How To Model Social Space

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 20

How to model social space?

Silvio Salej Higgins


GIARS – UFMG
Draft paper, please don’t cite

This analysis aims to distinguish several dimensions in the study of social


space. In this conundrum, different disciplines such as geography, formal
sciences and social sciences converge. Currently, there is a truly
cartographic movement that plots human facts with GPS technologies.
But, the question is this: is the social space equal to geographical space?
Our rationale states that there is not a univocal correspondence between
the standard cartography of geographic space and social space. In other
words: social space can’t be represented properly by habitual means of
cartography, or at least, this would be merely a partial or an equivocal
representation of social relations.

In the social sciences, the space where human activities are deployed has
been defined as territory. Currently, there are few places in the earth that
have not been occupied by human beings. Perhaps the remote artic and
antarctic zones of our planet don’t know our steps. In the strict sense,
human history is a long process by which mankind has appropriated the
natural resources for staying alive. Simultaneously, this has been a
technical and social process, tools and forms of social organization are
two sides of the same coin1.
In this analysis, “territory” underlines the social dimension of human
action. In modern French geography, the social dimension stresses the
institutional modes by which modern nations have arranged relations
with the space. Furthermore, they have arranged how the relationships
between citizens are ruled. “Territory means in the first sense a
“geographic space qualified as a legal concept” (George, 1994, apud.
Gouësset), that is a political space where the State authority rules”
(Gouësset, 1994, p. 79). In the second sense, the territory is not only a
question of control over a delimited space – be the State our other
powerful groups, but also that term refers to part of a territory by an
identity and representation process – individual or collective – that

1Milton Santos, Brazilian Geographer, defines the space as follows: ”The space is formed
by an inseparable, conjoined, but also contradictory setting of object and practical
systems, that can’t be understood as isolated, but as a unique framework where the
history is also present. In the beginning was a wild nature, formed by natural objects
that a long of history were substituted by manufactured objects, technical objects,
mechanical and, after, cybernetical, making as result that the artificial nature tends to
function as a machine”.
2

sometimes doesn’t recognize political and administrative borders (Claval,


1996, apud, Gouësset, 1994).
In this concept of territory three dimensions are included. Firstly, the
natural space can be described as a space existing before organized
human action. It is the precontractual space in the natural state a la
John Locke. Latu sensu, the natural space is the technical setting of
human action. Secondly, the phenomenological space, that is, the lived
human experience in the space. This is a source of meanings, narratives
and social representations in a common experience. This is an identity
space. Thirdly, the interactional space. In other words, it is a relational
space that corresponds to social action and social exchange in strictu
sensu. Each dimension can be distinguished but can’t be kept apart. The
challenge for social sciences is to model this multilevel ontology of the
space, with its dialectical dualism (White and Mohr, 2008). Anthony
Giddens has pointed out the specificity of space and time in modern
society. He has conceptualized an ontology of space-time as a specific
characteristic in European modernization (Giddens, 199X). In his view,
the rationalization process launched mismatching mechanisms in the
experience of time and space. For example, the linear experience of time
was disrupted by new forms of currency, by which buyers and sellers
could exchange in that present with duties on the future. A promissory
note is a signed document of the present referring to a future action. In
an analogous sense, cartography permitted the representation of the
space in a such way that the long distance could be regarded as a short
distance. The perception of what was near or far was a question of
geometric scale. Additionally, with maps we can represent
simultaneously different geographical points.

However, how can each of these levels of the social space be represented
in a scientific manner? In a schematic way, each dimension can be
represented with different tools of formal thought. The following table
depicts the matches between spatial dimensions and some formal tools:
3

Table 1 Dimensions of territory


Dimensions Formal tools for modeling

Geographical space Euclidean geometry


Cartography and locational analysis

Symbolic logic
Mind maps – Probabilistic text
Phenomenological space analysis – Discourse, text and
computational hermeneutics

Graph Theory
Interactional space Social Network Analysis

My rationale is that modern scientific knowledge is a task for making


models about the world. The modern science is no more a representative
activity that aims to target an object exactly. Nowadays science is more
an approximatively activity made by tools named models. To model an
object is to think in terms of “as if” (Vaihinger, 2015). How would be an
object? The answer is given in terms of conjectures and hypothesis
(Prigogine, 2009).

