brother, Hamid Reza Azarian (Royal Institute of Technology), for aiding me to understand the complex world of polymers. I also thank the following people: Peter Marsden (Harvard University) for his kind permission to use his office and library during my stay at the Department of Sociology, Harvard University in Spring 2000, Barry Wellman (University of Toronto) for providing me with copies of White’s famous lecture notes from 1965, and Peter Hedström (Stockholm University) for providing me with a copy o f Doctorates in Sociology 1932-1989, Harvard University. Finally, I gratefully acknowledge the financial support that I, during my years as a doctoral student, received from the Swedish Foundation fot International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT), the Kinander Foundation, and the Department of Sociology, Stockholm University.