Rytina’s
approach to social stratification is audaciously provocative both theoretically
and methodologically. And to be provocative in a realm where class and status
analyses have colonized and reified the understanding of (occupational) stability
and mobility is truly an important achievement. If provocation can be
understood in a continuum, whereby one pole represents dullness and at the
other extreme brightness, Rytina’s proposal can be located at the latter pole.
The path to understand his main positions, however, can be intense since it
demands a high deal of attention. Rytina’s bet is indeed risky because the
reader can easily lose focus and start navigating towards other branches of
sociological inquiry which are subtly developed in his program of social
stratification. Make no mistake, from this risk I see the main strength of
Rytina’s proposal. Readers, researchers, and lecturers can take Rytina’s main
footpath as a re-conceptualization of what social (reality) is. Behind this
pervasive and illusive question a new attempt to understand social reality can be
explored regardless of whether his program can be located under the label of social
stratification studies. In other words, although Rytina is explicit about how
his research program can be a serious alternative to the study of social
stratification, this program is not short to this artery of sociology, and
therefore, it fulfils two criteria developed by Lakatos (1970): i) theory must
provide topics for further research, and ii) “the programme must show
usefulness independently of the general framework in which it was created”
(Chernilo, 2002:443). Rytina’s program goes solidly towards that direction. Before
attempting to point out why, a brief description of his proposal is a must.
Rytina
argues that cacophony is a hallmark of social stratification inquiry. (Unless
one can read cacophonic musical composition, notice that the word chosen is not
necessarily visual but speaks of sounding discrepancies). And this is important
because if one would take Abbott’s fractal theory of knowledge’s “development”
(Abbott, 2001)—where opposing perspectives of thought and method can actually
be regarded as similar since in order to develop their respective programs they
rely in contradictions and perpetuate its difference—the contradiction between
class and status approaches should be ultimately harmonic. But Rytina
illustrates that this development is in fact cacophonic. The only similarity is
that “leading contributors to the study of occupational mobility have settled
into an ‘agreement to disagree’” (Chapter 2, p.1). However this ‘agreement to
disagree’, unlike Abbott’s theory would predict, has only created
methodological buildings whereby theoretical questions of social group
formations, or the continuity of social patterns have been discarded altogether,
and thus room for contradicting or even advancing knowledge has been
discontinued. For instance, Rytina, similarly to Bourdieu (Chapter 3:25), uses
references of socioeconomic statuses defended by leading scholars such as
Featherman and Hauser, as cases of a measuring
per measuring impulsivity. One
specific quote of these authors denotes an extreme case of a practical solution
whose objective seems to be just doing things rather than advancing theoretical
knowledge about social stratification reality: “A central assumption underlying
this book is that the hierarchies of socioeconomic statuses that differentiate
the life chances of adults in America are predetermined (…) [we do not offer
and explanation of why socioeconomic] dimensions rather than others have become
the major axes of social differentiation” (cited by Rytina, Chapter 2:5).
Regarding Erikson and Goldthorpe’s justification of class analysis, Rytina also
identifies an impulse for practicality solidified by fiat. “As we sought to
make clear our preference for [class rather than prestige or status] is
entirely a matter of choosing one conceptualization over another because we
believe that, on balance, it is more suited for our purposes” (ibid). This
quote illustrates a curl which ultimately immunizes any potential criticism to
how the understanding of social stratification could be advanced[1].
In other words, this approach is designed to survive, regardless of potential progressions, and therefore isolates
itself from “scientific” interaction. This latter point is important because by
definition there is no contradiction and consequently the absence of a fractal,
not even a quasi-fractal is possible. Returning to Lakatos, since these
research programs do not offer an explicit dialogue among them, it is hard to capture
what they are really contributing to the advancement of social stratification program,
beyond, of course, the important development of intricate methodologies which only
at this point keep locking up their system of inquiry.
A
second layer of cacophony is the appealing to normative templates which can
help to identify social characteristics which are ultimately regarded as ubiquitously
present. Rytina’s analysis of Searle and Stinchcombe illustrate how their
respective proposals are cases of cacophony which theoretically echo some of
the solutions of why people can be stratified. On the one hand, Searle argues
that a claim to a right “rests on audience’s acceptance of that claim” (Rytina,
Chapter 2:11), on the other, Stinchcombe points out that the prevalence of
authority and property are the notions which can order/organize individuals.
However, according to Rytina, both solutions are far from reaching principles
of universality and therefore subject to cacophony. These solutions however are
appropriate to capture regularities.
The
latter analysis creates the conditions to introduce several concepts which will
edify the process of social stratification that ultimately can transcend
cacophony, Rytina suggests. Firstly, the insertion of the goo’s metaphor allows
Rytina to visually understand that people essentially can be (inevitably) close
to each other. However, a distinction is important. While people can be
together in different both settings and times that does not mean, by definition,
that everyone is close to each other neither physically nor biographically (by
the latter I mean that biographies carry common patterns of interaction, which
are not fully exchangeable). This epoxy, on the other hand, comes with two very
important concepts of his theory, i.e. inertia and persistence. Behind both
concepts one could argue that the common denominator is force, however, what
really binds them, I think, is ‘time’. Both concepts also are very effective in
illuminating the notion of (social) structure. In other words “goo” is what
binds individuals among each other, I would even dare to say that “goo” also
bonds individuals to the past. However, and this is the solution against
cacophony, what binds network are local
rules not universal ones. The price of the quest for universal bonding, as
a program strategy, Rytina would argue, ultimately leads any observer to see
differences which can only falsify universality, and therefore creates a fertile
soil of cacophonies. On the other hand, by “avoid[ing the endorsement of]
specific content while embracing an account that accommodates order” (Rytina,
Chapter 2:23) the minimalist account of networks emphasizes the importance of local rules rather than Global Rules. Which in other words this
means that attention can be moved from the lyrics towards the sound of the
social structure.