Geographical space
Despite the fact that geography has been an ambiguous scientific
discipline, with a variable institutional address, among natural sciences,
social sciences and formal sciences, Hagget (1973) has distinguished four
basic conceptions of the former with a specific idea on what space is:
1. In the more broader sense, geography is a science about space
differentiation. The big issue is regional construction as a rational
description about variables conditions of the surface of the earth
(Hartshorne, 1959, apud Hagget 1973).

2. In a second narrow sense, geography is a science which addresses


the surface of the earth. The surface has two faces, natural
landscape, prior to human action, and cultural landscape, as a
setting transformed by human action.
4

3. In a third narrow sense, geography studies relationships between


human beings and the physical environment. Recently, the Indiana
School (Ostrom, 2002) reaffirmed this point of view with a renewed
research programme entitled “governing the commons”.

4. In a fourth narrow sense, geography studies the localization of


phenomena on the surface of the earth. The key-question is this:
where are the things? In this perspective, geography is a client of
Euclidean geometry. The five axioms of geometry that all of us
learnt in elementary school ground our knowledge of space. For
example, knowing that the straight line is the shortest distance
between two points and that two parallels never meet, I can
establish rules for the proportion between distances in a
geometrical figure.

Cartography has been, also, a powerful tool in locational analysis


with its main challenge: how to represent a tridimensional space in
only two dimensions. But this step forward has some problems,
because Mercator’s projection underestimates the sizes of regions
that are far and overestimates the sizes of regions that are near.
In the seventies, Hagget (1973) adopted network analysis as a
useful tool for depicting social flows such as transport by road and
railway structures. Later, I’m going to discuss the topologic limits
of this use of social network analysis regarding the current digital
world.

Phenomenological space
This dimension of space has been studied by a specific and philosophical
method called Phenomenology. Edmund Husserl, also a professional
mathematician, was concerned with the crisis of positivistic knowledge
at the beginning of the twentieth century. In his famous work, Crisis of
European Knowledge (1936), Husserl highlighted that the occidental
tradition had lost its original path traced back to ancient Greece. The
overspecialized modern science had lost the original sense of universal
logos. Scientific knowledge, and its eidetic reconstruction of world, had
lost the fundamental sense of what any formal knowledge had for human
beings. Lebenswelt (living world) is our original experience in the world.
We all construct knowledge looking for sense in the thinking process and
in the results of it. Just before the second European war, Husserl had
foreseen the catastrophic results of science put in the service of self
destruction.
5

Some years later, Maurice Merleau Ponty, a French phenomenologist,


regarded space to be a living experience. In the second half of
Phenomenology of Perception (1945), he develops a thorough critic of the
intellectualistic and empiricist approaches on the subjective perception
of space. His rationale is this: neither an empiricist space as a setting
where I live among the things, nor a thought space as geometrical space,
formal and substitutable, positions without situation, are suitable
approaches for the perception of space. The alternative is a perceptive
experience of space on the point of view of the human body. Taking the
results of sensorial experiments, at available at the end of ninetieenth
century2, Merleau Ponty rejects the idea of above and below as the result
of the content of the object. The original experience of space as above and
below must be sougth before any distinction of shape and content. That
is, neither the definition of space by the relative positions of objects, nor
by empty and organized space are appropriate. The anchor of our
sensorial order in space is our body, not in the sense of a corporal thing
in the space among others, but in contrast as a system of possible
actions; a body defined by its situation and task. “My body is where there
is something to do” (p.265) says Merleau Ponty. The phenomenological
lesson is this: the perceived space is a correlative world to a body
intentionally anchored in it. The body is the subject of the space.
Intentionality is central in bridging the gap that exists in modern thought,
that of the subject and object. There is no space without world, and there
is no world without an intentional body.
In a few words, the phenomenological approach stresses the experienced
and living sense that space has for human beings. My house, the little
village where I was borne, the big town here I now live, all these spaces
have an existential sense for me. The landscape is more than a neutral
stage where I live, it is a stage dwelled on, it’s a place where I live as a
foreigner, as a tourist or as a native. The storyteller García Márquez said
one time that when he used to go back to Caribbean city of Cartagena he
could sleep well again. For a sociological observer, the question is how to
catch the sense of living space. There is no other way than to listen and
read the self-report that people express in their own words. The living
space is put in words, such as histories told by witness. This is the
subjective, in a phenomenological sense, approach of many scholars such
as Harold Garfinkel and Alfred Schutz. The methodological challenge, in
this kind of sociology, is how to interpret and to explain the emergence of
social order, in terms of the reciprocal sense between identities. This is
the nuclear problem in Harrison White’s Identity and Control (2008), but

