Part 1: Rawlings and Friedkin “The Structural Balance Theory of Sentiment Networks”
Section 1.1. The Authors’ Main Points
The study by Rawlings and Friedkin (2017) discusses the structural balance theory of sentiment network by posting the group’s network of sentiments to change over time and structural reforms. The study focused on exploiting the mechanism that influences alteration of sentiments as a factor of sentiments to which they are embedded. Even though the theory adopts tension reduction mechanisms, there has been no past greater efforts to measure and create predictable relationship tensions that are detestable by the temporal changes. As such, the scholars use an empirical study to test the theory in the posited individual and interpersonal tensions and suggestive reduction methods using the sentiment conversion method. The view gives unprecedented community involvement as a realization of the structural balance through its conclusive findings.
The theory is historically founded on the various assumption that is acknowledged by the authors. One such assumption includes Simmel’s triad that relates to the wider interesting concept of the macrostructural impact of the balance theory. The view is commonly noted as a classical model or interpretation of the theory. For example, the word “friend” can often be used to refer to positive sentiment, while the word “enemy” can refer to negative sentiment. Under such circumstance, the classical model assumes that a balance in the sentiment network will only occur if there is no violation of four major assumptions: (A1) a friend of a friend is friend, (A2) a friend of an enemy is an enemy, (A3) an enemy of a friend is an enemy, and (A4) an enemy of an enemy is a friend. However, the assumptions contradict the maxim view for most cultures. While the rules forbid some triads, it accepts some thereby raising more contradictions in the expectations and dynamics of the structural balance as discussed by the theorists. The sentiments refer to the empirical analysis of the theoretical analysis of the changes in sentiment network and the introduction of new factors relating to the scope and mechanism of the theory.
The study finds no summative support for the salience of the A4 balance rule, which argued that an enemy of an enemy is a friend. The view abandons the rule in all the classical model generalizations. The position takes after other scholarly views that found no support for the classical model’s suggestion for the third triads outside the balance theory. The view further explores that modern growth in dynamical models of sentiment network is centred on the emergence of a mechanism that increases networks as influenced by the classical model. As such, the authors perceive the mathematical modeling of the sentiment network centers on the generalization of the balance theory in places where the omission of the A4 rule is accepted.
The authors also believe that the salience of the balance theory rule relies on community commitment situations. The commitment includes both social-unit and game-in-schaft groups. The theory almost automatically occurs on transcendent reasons borrowed from the charismatic leadership foundation that governs conduct and behavior. The foundation and occurrence of such groups enhance solutions to structural tensions created by violations of the balance theory rule. The view is proved by calculus of balance in high commitment groups that are pegged on friendship while the low commitment communes have their calculus pegged on enmity. The former group promotes salience in the rule of A1 and A3 that pegs individual on friendship relations. The latter group elevates salience of A2 rule by anchoring individuals on enmity. Besides, increased self and social solidarity influences reduction in imbalances by countering interpersonal tensions, thereby enabling people to give in to sentiment conversions than they do to cumulative payoffs in groups.
The authors also give systematic evidence of temporary reductions violations of the balance theory rules and the connection of structural violations to the relational tensions. The relationship tensions promote the change of sentiments, which are not haphazard. They are equally responsible for the reduction of violations of the balance theory rules as well as the relational tensions. The authors back the claim with the purposeful actors’ assumption covered in their evidenced studies on mechanisms of sentiment networks evolutions that proved to change sentiments on the grounds of relative payoffs of changing the sentiments. The earlier studies further show that micro-level shifts in balance is witnessed even where there are no interpersonal tensions. However, such circumstances are minimal and, in most cases, do not make up the global changes in balance. The view is consistent with the occurrence of dual procession of structural imbalance where only those imbalances that achieve the stature of deliberate awareness will trigger sentiment conversion plans, thereby influencing the cumulative shift towards balance.
The authors also argue that each person is attached to a remote structural environment. At that position, the sentiment balance is perceived to be complete, implying that every person possesses a negative or positive sentiment about other people. As such, the local environment of every person can be explained by all violations and no violations of balance theory rules to which the person is exposed to, based on his/her set of enemies and friends. The individuals’ processing of the complex environment and choice to convert some sentiments while other remain nontrivially questionable. However, the weight of the unanswered questions become too feasible. The position proves a close relationship between person’s collective bundle of relational tension and collective exposure to violations of rules of the balance theory. High tensions precipitate high temporal reduction of the exposure to violations that counter total extensions. Nonetheless, the view does not imply that interpersonal tension is the sole cause of structural dynamics or the assumption that all tensions are caused by violation of the balance theory rules. Thus, the views highlighted by the authors postulate key concepts of the balance theory at various levels of group, dyads, and people.
Section 1.2. Comments on the Author’s Main Points
The authors make remarkable points on their discussion of the Structural Balance Theory of Sentiment Network, which are positively readdressed by the individual accounts of Professor Friedkin in the elaboration, test, clustering, and hierarchy of interpersonal relations lessons. The most noticeable underlying argument in the structural balance theory of sentiment network is that individuals are perceived as the prime objects of positive and negative appraisals, commonly referred to as sentiment network throughout the discussion. The view responds to the nature of relationship between persons of well-acquaintance and their unknown associates with which the positive and negative attitudes are portrayed. The web of their relationship will primarily rely on the attitude or sentiment they have of each other and in relation to others. The view explains that persons liked by individual A are likely to be liked by those who like A at their own individual levels (NEF, Week 4). The opposite occurs with those who do not like A. However, a reprieved situation may occur for people who dislike A in response to those who A dislikes. Thus, I find the theoretical discussion of the concept given by the authors reliant on an interconnected sentiment of individually set relationship between people and their associates.
The argument is a cause of several researches and follow up discussions. Also, borrowing from previous studies, the study emphasized the conditions of interpersonal appraisal changes and how it affects appraisal. The argument is support by Professor Friedkin’s account that more emphasis are developed on an important line of research on the conditions of interpersonal appraisal changes with reference to how the negative interpersonal appraisal can convert to positive and positive appraisal back to negative appraisal. Under such circumstances, the sentiment networks created cannot violate certain rules of the structural balance theory, just as supported by Friedkin. The view makes reference to the balance model where a friend of my friend is my friend, an enemy of my friend is my enemy, an enemy of my enemy is my friend, and a friend to my enemy is my enemy. Friedkin justifies this argument by demonstrating the theoretical rule of the sentiment network using the instances of violation and satisfaction of the rule. Moreover, it is determinable to assume that sentiment network may occur under triad situations that are supported by reciprocation and social pressure. It is this point that distinguishes between balanced and imbalanced models. Whichever the case, it is rare to experience the latter scenario of all the relationships that occur naturally with influence of every individual’s appraisal of interpersonal connection between them. Such is the situation witnessed and explained by Friedkin where individuals may be exposed to self-deterministic relationships outside the sentiment web, particularly where stray relationship or love occurs between adverse persons with reference to their initial relationship web. A good example is the Romeo and Juliet case explained by Professor’ Fridkin. From the balance theory perspective, such a relationship undermines the natural sentimental alignment where a sentimental adjustment is inevitable due to the new romance created by the actors. The argument is important is understanding the theory even though the primary discussion by the authors ignored its implacability on the balancing of the sentiment networks and the unavoidable adjustment that comes with it.
Similar view about the violation of balance theory, community commitments, and structural attachments to the sentiment networks previously highlighted are echoed under the general and classical balance theory assumptions, which remain instrumental to the understanding and application of the theory. The generalization of the balance theory causes relaxation of some of the theory’s assumptions (NEF, Week 5). The empirical analysis of the theory further reduces the concept to focus on the organization of positive and negative interpersonal sentiments towards other individuals. In other words, the network of interpersonal sentiments can be explained by the visible arcs that represents the positive appraisal and the underplayed arcs representing the negative appraisals. The view explains the empirical evidence readdressed by the authors that explained why some of the sentiment networks with asymmetric relations between the cliques occurred unusually, particularly where the third rule was relaxed. Besides, the longitudinal case showed reduction in violations of the transitivity rule as the main cause of the sign changes and relaxation of the fourth rule. As such, the reinstatements given by Friedkin gives a more definitive view of the theory that explains the concept in a more expanded way, but still limited by the foundational view of the primary theory.
Part 2: Blau, “A Macro-sociological Theory of Social Structure”
Section 2.1. The Author’s Main Points
Blau (1977) explores a deductive theory of social associations based on the quantitative concept of social structure. The ideology is inspired by Simmel, famously known as the father quantitative sociology. The quantitative approach guides the identity of the subject matter as opposed to procedures used. The perspective describes the quantitative dimension of social life, particularly the number and distribution of people on social relations, which conforms to existing social structures like primitive social axioms, positions and wider numerical positions like consensus, normative orientations, institutional systems, and functional interdependence. The author notes social structure as the distribution of population among different social positions that show and influence individual’s relations with each other. It also means differentiation in individuals. The macrostructure of social distinction emulates differences in tasks and positions that impacts the social associations. Besides, the macrostructure of the society also comes as multidimensional chance for social positions to which individuals are distributed along their social relations. The macrostructural position is focused on social relations in different social levels with many people. On the other hand, the author reiterates microstructures as networks of interpersonal relations pegged on individuals, which is demonstrated by the relations between people of a small group.
