1. Homogamy Social Distance as Social Integration

2. Lecture Map Homophily Qian’s Structural Model of Homogamy – Racial Homogamy Blau’s Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations – Multivariate Homogamy

3. Homophily Homophily is the observed tendency for people who are socially connected to have similar characteristics Data from the GSS shows that confidants (including but not limited to spouses) are more likely to share the same education level, racial category, religion and age They are equally likely to be of the same gender (because the sample includes spouses)

4. The probability that two confidants had the same education in 2004 Marriage

5. The probability that two confidants were the same race in 2004 Marriage

6. The probability that two confidants had the same religion in 2004 Marriage

7. The probability that two confidants had the same gender in 2004 Marriage

8. Age similarity in discussion networks Marriage

9. Social Distance The average similarity (in terms of race, gender, age and religion) of the members of a social networks can tell a researcher how socially close those groups are – If Catholics and Protestants are never in the same networks, they are socially far apart Homogamy is a special case of homophily that refers to marriage – Marriage between similar people is more likely than between different people

10. Why Study Homogamy? At the individual level cross-group marriage is a litmus test for social acceptance across groups At the macro-level it has important implications for society’s “openness” – A rigid or closed society would be one in which only in-group marriages took place

11. A Closed Society where Social Relations are Determined by a Nominal Characteristic A Closed Society where Social Relations are Determined by a Ranked Characteristic An Open Society: Knowing A Person’s Nominal Characteristics and Ranked Characteristics Tell you Nothing about Social Relations

12. How can we explain it? 1.Structural models 2.Individual preference models Today we’re focusing on structural models, Tuesday we’ll approach the problem from the other side

13. Peter Blau Born to Jewish parents in Austria in 1918 Captured, tortured and released by Nazis in 1938 Obtained a study permit and headed to USA via France Studied at Elmhurst College, Illinois Joined the army and acted as a German interrogator Obtained American citizenship Revolutionized Sociology (3 times) -'You can not marry an Eskimo when no Eskimo is around'

14. Qian’s Structuralism (Derived from Peter Blau’s original 1977 Macrostructural Theory) 1.Subject matter Macro theory Cross-group marriages are more likely where: a. The pool of potential in-group mates is small b. Individuals in the group have similar education to those in other groups c. There is little geographic segregation 2.Assumptions about social action Human behavior is predictable People have the ability to act but it is highly constrained 3.Methodology Deductive theory of social systems 4.Theoretical Objective Prediction of behavior based on attributes of a system

15. Macrostructural Theory Compared with Structural Functionalism Macrostructural TheoryStructural Functionalism Structure refers to the “shape” of society based on demographic facts Structure refers to systems and subsystems Society is held together by social interactions Systems are integrated through mutually dependent functions Social action is heavily constrained by demographic realities Social action is constrained by value orientations

16. Structural Models: Proximity Can’t marry someone you don’t meet – Meeting is based on: 1.The number of groups and how big they are relative to others 2. Education at the Individual level 3.Geographic proximity

17. Group Size Assumptions: A model of marriage based on demographic composition of the marriage market -individual preferences do matter, but we can make reasonable inference without them

18. High levels of Immigration Adds to the pool of potential in-group mates – Usually of lower education in the first generation Reinforce cultural differences (language, religion)

19. Education Education brings people of different backgrounds into contact Education is also a status marker – High education signifies potential success

20. Geographic Segregation/Isolation College educated black Americans are underrepresented in white middle and upper class neighbourhoods – Legacies of legal and social discrimination reinforce group boundaries Geographic segregation of Asian and Hispanic immigrants is based on economic factors Upwardly mobile immigrants tend to move into white neighbourhoods which increases contact between groups

21. Raw Assortative Marriage Results White-Hispanic and white-Asian marriages decreased over the period -Immigration allowed Hispanics and Asians to find spouses from within their group Intermarriage between whites and Hispanics and whites and Asians were highest in the most educated categories Changes in census definitions allowed the researchers to infer weakened boundaries between whites and Hispanics and whites and Asians -mixed race children were more likely to identify as white, indicating that the racial boundary had shifted White-black marriages started with a lower baseline but increased over the period Increases happened across education levels

22. Log-Linear Model Results (Marginal Free Assortative Marriage) Log-linear models control for changing population distributions – Should reduce the effect of immigration. – Log linear models suggest that there has been an increase in marriages between whites and Asians and whites and Hispanics While the raw percentages of intermarriages has declined, if there had been no immigration the raw percentage would have increased

23. The Qian readings are the simplest case of social distance One main interest (racial homogamy) the other variables were control variables – they weren’t interested in the substantive relationships between the control variables

24. Multivariate Homogamy: Structural Theory of Intergroup Contact 1.Subject matter Macro theory Three qualities of social organization heterogeneity inequality correlation between characteristics 2.Assumptions about social action Human behavior is predictable People have the ability to act but it is highly constrained 3.Methodology Deductive theory of social systems 4.Theoretical Objective Prediction of behavior based on attributes of a system -inequality, heterogeneity and intersection rather than the attributes of individuals

25. Blau’s Structural Theory of Intergroup Contact Intersecting Social Circles Heterogeneity Inequality Correlation between characteristics

26. Simmel: Intersecting Social Circles Consolidation/Concentric Social Circles Intersection/Intersecting Social Circles Nuclear Family Kin Lineage Nuclear Family Occupation Alum Group

27. Intersecting Social Characteristics High Political Power High Education Protestant Religion High Political Power Protestant Religion High Education Low Political Power Catholic Religion Low Political Power Low Political Power Catholic Religion

28. Heterogeneity increases out-group contact Heterogeneity is synonymous with diversity If there is no preference for in-group ties, then the proportion of in-group ties is just a function of the number of groups and the proportion of people in them.

29. Inequality increases out-group contact The extent to which status (income, education, occupational prestige) are concentrated

30. Intersecting Parameters “Many intersecting parameters exert compelling constraints to become involved in intergroup relations, because they make a person’s in-group associates in one dimension frequently out-group members in other dimensions.” Blau et al. 1984:590 – If characteristics are less independent there will be less cross-group interaction – If characteristics are more independent there will be more cross-group interaction

31. Measures of Intersection Measured the intersection of: Education, occupation, race, national background, industry, SEI and income Cramer’s V – For two nominal variables Correlation ratio – For one nominal one numeric variable Person Correlation – For two numeric variables

32. Results Racial intermarriage is more likely where race is independent of education, income and occupation – It is driven by intersection not heterogeneity Intermarriage between people of different national origins is driven primarily by heterogeneity – not intersection Heterogeneity predicts regional intermarriage

33. The Case for Distance as Stratification Bottero and Prandy – Distance is hierarchally arranged Presumes that not only structural factors are at work Is this compelling?