2 A patient used glasses that blocked the retinal inversion. The effect was a messy
world of sensations, a disconnect order of images and tactile experience. Stratton
(1896, 1897)
6

with a new strategy that recognizes the multilevel dimension of social


space, referred to “settings” by him.
The social sciences have developed several hermeneutic strategies for
studying social discourse as a text that could be explained and
interpreted. From content analysis, inspired by structural linguistics,
until computational hermeneutics (Mohr et al. 2015), we currently have
powerful tools in this challenging sociological task.

Interactional space
Among social sciences, sociology waited until the first half of twentieth
century to be able to model social interactions. In the thirties, Jacob
Moreno, a Hungarian psychiatrist, proposed the sociogram as a useful
tool to represent, in a graphical form, a setting of social interactions. But
this step couldn’t have been possible without the theory of graphs, a
specific branch of mathematics powered by another Hungarian, the
mathematician Dénes König who published in 1936 the first synthesis in
this field, Theorie der endlischen und unendlischen Graphen (Theory of
finite and infinite graphs). For the first time, the theory of graphs was
axiomatized and standardized in clear terminology.
The theory of graphs was originally an answer to Eulerian and
Hamiltonian circuits. This kind of puzzle had been considered as a
unworthy of study by mathematicians. But the classic problem stated by
Leohnard Euler in 1736, known as Seven Bridges of Könisberg, opened a
new door for mathematical inquiry. Briefly, the problem was this: how to
cross the seven bridges of Könisgberg without crossing any of them twice?
In terms of the graph the question is: “When can we trace a path in a
graph that traverses each edge once and once only, and when can we
arrange for such a path to return to its starting point?” (W.T. Tutte, p.2).
Intuitively, there is no solution in geometrical common sense. This is not
an issue about distances, it is an issue about topological properties, that
is, about formal properties of homeomorphic space. In this kind of space
two figures can be transformed one into the other without cutting or
gluing.
We can depict the problem and solution in a visual form for a better
understanding:
7

Figure 1 Map chart on Euler’s paper is this:

Source: digital commons

The question is how to cross between four pieces of land, A, B, C, D? If


we transform each piece of land in vertex and bridges in edges, we can
state the solution.

Figure 2 A superposed graph

Source: elaborated by the author based on Euler’s chart

The modern graph analysis concluded that the path required can be
constructed if and only if the graph is connected and has at most two odd
vertices. If there are two odd vertices, then the path can go from one of
8

them to other. This solution is known as Eulerian path. But in the


original problem all vertices have odd arcs, so there is not an Eulerian
path.

The theory of graph was conceived by König as a branch of combinatorics


and abstract set theory. The elements in a graph, points and edges,
doesn’t have any geometrical content. This issue makes a big difference
with cartography and ordinary Euclidean geometry. The main advantage
of combinatorics is to relate abstract things with new concepts and after
to connect it to practical and empirical problems as social relationships.
We are not going now to resume the original axiomatic and notation built
by König. There are two kind of sets: let {A, B, C…} be a set of “points”, if
some pairs of these points are connected by one or more lines named
“edges” the resulting configuration is called a graph. Let’s read the single
and general axiom wrote by the author:
If M is an arbitrary finite or infinite set and if to every (unordered) pair (A,
B), which can be formed from the elements of M, a finite or infinite
cardinal number mAB = mBA' which can also be zero, is assigned such that
for each A at least one mAB is not zero, then there is a graph, which has
as vertices the elements of M and in which every two vertices A and B are
connected by mAB edges (König, p.56).

A graph can be finite or infinite, depending on the number of points and


edges, if there is a few finite points with infinite edges the graphs is
infinite, that is, two vertices can be connected by an infinite number of
edges. The first theorem, defined by König, talks about the biunivocal
condition that supports a graph as unique: all the endpoints belong (K)
to set of edges and all the edges belong to set of endpoints (π). As in the
theory of sets, there are graphs that joint and disjoint, subgraphs into
other big graphs and so on. In this seminal work, there are just the main
definitions studied in recent text books whose subject is called social
network analysis: self-relations, isomorphism, directed and undirected
graphs (Wasserman and Faust, 1999).

Multilevel condition and paradoxes of social space


Until here, I have described separately the nature and properties of
different kind of space in human experience. But, there is only one reality
under different perspectives. It would be better to say that there is one
space in different levels of analysis. Let’s first represent this multilevel
condition of social space and after to highlight some paradoxes that will
poses the interactional space if it was considered under the standard
representation of Euclidean space.
Figure 3 Multilevel condition of social space
Source: elaborated by the author
In the figure 3, I have depicted the multilevel condition of social space. At
bottom, the geographical space, represented with cartographic tools,
locates humans and things in biophysical and cultural landscape. We all
are sons of the earth. In the middle, the landscape, inhabited by human
beings, is a discursive experience. This is the living space. Figure up
represents a setting of human interactions. But, we must be aware that
a graph is a topological picture that doesn’t correspond to a map as
representation of landscape. Let’s explain this in a better way following
paradoxical topics.

The world is a handkerchief


The first counterintuitive result, emerged from sociometric research,
states that social distance is not equal to geographical distance. Travers
and Milgram (1969) pioneered the contrafactual hypothesis that the
social world is a smaller than could think common sense. The famous
conclusion on five grades of distance works against any idea of social
distance in terms of geographic scale. On contrary, graph theory measure
social distance in terms of topological distance. For example, I work so
far from my mother, who lives in a foreign country at three thousand
miles from me, but she is the nearest person in terms of affection and
kinship. The distance in topological space are not the same that in
geographical space.

The digital age has increased this apparent paradox. The online
relationships stress the small world condition of social relationships as
results of structural properties of flows in a world-wide-web. Why the
world is a handkerchief in the point of view of social interaction?
Figure 4 Bernoulli graph

Source: elaborated by the author


11

In the figure 4, there is a hypothetical world of interactions where all


people in the group have the same number of alters. That is, a fifty
percent at left and fifty percent at right. Also, it must be observed that
there is a chain of cliquish formed by closed triads. In that situation, the
average distance is equal for all actors. But that Bernoulli model is not
a realistic conjecture about the social world. If I drop stochastically some
edges there will be an extreme change in the structure. In the graph 5,
the average distance between some cliques fell dramatically pushing
down all the average distance in the graph. This is the Watts-Strogatz
model that could explain better the Travers and Milgram results on small
worlds. In other words, the social world is a handkerchief because there
is a huge overlapping in the proximity network of contacts among all
human beings.

Figure 5 Watts - Strogatz graph

Source: elaborated by the author

Strong ties split social world


The strength of weak ties (1973) is one of the most cited sociological
articles. With that title, Mark Granovetter stated other paradox emerged
from properties of social ties. Let’s revisit the classic Durkheimian
distinction between mechanic and organic solidarity. At the beginning of
twentieth century, the industrial society was experiencing a growing
social division of labor that called for new forms of cohesion in face of
rationalistic individualism. Durkheim couldn’t explain with detail what
would be the specific social mechanism for binding a society inhabited by
experts and professionals. Among the European founders of sociology,
only Georg Simmel (2005) had good insights for understanding this
problem. In his view, socialization is not only a question of frequency and
12

complementarity between jobs, is also e question of quantity and form in


the socialization process. In his view, the quantitative determination of
groups is a key- issue for understanding form and content of reciprocate
action. The first topological insight of sociology was stated by Simmel in
these terms: the society begins in the triad. This is important because
Simmel envisioned a new methodological approach in social sciences as
a kind of geometry for modeling social space. But in that age, he didn’t
have the mathematical tools for modeling his embryonic idea.