Since
various account of social stratification rely on conceptualizations that
trigger cacophony, Rytina’s research program aims at avoiding these potential
dissonances. He draws his frame from network imagery. Particularly he advances
the Massively Parallel Accumulating Interaction (MPAI) as a centerpiece. Within
MPAI three concepts emerge i) sticky
networks, ii) divided labor, and
iii) exclusive repetitive gatherings.
Before mentioning these last three concepts a word on MPAI is worth it a try. Rytina
in several passages discusses some Parsonian concepts of system theory—this is
the explicit connection of network theory with system theory. However, there is
also in Rytina’s proposal an implicit discussion with system theory, or at
least with some of the concepts advanced by Luhmann (1996 and 1997).[2]
Particularly the MI of the MPAI centerpiece. In Luhmann’s system theory, one
can observe that a Massively Interaction effectively occurs. According to
Luhmann the “world society has reached a higher level of complexity with higher
structural contingencies, more unexpected and unpredictable changes (some
people call this ‘chaos’) and, above all, more interlinked dependencies and
interdependencies” (Luhmann, 1997:73). It is the interlinked and
interdependencies part that is relevant for this discussion; in fact this can
be taken as a sign of indeed massive interactions. However, the Parallel
Accumulation (PA) elements of the discussion can actually be taken as an
advancement of Rytina’s proposal. Or in other words in Luhmann’s discussion PA
elements are likely missing. PA evokes a very and powerful image that while (all)
the social systems can be potentially interconnected, in fact there are some social
subsystems which might not at all be, and therefore the image of
interconnectedness fades. A very simple example is the case of the medium ‘truth’
which is utilized by Luhman to characterize the (sub) system of science
(Chernilo, 2002:439). Theoretically, one should expect that social
stratification theorists, or rather methodologists were ready to introduce
appropriate changes once mathematical rules prove the problem of empty cells to
be false (or at least misleading). However, since both (local) learning and
tradition of social stratification studies depend on its own inertia,
characterized by specific school of thoughts (Bottero and Prandy, 2003) which
furthermore are separated by a cacophonic hallmark, the interconnection within
this social scientific program becomes a chimera. In other words there are PA
elements which help to identify local practices of knowledge, because, on the
one hand, cacophony impedes the interchange and on the other, cacophony is also
a local dynamic which favors the establishment of parallel networks facilitated
by accumulated practices.
The
development of the last example actually helps to identify the concept of sticky networks. Rytina specifically points
out that this concept is made of four concepts which succinctly can be the
following: a) accumulative pattern of time of face-to-face interaction; ii)
have a sharply skewed frequency; iii) are imperfectly stable; and iv)
individual motivation to resist networks’ tears. (Rytina Chapter 3:15). Why are
the networks sticky? Rytina explains that these are in function of time, in
other words “sticky network records is the heavily biased, strikingly uneven
way that people have distributed their interaction across possible partners”
(Rytina, Chapter 3:20). Regarding division
of labor Rytina argues that this concept while heavily echoes the notion of
sticky networks, since repetition and its form of a sharply skewed probability
distribution, it is mainly characterized by three variable ‘constraints’: i)
most labor is team-work; ii) “decision to initiate inclusion is often
poly-lateral” (Rytina, Chapter 3:29); and iii) the operation of the occupation
necessarily needs to be learned, regardless of previous positions held.
Certainly the slope of the learning curve of the new member will depend on
previous experience in the former network. Lastly, Rytina, in a more Goffmanian
approximation, introduces the concept of exclusive
repetitive gatherings. For Rytina “any
gathering is a duration that unites a list of whos and whoms, with due
allowance for untimely arrivals or departures, and possible correction for
sub-sets that accomplish face to face within larger gatherings. Gatherings are
mutually exclusive since no persons can be in more than one at once” (Rytina, Chapter 3:35). Like the other two latter
concepts, time, repetition and the skewed probability distribution are the main
features of exclusive repetitive
gatherings.
Lastly,
Rytina develops a set of equations to fit an ideal data set of social
stratification. This exercise helps him to advance via five equations his main
thesis i.e. the existence of a unique axis whereby the reproduction of
inequality can be captured. His solution although self-regarded as paradoxical
(Rytina, chapter 5:19), offers a provisional understanding of social
stratification i.e extra persisting inequality. Furthermore this concept is
theoretically defined as the “totality of circumstances through which rank
exhibits persistence and adjacency giving way to distance. Stratification is
not restricted to any particular variables, or scheme of variables, and instead
is an ongoing synthesis.” (Rytina, chapter 5:23). Within this synthesis the
actual actions of individuals is conceived as a permanent characteristic. But
these actions while enduring, are also embedded in social networks which carry
information on how these actions in very short periods of time are almost
identical. The “almost” part is what captures the difference and distance
between very close individuals within specific networks but also with those
that are very far from each other as the queen and the prostitute.
(Note: You can find his book in the following link http://www.mcgill.ca/stickystruggles/)
[1] In a similar manner the ‘taboo of the empty
cells’ illustrates how a specific statistic standard—which proves to be
resolved by a more relax standard provided by Agresti—is reified limiting the
analysis of occupational mobility (Rytina, Chapter 2:6-9).
[2] Evidently this interpretation is high risk
since Luhmann was a very prolific sociologist and therefore I am not going to
be probably fair to his oeuvre.
Nevertheless, as it is common with productive authors conflicting
interpretations regarding their creations are also very usual, and therefore my
interpretation can be of course regarded as vulgar.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario