Social Networks in the Modern City

Author(s): Henry W. Irving

Source: Social Forces, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Jun., 1977), pp. 867-880
Published by: University of North Carolina Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2577559
Accessed: 29/05/2009 09:19

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=uncpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of North Carolina Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org
Social Networks in the Modern City
HENRY W. IRVING, University of Hull

ABSTRACT
Social network, an interesting theoretical cconcept, has suffered through difficulties in
developingfrom it any operationaldevices suitablefor use in ordinarysocial surveyresearch.
Here, one such device is presented, and its utility is examined in the contrasting urban
contexts of Hull and Los Angeles. Existing theories about the correlatesof networkdensity
are partiallyconfirmed and partially contradictedby the findings. In particularthere is an
attempt to reevaluate the part played by kinship in the social networks of modern urban
society.

"And these three things abideth-class, role and network-and the greatest of these
is network" (Mitchell). When Mitchell wrote these words, network was certainly
looming large on the sociological scene. The seminal work of Elizabeth Bott and
her followers, in their studies of conjugal role segregation, had placed the idea of
network firmly in the language of social inquiry, by suggesting that it provided a far
more useful contextual framework for studying informal social relations than the
more traditional "group." Frankenburg had attempted to give the concept of
network a more general importance by placing various communities on a spectrum
of "social redundancy." Mitchell's own former colleagues in Rhodesia had given
an impressive array of research teeth to the idea by their participant observer
studies of the spread of rumour and the extension of influence in African urban
situations. J. A. Barnes, the doyen of the network group, had been attempting, for
some fifteen years, to wrap the network concept in a theoretical garb derived from
graph theory. Mitchell's enthusiasm was certainly well-founded. Yet most social
scientists will agree that network has not attained the conceptual stature of class or
role. I would like to suggest that this stunted growth stems not from the lack of
theoretical investment, for there has been plenty of that, but from the reluctance
of social scientists to operationalize the idea. Several workers have specifically
attempted to test the Bott hypothesis in a variety of social contexts (Aldous and
Strauss; Nelson; Udry and Hall), but their efforts merely attracted the approbrium of
"narrow operationalism" (Turner). Such hostility to genuine attempts to build a
body of working empirical devices must surely be inimical to the development of
the idea of a social network. Without spawning a set of measuring devices that have
widespread and relatively straightforward usage, the construct must inevitably
remain stillborn.
Other reasons, apart from the perennial hostility of self-styled theorists,
underlay the slow operational development of the network idea. In the first place lay
the heavy hand of the Bott hypothesis. So influential were Bott's ideas in the early
years of network that it came to be regarded, not as an interesting social fact to be
investigated in its own right, but as an intervening variable in the explanation of
conjugal role segregation. Yet the idea of network density, as a way of characterizing

867
868 / Social Forces / vol. 55.4, june 1977

eitherthe social ambienceof an individualor as a general measureof the cohesion

of a community or group, is an exciting one, and merits the descriptive and
explanatoryattentionsof many more social scientists.
A second problemarea, and one which to my knowledge has not previously
been resolved, is the confusing position which kin relationshipsplay in a network.
To Bott, and more particularlyto Gluckman, kinsfolk play a crucial role in the
social network. Gluckman wrote: ". . . I feel that the dominant variable in the
complex of a close-knit network is the nearby presence of kin . . . so that the
family's neighboursare its kin, and hence kin form the friends of the spouses, and
in certain areas also their workmates." Whetheror not this is true, and a priori it
would seem perhapsmore true of African situationsthan of English or American
ones, it remains a relationshipto be demonstratedratherthan incorporatedas an
axiom into a definition of network. There is, indeed, a growing body of evidence
(Harris,a, b; Rosser and Harris)to suggest that kin relationshipsin modernsociety
should be analyticallyseparatedfrom social relationshipswith non-kin, an issue to
which closer attentionwill be given in the analyticalsection of the paper.There is
moreover an overriding practical considerationwhich weighs heavily against the
inclusion of kin in a networkmeasuringindex. Kinsfolk, with very few exceptions
such as distant in-law relations, do tend to know each other, regardlessof whether
social interactionis meaningfulor not. This places them in a differentcategoryfrom
non-kinfriends when it comes to obtaininginformationaboutmutualacquaintance-
ship. So much work on network density has been renderedrathermeaningless by
the inclusion of kin and non-kinin the same index. It may be, as Bott and Gluckman
insist, that close-knit networks are indeed associated with a high kin orientation.
I would reiterate,however, that this relationshipis one which can be tested to good
effect, but it must not be allowed to destroy the validity of the network density
measuring device.
It was an urge to grapplewith these operationalproblemsthatpromptedthe
author to construct a variety of network density measuring devices on social
interactiondata that had been collected in some contrastingurban social areas in
Hull (Irving, a) and in SouthernLos Angeles (Table 1). To circumventthe problem
of conjugally split or divided networks, (Turner),the respondent, in each of the
sample households, was asked to report, as far as was possible, on the total or
"household" situation, ratherthan merely on his or her own. In a few cases where
the respondentfelt unable to do this, supplementaryinformationwas sought from
the spouse or other memberof the household, either at the time of interview or at
another time. The networks of children and adolescent members of the sample
householdswere not includedin the inquiry,thoughit is recognizedthat they repre-
sent an interesting alternativestudy possibility. In the well-established methodo-
logical format of informal social interactionsurveys (Irving, a), respondentswere
asked for informationaboutthe people, both kin and non-kin, whom they see most
of socially. An upper limit of five households was placed on both categories, and
the respondents were asked, in the case of the non-kin friends, about mutual
acquaintanceshipbetween the named interactors.It was found to be most practical
 Social Networks / 869

and convenientto recordthis informationin simple graphicnetworkform, a drawn

link representinga social relationship. Previous attemptsat network measurement
had attemptedverification of the reportedrelationshipsby actually following up
the named interactorsand questioningthem (Udry and Hall), but problemsof con-
fidentiality,interviewingresources, and reciprocitypersuadedthe organizersof this
survey that this was undesirable,a view with which Barnes (266) seems to concur.

Table 1. CHARACTERISTICSOF THE SURVEYEDNEIGHBORHOODS

The Hull Survey

1. Hessle Road A stable working class area of bye-law housing

adjacent to the Hull Fish Dock.

2. Anlaby Park An inter-war middle class suburb with substantial

housing.

3. Newland A lower middle class Edwardian suburb of small

terraced houses, largely owner-occupied.

4. Garden Village A pleasant, leafy area of semi-detached houses in

the "Letchworth" mould, now largely owner-occupied
by higher income working classes and lower middle
classes.

5. North Hull Estate An inter-war council estate, typically well endowed

with garden space and curving crescents, but now
rather run down.

6. The Avenues An inner city Victorian-Edwardian high class resi-

dential area with some "transitional" elements,
but with mainly professional and managerial
inhabitants.

The Orange County Survey

1. Turtle Rock An upper class modern residential suburb, one of the

constituent "villages" of Irvine new town.

2. Mesa Verde An upper middle class tract development, walled to

distinguish it from surrounding areas of slightly
lower status.

3. Mesa del Mar A tract development with houses of a price and quality
to appeal to lower middle and skilled working classes.

4. Apartments An extensive "singles" complex in south Santa Ana,

arranged in courtyards around communal space and
facilities.

5. The Ghetto Older wooden housing in inner Santa Ana, inhabited

largely by Chicanos (Mexican Americans) but also with
some blacks and poor whites.
870 / Social Forces / vol. 55:4, june 1977

The construction of a good index of network density is critically important

to the successful operationalizing of the concept. Most researchers have recognized
that it is vital to weight the index according to the overall size of the network. A
simple increase of the number of persons in the network results in a far greater
increase in the number of potential relationships (Bossard), and it is obvious that a
completely closed network involving six people is a much more striking social
phenomenon than one involving three. A traditional solution to this problem
(Barnes; Kephard) has been to express the actual reported relationships as a fraction
or percentage of the total possible or potential relationships in the group or network.
I have found it more satisfactory to express the actual reported relationships as a
fraction of the number of other interactors named in the network. In the first place,
this method gives better discrimination among the smaller networks, of which there
are a lot, especially among older people. Second, it gives greater weighting to the
larger, more spectacular networks, where closure is a more remarkable thing. The
fraction, or index, can range from 0 to 3 in the context of this survey, with its
specified maximum of five non-kin interactors. A value of 1 or less was considered
to be a loose-knit network; a value of more than 2 was considered to be very close-
knit. The intervening values of the index were rather arbitrarily divided into two
further categories for analysis, and labelled "fairly close" and "close" (Table 2).
In the event, frequency distributions suggested that, where dichotomous analysis
was desirable, the split was best drawn between on the one hand those networks
categorized initially as loose-knit, and on the other hand all the categories represent-
ing various degrees of closure.
The fullest discussion of the factors affecting the density of social networks
remains that of Elizabeth Bott. Unfortunately, her preoccupation with the causes of
conjugal role segregation makes her analysis a little less direct than it might
otherwise have been. She suggests that tight-knit networks tend to be associated
with close economic ties between members of a residential community, with
occupational homogeneity, with lack of mobility, in both a journey-to-work and a
length of residence sense, and with what she rather noncommittedly calls "person-
ality." Her views on the complex subject of class influences stand as one of the
most penetrating parts of her analysis. She recognizes that tight-knit networks, for
reasons suggested above, tend to occur among the working classes, but she cautions
against any simple causal suggestion:
It is only in the workingclass that one is likely to find a combinationof factors all operating
togetherto producea high degree of connectedness:concentrationof people of the same or
similar occupations in the same local area;jobs and homes in the same local area; little
demand for physical mobility; little opportunityfor social mobility. . (but) one cannot
explain connectednessas the result of the husband'soccupationalor class status considered
as single determinants.Connectednessdependson a whole complex of forces. ... generated
by the occupationaland economic systems, but these forces do not always work in the same
directionand they may affect differentfamilies in differentways (112-13).
In her later reconsiderations she has a look at the other end of the spectrum:
All the research families with very loose-knit networks and joint conjugal norms were
of the upper middle class subculture.However, various
cosmopolitan/spiralist/bureaucrats
 Social Networks / 871

indications in the literaturesuggest that, in the upper reaches of the managerialand pro-
fessional class, the careerof the husbandmay be so time consuming and involving that the
maritalrelationshipbecomes segregated(264).
Whether such segregation is associated with a tightening of the network,
Bott does not say, but her remarksserve to illustratethe complexity of the relation-
ship between class and network density. Her work, based on twenty intensively
studiedfamilies in the East End of London, is a telling example of the explanatory
potency of the anthropologicalapproach. To gain wider validity, however, her
network hypotheses must be tested among a larger sample of respondents, in a
wider variety of contexts and unfettered by a preoccupationwith conjugal role
segregation.To this end, the Hull and Californiandata were analyzed.
In terms of urbancharacteristicsit would be difficult to find more contrast
than exists between Hull and that partof GreaterLos Angeles which lies in Orange
County,surroundingthe old ruralservice centerof Santa Ana. Hull is essentially an
industrialcity, spawned, admittedly,in the Middle Ages, but assuming its present
urbanform in Victorian times with the arrivalof the railway and the consequent
expansion of its fishing, docks, and raw materialprocessing industries.Residential
expansion in the twentieth century has, of course, been considerable, but it has
simply fleshed out, with council and private housing, the bare bones of the
Victoriancity. OrangeCountyis quintessentiallythe freeway city of the 1960s-the
sort of urban place which Webber would consider a "non-place urban realm"
(a, b). Homes are new, people are residentially mobile, households typically
compriseyoung families or single people. It is astonishing,therefore,that the index
of networkdensity shows such similarityof frequencydistributionbetween the two
populations. (Table2). One would have expected, following Bott and Webber,that
Hull would show a markedlycloser-knit distribution.In fact, the reverse is true:
more people thanexpected in OrangeCountyhave tight networks;more people than
expected in Hull have loose networks. Social activity is obviously not so orderedby
the hardfacts of mobility as Webberwould suggest.
Bott's caution about the complexity of the relationshipbetween class and
networkdensity is heavily underlinedby both sets of data. Threeindicatorsof social
class-occupation, education and car ownership-failed, with one exception, to
reveal any significantassociationwith the index of networkdensity.The exceptional
case was the education variable for the California sample. The categorization
system was differentfrom thatused in Hull, for almost 50 percentof the Californian
respondents reported education up to or beyond the bachelor's level, and this
difference may underlie the positive finding. Graduates,evidently, exhibit a ten-
dency towards closeness of network-a neat illustration, perhaps, of the Bott
postulationthatprofessionaland managerialpeople undergowhat might be called a
social convergence. Certainly,it seems as though it is the close networks of the
graduateswhich underlie the anomalous finding reportedearlier, that Californian
networks were more closed than Hull ones. Car ownership in Californiais a very
poor indicatorof social class, for 240 out of 300 respondentfamilies had two or
more cars, but there is sufficientoverall evidence to show that, whateverthe causes
872 / Social Forces / vol. 55:4, june 1977