Granovetter brought new light in that old problems of European


sociology. When he hypothesized that bridges, in a clustered world of
interactions, was necessarily weak ties, discovered a specific mechanism
of social process that carried out cohesion at macro level. By this
approach the sociological theory begins to overcome the old aporia
between action and structure. Weak ties are important in a double sense,
by one hand, they are conductors of new information and useful
resources for agents, in the other hand, they are bridges that increase
trust in collective action. Let’s explain intuitively with two following
graphs:

Figure 6A Lateral social control

Source: elaborated by the author

The figure 6A represents a system where the agents are controlling one
to others. Specifically, the graph represents lateral control relationships,
that is, when someone is perceived with trust and authority for
controlling the problematic behavior of a third agent. In that
organizational setting, there are two big components split by an almost
13

wide zone. Only a few relationships bridge the two main components.
But, when the strong ties are plotted with differentiated width and black
color as in figure 6B, in this case the frequency with which the levers are
chosen for controlling the problematic targeted behavior, it is clear that
weak ties are bridges between components. In that organizational setting,
there is a cleavage between two factions with internal cohesion for
controlling deviant behavior, but at the same time there are brokers and
bridges that maintain a global cohesion of this system. That bridges are
lines of trust between groups and the brokers are leaders with authority
in both sides of system.

Figure 6B Lateral social control with weak and strong ties

Source: elaborated by the author

Online world and offline world


In our digital age, the social construction of ties is mediated by
technological arrangements that make possible information flows in
speed way. The digital condition of culture poses new contact points and
differences between different levels of social space. Let’s highlight a basic
difference found by Barabási et al. (2003) studying structure of world-
wide-web. The flows in internet have a preferential attachment structure
that doesn’t match with flows in the geographical sense. For example,
figure 7 depicts the Brazilian network for the transmission of electricity.
In this case, the electricity generated in ITAUPÚ, the world largest
hydroelectric plant, needs firstly to pass by Paraná before to arrive in São
Paulo and go on for arriving in Northeast. This is a typical scale network.
In this case the nodal degree is well distributed between all nodes. There
is not imbalance. On the contrary, see figure 8, internet is a network case
with a huge imbalance in nodal degree. The structure doesn’t impose
14

scale for transiting from one node to other. In a formal sense this carry
out as result a power law or exponential inverted distribution of nodal
degree.
Figure 7 Brazil – Transmission electricity system (2015)

Source: ITAIPÚ Binacional

Figure 8 Free scale distribution or preferential attachment

Source: elaborated by the author


15

The boss doesn’t rule


Finally let’s underline a basic difference between the role playing in
functionalist sociology and the emergent concept of social role as it works
in neo-structural sociology (Lazega et al. 2013). In the Parsonian
perspective of organizations, the organogram, figure 9, is a basic tool for
representing the social set of functions and ties between predefined
agential positions. In this sense, the agent-principal relation is a question
of hierarchy predefined for taking decisions. But in the structural-
functionalism, social totality is taken for granted. There is no place for
the creative role of social process. If the how question matters, as I said
at beginning, it will be necessary to looking for the social mechanisms of
emergent power in social life.
Figure 9 Organogram

Source: elaborated by the author

Social network analysis has developed new tools and insights for
understanding the emergency of power in organizational settings. The
Collegial Phenomenon (Lazega, 2006), Brokerage and Closure (Burt,
2005), are good examples of how to model social processes in organized
environments. A collegial organization is a polyarchic system where there
are division of powers or a precarious status. Any agent controls all
possible resources for taking control. So, a constant process of
negotiation is on the road. Studying interorganizational relationships, the
brokerage has been revealed as key mechanism for profiting social
capital. Burt (1999) has proposed the C algorithm for measuring the
global constraint of a network on each one of agents. In other words, the
constrain is the sum of direct and indirect pressure received by a node in
a network. The formal notation is the following:
16

Ci   cij
j

The following graph, figure 10, depicts an organizational setting where de


arcs represent who find useful information with who. The algorithm C is
expressed in a continuous scale between zero and one. When a node is
huge autonomous its score is near to zero and consequently its size in
the graph can be reduced searching an adjusted visual representation.
In the figure 10, the red big nodes have the worst scores as result of a
unique relationship. That is, a node with high C score has a relational
agenda reduced to a unique tie. So, the blue nodes in this graph are cut-
points or advantageous brokers that get useful information. At the same
time, this relational information reveals two main powerful agents in this
organization. One of them has hierarchical predefined role (inner black
dashed circle) but the other is a leader recognized as consequence of
social process (inner green dashed circle). Summarizing, I can say that
the organogram is not a good predictor on social relations.
Figure 10 Social roles and brokerage