The author argues that the structures in question are defined by parameters. The community of society structural parameters are the link between the multidimensional space of social levels and population distribution. The axes include personalities and traits that create distinction in people’s social relations (Blaum, 1977). The distinctive factors include race, education, and socioeconomic positions. The traits show that people can be categorized using immeasurable attributes. However, the classification must influence social relations, and if not, it will be rendered useless.
The study also looks at the position of intergroup relations under the theory of social structure. Based on the value and magnitude effect of intergroup relations to societies, the author finds it considerate to assess the level of association between various groups. For instance, the rate of religious intermarriage in the American catholic against the Protestants shows the perceived intergroup relations that proved significant in society integration as an element of social structure. The minor groups also have an integral role in the understanding of the theory’s premarital intercourse. While the minority groups have stronger in-group bonds, their rate of social association remain the most competitive edge compared to the majority groups. Thus, the group’s arithmetic property assumes the theorem that the rate of intergroup associations has the smaller group overcoming that of the larger group.
The author focuses the theory exertive impact of structural conditions, more so the relationship of parameters on the rate of social associations within strata and groups. The structures follow the social integration created by extensive social relations between various segments of the society. The view constructs the deductive ideology of the theory, which include the 14 theorems derived by the author. Together with analytical propositions that define the properties of social structure, the author made three propositional assumptions. First, the author assumed that social closeness enhances the social associations. Secondly, that social associations rely on opportunities for contacts. Lastly, that the influence of parameters is partially additive. The assumptions maximize the equivalent and substantive definition of the structural conditions in social associations.
Section 2.2. Comments on the Author’s Points
The author’s perspective of social structure theory can be summarized by its explicatory definition and exploit. This position is best explained by the theorem derivatives and the social justice perspective as an element of the wider social networks of interpersonal influence on attitudes and beliefs. It is observable that the 14 theorems play a central role in the theory just as explored by in Friedkin’s perspectives. Notably, the first theorem addresses the first concepts of the author by looking into the relation between two groups: in-groups, intergroup and their involvement that makes the smaller group exceed the larger group (NEF, Week 6). The theorem is more connected to the second and third theorems, looking into the occurrence of extensive intergroup relations that falls with an increase in group size and the occurrence of higher the majority discrimination than the minority in social relations due to small differences between the groups’ involvements. The relational trends in the other theorems describe the empirical description of the social structures and relations based on the author’ interpretation of the social structure theory, which is proven relevant and theoretically defendable.
The ideology put forward by the author also resonates with the social justices ideology that explains the interaction and transferable relations between classes of the majority and the minority. The structural relations derived by the theorems shows the appropriation of opportunities or treatment of particular individual or group who are either target or source. The ideology is also described by the hierarchical macrostructures in structure balance. The structure takes on the classification of individuals based on unique features as positive or negative sentiments, which connotes structures founded on social justice’s quest. The view creates relations based on distribution of social space that is either consolidated or unconsolidated. The distributions follow targeted acts that are products of a systemic or structural influence on individuals into groups or clusters. However, under normal social placements, the categorization in the social structure theory can be influenced by various external factors of social justice. Examples include issues of unfair law, unequal treatment, social pressure, and many others that define the nature of social structure formed. Thus, the social, structure and space placement described in the social justice ideology suits the social structure theory explained by the author.
Part 3: Comments on Week 9 Lecture
The 9th week’s Reading Assignment by Professor Friedkin discusses Groupthink, cults, and making monsters. The study looks at the psychological views of group policy decisions and fiascoes, which is relevant to the assignment covered. The material explains the emphatic human ideology theory as looked at in psychology involving theories discussed. For instance, human relations and social structures are about decision-making and preferences (NEF, Week 9). As such, this is what the materials terms as the risky shift theory. Groupthink is an acceptable perspective occurring from faulty group decisions, which the other studies do not clearly explain.
The groupthink refers to the way of thinking that people engage in when a concurrence seeking become popular in cohesive in-group to the extent that it threatens the existence of realistic appraisal sources of action. The definition is predetermined by conditions like initial homogenous position of the issues, high derivative of leadership, and high standard of group cohesion. The conditions influence the complexities, circumstances, and social structures. Thus, together with group think concepts and general constructs, the study gives a foundational understanding that is remarkably important for understanding the social structure theory.
References
Blau, P. M. (1977). A macro-sociological theory of social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 83(1), 26-54.
NEF, Week 4. Networks of Interpersonal Appraisal. University of California.
NEF, Week 5. Structural Balance in Networks of Interpersonal Appraisals. University of California.
NEF, Week 6. Social Justice in Social Groups. University of California.
NEF, Week 9. Groupthink, Cults, Making Monsters. University of California.
Rawlings, C. M., & Friedkin, N. E. (2017). The structural balance theory of sentiment networks: Elaboration and test. American Journal of Sociology, 123(2), 510-548.