Table 2. NETWORK
DENSITY
INHULLANDORANGECOUNTY

(a.) In four network density categories

Loose Fairly Very

knit close Close close
Hull 168 110 57 19 354 x = 1404

Orange County 101 128 51 20 300 df = 3

I
269 238
~~~~~p
<0O 001
108 39 654

(b.) In two network density categories

Loose Close
knit knit
Hull 168 186 354 = 1275
df = 1
Orange County 101 199 300
I <0 001
~~~~p
269 385 654

of the variationsin networkconnectedness, there is no clearly defined relationship

with social class.
Otherpostulateddeterminantsof networkdensity were household category
(a measureof family status), length of residence, age of respondentand, in the case
of the Hull data only, a measure of personality based, following Eysenck and
others, on two dimensions, introversion and stability (Irving, b). In California,
length of residence has the anticipated effect with looser networks being found
among the more recent arrivals.The Hull data reveal no relationshiphere, perhaps
because of the greaterresidentialstabilityof the sample. In both samples, age seems
to have an effect, but it is difficult to interpretthe finding, for the patternsderive
from differentcategoriesfor Hull and California.In Hull, the older people have the
looser networks, indicatingperhapsa slowing of the social pace in later years, and
not a slow build up of dense networksover a lifetime of social activity. The bulk of
the explanationin the California sample derives from the overscoring of younger
respondentsin close-knit categories, a findingwhich confirmsthe intensely sociable
stereotype of the young California family. Too much importance must not be
attachedto this finding, however, for the more penetrating"household category"
variabledid not producea supportingresult.
The strongest simple explanatoryfinding was that personalityis related to
network density, though no information was available for California. Neurotic
extraverts are spectacularly overrepresentedamong those respondents reporting
close-knit networks and the stable introverts, presumably happy with their own
 Social Networks / 873

Table 3. SOCIALCLASS INDICATORSAND NETWORKDENSITY(relationships indicated byYule'sQ coefficient)

The Hull survey The Orange County survey

Occupation
Loose Close Loose Close
Non 65 8No 8 10
manual 65 81 manual 68 14
Manual 123 105 Manual 3 3 59

Q = 0 17 Q = 0 07

Education
Loose Close Loose Close
minimum
school 110 10 9 Non graduates 58 98
leaving age
mPnost -m 58 77 Graduates 43 143

Q = 0 14 Q = 0 32

Car ownership
Loose Close Loose Close
No car 92 101 One cOr 25 33

Ca r 76 85 Two or 75 165
Car 76 85 cars
~~~more 7 6
Q = 0?00 Q = 0 25

(To be significant at the 5% confidence level with this sample size, Q must have a value of at least 0.26)

company or with the occasional friend, report looser knit networks. This is an
interesting finding and one which points tellingly towards the value of using
personalitymore often as a variablein standardsocial inquiry,though some caution
mustbe added. The personalityinventorywas designed to categorizethe personality
of the actualrespondent;the networkdensity index attemptsto categorizethe social
ambience of the couple in the case of married respondents. The association is
significant enough, however, to report some confirmationfor Bott's assertionthat
individualpersonalityis an importantvariableunderlyingnetworkdensitypatterns.
The strengthof the relationshipsbetween age and network density on the
one hand, and extraversionand networkdensity on the other, pointedtowardsmore
 874 I Social Forces I vol. 55:4, june 1977

Table 4. NON-CLASS CORRELATESOF NETWORKDENSITY(relationships indicated by Yule's Q coefficient)

The Hull survey The Orange County survey

Household
category
Loose Close Loose Close
Family 69 85 Family 65 131

Non Non
famfly 99 101 family 36 68

Q =009 Q =003

Length of
residence
Loose Close Loose Close
under 73 95 Under 66 101
Ten years five years
Ten years 95 91 Five years 34 98
and over and over

Q = 0 15 Q =-0 30

Age of
respondent
Loose Close Loose Close
45 and 100 73 45 and 18 69
over over
Under 68 113 Under 83 130
45 45

Q= -039 Q= 042

(To be significant at the 5% confidence level with this sample size, Q must have a value of at least 0.26)

penetrating, three-variableanalysis. Age is itself related, in the Hull sample, to

personalitycharacteristics;old people tend to have more stablepersonalities.But as
we have already seen, it is the extraversion, rather than the stability axis of
personality which is related to network density, so a simple two-assertionmodel
was postulated.Partiallingout for age and personalityin turnrevealed definite "no
effect" situations, indicatingthat networkdensity is indeed affected independently
by the two variables. An examinationof the full range of conditional coefficients
suggests, however, that this effect is specific to certain categories of the causal
variables. In the case of age the 45-64 age group showed no relationshipbetween
personalityand networkdensity. Perhapsthis is the age when people's social lives
are most settled, when social norms and the constraintsof a familiarsocial environ-
 Social Networks I 875

Table 5. PERSONALITYAND NETWORKDENSITY(Hull data only)

Network density

Fairly Very
Loose close Close close
Normal 53 38 17 7 115
St Ieb 28 10 4 0 42 2
Introvert (3 26) (2425) x = 31 68
Personality Neurotic 26 16 2 2 46 df = 12
category Introvert (3 9)
Stable 33 29 14 1 77 p <0001
Extravert
Neurotic 28 17 20 9 74
Extravert (1 4) (1 5) (5 5) (6 3)
168 110 57 19 354

(bracketed figures indicate the highest among the cell x2 values)

Table 6. THREEVARIABLEANALYSES OF THE EFFECTSOF AGE AND PERSONALITYON NETWORKDENSITY

O Age (old)

Personality (extravert) (IDNetwork ( tight)

QXY = 0 38
QXY: Tied T = 0 36
QXY: Diff T = 0 40 No effect

QXY: (45- 64 age group) = 0 05 Specification, for conditionals

QXY: (other age categories) = 0 521 differ significantly at 5 0/0 level

QTY = 0 31
QTY: Tied X = 0-31
QTY: Diff X = 0 31 No effect

extraverts) for conditionals

QTY:c(stable =e0r58 LBorderline specification
QTY: (other personality cate[ories differ significantly at 100/a level.
=0 23
876 / Social Forces I vol. 55:4, june 1977

ment are all-pervasive, swampingthe individualdifferences that might at other life

stages arise from personality.For younger and older people, the degree of extra-
version seems to influence to a much greaterextent the density of social network.
When personalitywas taken as the control variableit was found that a relationship
between age and networkdensity only existed at all significantlyin the stable extra-
vert category, though the difference between the conditional coefficients (Table6)
did not quite satisfy the 5 percentsignificancerequirements.Perhapsit is the stable
extravertwho is most completely socially adjusted, the changing social patterns
over life's span being fully developed in such people; with other personality
categories, the influence of personality is so dominant in network formationthat
other more general and social influences such as age are reducedin importance.
Simple explanationfor variationsin networkdensity is, therefore,not easily
achieved within the context of these two surveys. Bott's warningsconcerning the
complexity of the causal relationshipshave certainlybeen underlined.Yet, both in
Hull and in SantaAna, one strikingsource of variancein the distributionof network
density is social area. In both surveys the chi-square for the cross-tabulationof
networkdensity by constituentsurvey area was significantat the 0.5 percentlevel.
The most socially integrated areas of all, if closeness of net indicates social
integration,are Mesa del Mar, Mesa Verde, and Hessle Road. The last named, a
peculiarly close-meshed fishing community in West Hull, has been intensively
studied elsewhere (Horobin;Tunstall), and the finding comes as no surprise. The
two middle-class Californiasuburbshave curiously tight patterns-a specific con-
firmationof the earliersuggestion that the well-educated, middle-classCalifornian
has a powerful neighborhoodethic. It is also surprisingthat the otherworking-class
areas, North Hull Estate and the Chicano ghetto of downtown Santa Ana, do not
show up as being particularlyclose-knit. Indeed, NorthHull Estate, which interest-
ingly enough yielded many respondentsconnected with the fishing industry,shows
as being distinctly anomic in network terms. The singles apartmentcomplex of
South Santa Ana shows an expected tendency towardsa loose networkpattern,but
the most anomic area of all is Reckitt's GardenVillage, a desirable, placid, leafy
and distinctive area which would on the face of it, for both physical and social
reasons, appearto be a very integratedcommunity.These arealdifferencessuggest
that social life runs its course against a strong, but ratherintangibleenvironmental
backcloth. Social norms of interactionobviously develop differently in different
urbanareas, and once established, go so far towardsforging a social ethos that any
individualwho does not fit must find it very difficultto fulfil his wishes and desires.
The value of the concept of network density, and the success of this
particularmethod of measuring it, were confirmed by the emergence of several
anticipatedrelationshipswhen network density was cross-tabulatedagainst some
other indices of social interaction-localization, intensity, spread, and kin orienta-
tion (Irving, a, c; Irving and Davidson). With the localization index, a measureof
the residential nearness of interactors, a very significant relationship emerged,
showing as one might expect thatthe loose networksdo tend to be the non-localized
ones. A measure of intensity based on the frequency and durationpatternsof the
 Social Networks / 877

Table 7. SOCIAL AREA AND NETWORKDENSITY

The Hull survey

Fairly Very
Loose close Close close
Hessle Road 19 20 11 10 60

Anlaby Park 21 16 11 5 53
x 2 = 44-2
New Iand 24 29 7 0 60
df =15
Garden Village 39 13 8 0 60
p <0.0001
North Hull Estate 35 14 9 2 60

Avenues 30 18 11 2 61
168 110 57 19 354

The Orange County survey

Fairly Very
Loose close Close close
Turtle Rock 22 34 0 4 60
X2 = 30 16
Mesa Verde 18 23 15 4 60
df = 12
Mesa del Mar 12 31 14 3 60
P <0 002
Apartments 29 17 9 5 60

Ghetto 20 23 13 4 60
101 128 51 20 300

interactionsinvolved furthersuggests that loose networks are less intense, which

reinforcesthe idea of a web of friendshipbased firmlyin a local residentialcontext.
Additional confirmationcomes from cross-tabulationwith an index of interaction
spread, a measurewhich reflects the degree to which each respondent'sinteraction
outputis loaded on to the most intense of the reportedrelationships.It appearsthat
those respondentswho tend to put their eggs in one social basket are more loosely
enmeshed in the social network. Three-variablecausal modeling with network,
localization, and intensity failed to produce any successful models, but the possi-
bilities of spurious relationships and specifications were eliminated, (Table 8)
revealing that these indices are related, but in a complex fashion which obviously
involves considerationof more variables.
878 / Social Forces I vol. 55:4, june 1977

Table 8. OTHERINTERACTIONINDICESAND NETWORKDENSITY(relationships indicated by Yule's

Q coefficient)

The Hull survey The Orange County survey

Localization
Loose Close Loose Close

Localized 75 42 Localized 51 68
Non- Non -
Localized 93 144 1Localized,
50 131

Q 0-46 Q = -0Q33

Intensity
Loose Close Loose Close
Not Intense 149 103 Not Intense 83 103

Intense 19 83 Intense 18 96

Q -0 72 Q = -062

Spread
Loose Close Loose Close
Concentrated 113 62 Concentrated 82 88

Spread 55 124 Spread 19 111

Q - -0 60 Q = -068

Kin - orientation
Loose Close Loose Close

kin -oriented 53 121 kin- oriented 69 155

Kin-oriented 115 65 Kin - oriented 32 44

Q= +0 60 Q=+0 .27

Localized Localized

/ \ /\~~~~peimn
Intense Close knit Intense specime
.Close ns knit
A consequent model An antecedent model

Predictions not volidated in either case

 Social Networks / 879

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation has provided some confirmation for a number of the ideas
formulated by Elizabeth Bott. In one importantinstance, however, the findings
contradicther. It was earliersuggestedthatthe position of kin in the social network,
a position muchemphasizedby Bott and Gluckman,shouldbe carefullyscrutinized.
Methodologically, the inclusion of kin makes nonsense of certain techniques of
network inquiry, and for this reason was left aside in the construction of this
particularnetworkdensity index. Theoretically,however, if only for its traditional
emphasis, it merits some examination. Bott and Gluckman suggest that kinsfolk
occupy key positions in the social network.Litwakand Szelenyi, on the otherhand,
claim that in modern mobile society primary groups have become functionally
differentiated, with kin, neighborhood, and friends serving quite separate social
functions, with relatively little overlap (Litwak and Szelenyi). It was not possible,
for reasons alreadyoutlined, to examine precisely the position of kin in the social
network of each respondent. It is, however, interesting that the network density
index shows a significantassociation with the index of kin orientation-a measure
of the amount of interaction given to kinsfolk as opposed to non-kin. Those
respondentswho are kin-orientedin their social interactionwere those who reported
loose-knit networks among their non-kin interactors,and vice versa. This seems to
suggest, contraryto the assertionsof Bott and Gluckman,that tightnessof network
connectednessamong kin and non-kin are two ratherseparatephenomena,and that
kin and neighbors are not cemented together in an integrated huddle of social
familiarity.Even down the Hessle Road, as tight-knitand as localized a community
as is today easily found, the Bott stereotypedid not exist. Perhapsthis stereotype
belongs essentially to a social era now largely past, when ruralantecedentsstill had
theirdeep-rootedresidualsin the cities of Englandand America. One need not go as
far as Litwak in claiming a structuraland functional differentiationof all primary
groups, but it does seem as though kin are becoming increasinglyregarded as a
separaterealm of social supportand responsibility.Webber'smobile urbansociety
has taken its toll in this respect. In others, however, it has had less impact. Social
networks remain close-knit in a surprisingvariety of urban situations, and they
continue, even in this mobile age, to remain substantiallyrooted to the residential
locality.

REFERENCES
Aldous, J., andM. A. Strauss. 1966. "Social Networksand ConjugalRoles: A Testof Bott's
Hypothesis." Social Forces 44(June):576-80.
Barnes, J. A. 1969. "Graph Theory and Social Network: A TechnicalComment on Con-
nectedness and Connectivity."Sociology 3(May):215-32.
Bossard, J. H. S. 1945. "The Law of Family Interaction."AmericanJournal of Sociology
50(January):292-95.
Bott, Elizabeth. 1957. Family and Social Network. 2d ed. London:Tavistock, 1971.
Frankenburg,Ronald. 1966. Communitiesin Britain. London:Penguin.
Gluckman,M. 1971. "Preface." In E. Bott, Family and Social Network. London:Tavistock.
880 / Social Forces / vol. 55:4, june 1977

Harris,C. C. a:1969. The Family. London:Allen & Unwin.

._ b: 1970. Readings in Kinship in Urban Society. Oxford: Pergamon.
Horobin, G. W. 1957. "Community and Occupationin the Hull Fishing Industry."British
Journal of Sociology 8(December):343-56.
Irving, H. W. a:1971. Reporton the Pilot Investigationfor the NeighbourhoodStudyof Hull
and Haltemprice. SSRC ResearchReport.
. b: 1975. "A Geographer Looks at Personality. " Area 7(October):207 -12.
. c: 1975. "Distance, Intensity, Kinship: Key Dimensions in Social Interaction."
Sociology and Social Research 60(October):77-87.
Irving, H. W., and R. N. Davidson. 1973. "A WorkingNote on the Measurementof Social
Interaction."Transactionsof the BartlettSociety 9:1-15.
Kephard,W. M. 1950. "A QuantitativeAnalysis of Intra-GroupRelationships."American
Journal of Sociology 55(May):544-49.
Litwak, E., and I. Szelenyi. 1969. "PrimaryGroup Structuresand Their Functions: Kin,
Neighboursand Friends."AmericanSociological Review 34(August):465-82.
Mitchell, J. Clyde (ed.). 1969. Social Networksin UrbanSituations. Manchester:Manchester
UniversityPress.
Nelson, J. 1966. "Clique Contactsand Family Orientations."AmericanSociological Review
31(October):663-72.
Rosser, Colin, and C. C. Harris. 1965. The Family and Social Change. London:Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Tunstall,Jeremy. 1962. The Fisherman. London:Macgibbon& Kee.
Turner,C. 1967. "Conjugal Roles and Social Networks: A Re-Examination."Human
Relations 20(May):121-30.
Udry,J. R., and M. Hall. 1965. "MaritalRole Segregationand Social Networks in Middle-
Class Middle-Aged Couples." Journal of Marriage and the Family 27(August):
392-95.
Webber, Melvin M. a:1963. "Order in Diversity: Community Without Propinquity."In
L. Wingo, Jr. (ed.), Cities and Space. Baltimore:The Johns HopkinsUniversityPress.
. b: 1964. "The Urban Place and the Nonplace Urban Realm." In M. M. Webber
et al. (ed.), Explorationsinto UrbanStructure.Philadelphia:Universityof Pennsylvania
Press.