Source: elaborated by the author

Final remarks
Until here, I have underlined some differences between the interactional
and geographical space. I’d like stress that Euclidean geometric space is
not equal to topological space. For example, if I took the information
about transmission electricity system of Brazilian Southeast (500 KW),
between Itaipú and the main four cities, it can be reduced and
transformed onto topological information as in figure 12.
17

Figure 11 Electricity system of Brazilian Southeast

Source: elaborated by the author

Figure 12 Alternative topologic forms (500 KW)

Source: elaborated by the author

The three graphs say the same thing in different ways. Now, I have an
abstraction, the original information in the map was reduced in a form
that can transformed in a topological way. This is possible as result of
isomorphic condition of topological space. Without cut or glue, I can
transform a ship form onto a line or upstairs form. But the best advantage
of the theory of graph is the homeomorphic condition between two graphs
that makes possible a comparative work.
Here I arrive to my main conclusion: there isn’t a biunivocal
correspondence between a locational map and a graph of interactions.
So, to represent social facts in a map, such as criminal rates in some
points of a city, is a superficial way that can’t explain the organized
condition of deviant behavior. If policy makers in security, for example,
are seduced by this kind of analysis, they risk putting a buck under the
leak in the roof.
18

Finally, there are several challenges for understanding how to model


simultaneously the three basic dimensions of social space. White and
Mohr (2002) highlighted the complexity for modeling the dualism of social
life. Society is body and mind, individual and collective, agency and
structure, force and mean. Any polarity is before than other, there are co-
emergencies. Then, the narrative nature of social identities, as had been
stressed by symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology, is cause and
consequence of social exchange. In the age of online society there is an
opportunity for searching how social process create discursive meaning
a long a complex diffusion of meanings by social media. Recently
Baldasarri et al. (2007) has proposed new models that could explain the
political polarization because of social process and not as a consequence
of predefined political ideologies.
19

Bibliography

Barabási, Albert László; Bonabeau, Eric (2003). Scale free networks.


Scientific American, May.

Burt, Ronald (2005). Brokerage and Closure. Oxford: Oxford University


Press.

Giddens, Anthony (1991). As Consequências da Modernidade. São Paulo:


Editora UNESP.

Gouëset, Vincent (1998). El Território colombiano y sus márgenes. La


difícil tarea de la construcción territorial. Territorios. Revista de Estudios
Regionales y Urbanos, No. 1, agosto 1998- enero 1999. Bogotá, CIDER
(Universidad de los Andes).

Granovetter, Mark (1973). The strenght of weak ties. American Journal of


Sociology, vol. 78, 6.

Hagget, Peter (1973). L’ Analyse Spatiale en Geographie Humaine. Paris:


Armand Collin.

Hagget, Peter; Chorley, Richard (1973). Network Analysis in Geography.


London: Edward Arnold.

Lazega, Emmanuel (2003). The Collegial Phenomenon. Oxford: Oxford


University Press.

Lazega, Emmanuel; Higgins, Silvio (2013). Redes Sociais e Estruturas


Relacionais. Belo Horizonte: Fino Traço.

Merleau Ponty, Maurice (1975). Fenomenología de la Percepción.


Barcelona: Ediciones Península.
20

Mohr, John; Pacifici-Wagner, Robin; Breiger, Ronald. (2015). Toward a


computational hermeneutics. Big Data & Society, July – December.

Mohr, John; White, Harrison (2008). How to model an institution. Theory


and Society.

König, Dénes (1990). Theory of Finite and Infinite Graphs. Birkhäuser:


Boston.

Prigoggine, Ilya (2009). Ciência, Razão e Paixão. São Paulo: Livraria da


Física.

Santos, Milton (2014). A Natureza do Espaço. São Paulo: EDUSP.

Simmel, Georg (2015). Sociologie. Études sur les Formes de la


Socialisation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (PUF).

Stratton, Some Preliminary Experiments on Vision Without Inversion of


the Retinal Image, “Psychological Review” (1896).

Travers, Jeffrey; Milgram, Stanley (1969). An experimental study on the


small world problem. Sociometry, vol 32, 4.

Vaihinger, Hans (2015). Filosofia do Como Se. Chapecó: Argos Editora


Universitária.

______ Vision Without Inversion of the Retinal Image, “Psychological


Review (1897).

White, Harrison. Identity and Control. How Social Formations Emerge.


Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy