23/2014 SOCIAL DISTANCES

1/23/2014 SOCIAL DISTANCES

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.CHAP16.HTM 1/23

Volume 2

Expanded

Contents

Chapters

1. Introduction

and Summary

2. The Concept of

Field

3. Reality and the

Intentional Field

4. Freedom and

Intentional

Humanism

5. Perceiving

Another

6. Intentions,

Attitudes, and

Interests

7. Perceiving and

Behaving

8. Behavior

9. Social Behavior

and Interaction

10. Types of

Social Interaction

11. The Equation

of Social Behavior

UNDERSTANDING CONFLICT

AND WAR: VOL. 2:

THE CONFLICT HELIX

Chapter 16

Distances*

By R.J. Rummel

0, the difference of man and man!

---- Shakespeare, King Lear IV.ii

Our mutual fields of expression generate

forces bearing upon each other, forces that

constitute sociocultural distances reflecting

their mutual interests, capabilities, and

expectations, their meanings, status, and

class. So much has been described.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE11.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.CHAP2.HTM










http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/PERSONAL.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MURDER.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MEGA.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/LESSER.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WHY.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DIMENSIONS.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/VIOLENCE.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TECH.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/THEORY.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/POLICY.HTM

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/LINKS.HTM



12. The

Transition to a

Sociocultural

Field

13. The

Sociocultural

Space

14. The Field of

Social Forces

15. The

Sociocultural

Field

17. Status

Distance

18. Status

Distance and

Behavior

19. The

Fundamental

Nature of Power

20. Social Power

21. The Family of

Power

22. Social Fields

and Antifields

23. Groups and

Antifields

24. Class

25. Social Class

And the Class-

Literature

26. Conflict

27. Conflict in the

Sociocultural

Field

28. The Elements

I have yet to focus directly on the meaning of

distance and the concepts of class and status.

I will do so in this Part. For, I will submit,

crucial to understanding the our interaction

in the social field is the socioculture distance

between others and ourselves, and

particularly in status, power, and class.

At the outset, I should note that the

terminology classifying types of distances is

in a state of flux. A taxonomy is needed, but

no accepted terminology exists. The one

comprehensive classification proposed by

Willard Poole (1937) years ago has been

ignored, I suspect, because of its ambiguous

and confusing criteria.1 My own work has

manifested this flux; I have successively used

the terms distance, distance vector, social

distance, and attribute distance to capture

the same idea.

Because the idea of distance is a concept in

motion in the social sciences, we have a

freedom to systematize the types of distances

without creating confusion with entrenched

terms. I will use this freedom to develop a

classification that reflects the various

determinates, functions, and consequences of

distances underlying social interaction and

that is oriented towards better understanding

the social field and conflict.



















of Social Conflict

29. The Process

of Conflict

30. Social Fields

and Types of

Societies

31. The State and

Political System

32. Societies,

Politics, and

Conflict

33. Societies in

Empirical

Perspective

34. Testing for

the Existence of

Exchange,

Authoritative,

and Coercive

Societies

35. Is Conflict

Manifest as

Theorized?

Other Volumes

Vol. 1: The

Dynamic

Psychological

Field

Vol. 3: Conflict In

Perspective

Vol. 4: War,

Power, Peace

Vol. 5: The Just

Peace














Other Related

Work

The Conflict

Helix: Principles

and Practices...

16.1 OBJECTIVE VERSUS SUBJECTIVE DISTANCES

First, I must clarify the difference between two levels of analysis and

their corresponding distances. One level is wholly psychological, and

the distances of concern are these between an actor and another as

"seen" from the actor's perspective. This kind of distance, as shown in

Figure 11.1c, lies entirely within the actor's psychological field, and

comprises his subjective perception or awareness of another in

relation to the actor's psychological components (motivations,

temperaments, and so on). This distance I will call a subjective

distance. 2

Another level consists of those distances we as observers construct to

explain behavior. Geographic distance between two individuals is such

a construct, as are Bogardus' social distance scale (to be discussed

later), the idea of cultural distance, and the notion of value distance.

Now, the major difference between subjective and objective distances

is not that one is psychological and the other a construct. Both are

constructs. The idea of a psychological field, of common components,

and of distances within the field on these components are constructs I

have imposed upon phenomena. The basic difference is that subjective

distances involve an actor's perception or awareness of the other,

while objective ones reflect some comparative aspect of individuals,

whether they are aware of each other or not, as does the air distance

between people in Chicago and Honolulu, or the distance in values

between Lebanese and Burmese, irrespective of their knowledge of

each other.


http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.FIG11.1.GIF



Subjective distances are psychological links between the perception

or awareness of another and behavior towards him; objective

distances are independent variables comprising some aspect of

individuals as seen by an observer and proposed to explain their

behavior towards each other. The differences between these two

levels should become clearer, as I consider different types of

distances.

16.2 MATERIAL DISTANCE

Distance most commonly refers to the separation between objects in

physical space. Of course, physical proximity and distance play a role

in social interaction, since the occasion for interaction is clearly

correlated with such physical distance . But what kind of correlation

has never been well established.

Physical distance is an attractive concept, for which one can find many

simple empirical laws in astronomy and physics. Understandably,

therefore, in trying to find similar laws for human behavior some

social scientists have applied distance decay functions,3 distance-

mass functions,4 and so on, to such behavior as migration, trade,

tourist movements, and conflict. These systematic efforts have had

limited success. This notwithstanding, physical distance certainly

plays a role in interaction, as between neighbors versus those who

live on the opposite sides of town. Still, neighbors may shun each

other while distant relatives and friends may visit frequently. If

distance has any relationship to behavior, it is in creating awareness

and salience. Whether behavior will follow, and what kind, is a

function of other variables, which I will discuss in Part VII of this

book.

Clearly, physical distance is an

objective distance: it defines a distance

relation between individuals regardless




of their mutual perception or

awareness. Physical distance is usually

an intervening variable, quantifying a

condition of behavior as in the

proposition that transactions between

economic centers are a positive

function of their joint sizes and an

inverse function of their distance, or

social interaction is negatively

correlated with the distance between

individuals.

Physical distance changes its character

when psychologically considered when

we view it through the perspective of an actor, as something

subjective. Then it becomes what I call personal distance, or the

perception of physical distance within the psychological field.

Consider Figure 16.1, which shows the physical distance between

individuals Mary and Jim conversing at a party. This distance is a

measurement imposed by an observer on the situation involving these

two and assumes some common space with common components,

within which they are located. Such is the three dimensional physical

space. For observing Mary and Jim, it suffices to deal with just two

dimensions, labeled North-South and East-West in Figure 16.1.

Now consider Figure 16.2, which

shows Mary's psychological field

with two of its components, sex and

security. Here, personal distance is

shown as a transgeneration of

physical distance, as a

transformation of the physical

components defining physical

distance to psychological

components defining personal



distance. Jim is intimately close (1.5

feet) to Mary and, assuming he is a

stranger, his closeness is projected

on both her sexual and security

psychological components. She may

be excited and wary, and this joint

effect comprises the personal

distance vector.

The subjective distance is no one-to-

one transformation of the objective

distance. Indeed, as is clear from

Figure 16.2, the spaces and

components of the two levels may be

entirely different. Subjective

distances are always projections on

psychological components in

psychological space. They are always defined by motivations,

temperaments, abilities, moods, or states. Objective distances,

however, may be defined in any space, such as that of values, science,

or culture, and on any component, such as occupational, age,

education, intellectual, and wealth components.

Now to return to the specific discussion of personal distance. As noted

by Edward T. Hall (1959, 1966),5 people have physical distances at

which they comfortably interact. Strangers and superiors-

subordinates tend to converse at a larger physical distance than do

intimates, friends, and those of equal status. The breach of this proper

distance may be discomforting and if done by a stranger or superior

may cause insecurity and an involuntary increasing of the distance.

Americans tend to be most comfortable with others an arm's length

away, and will back away from anyone who moves closer. We all are

encapsulated in such spheres of personal space.

There is an extension of personal space to what we define as our

property or territory. Territoriality is no less an aspect of human life

than it is of other mammals. We define what is ours, what property



and, particularly, space belong to us. Within this space we feel

comfortable, secure. But let a stranger breach this space, let an

intruder enter our house or get too close to us, and we are

immediately wary, alert, insecure, and perhaps even frightened.

For example, our home constitutes our personal space, a definition of

our territory. If it is burglarized while we are away, we feel a deep

personal violation, a desecration of our space. We are uncomfortable

and insecure, as though under constant threat with nowhere to hide.

And if we are burglarized again, we can be driven to extreme

measures, such as selling the house and moving into a fortress of an

apartment, or turning our home into a dog patrolled, electronically

protected retreat.

Thus, personal space defines our boundaries of security-insecurity and

of comfort-discomfort with others . Personal space is our territoriality;

and personal distance demarcates this territoriality.

16.3 PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTANCE

Common among social psychologists and sociologists has been a

concern with distance in attitudes, sentiments, beliefs, and so on that

cover the full range of our psychological differences and similarities.

Rather than catalogue these, I will simply subdivide psychological

distance into psychological, ideological, and affined distances.

Psychological distance is the subjective distance between an actor

and another in the actor's psychological space. It partly involves the

perceived differences and similarities in motivations, such as needs,

sentiments, roles,6 attitudes, interests, means, wants, and goals.

Moreover, the psychological vector also envelops perceived

differences in temperaments (such as in extroversion, dominance, and

emotionality) and abilities. Accordingly, if we conceptualize the

psychological-distance between people, we are incorporating the

major perceived differences that help the social psychologists to

understand social behavior.



Moreover, an aspect of psychological distance is the values associated

with the culture matrix and the superego, as well as the self-

sentiment goals (self-esteem, self-actualization, self-development)

and cognitive belief structures. Psychological distance thus subsumes

the political and ideological as well as what is often called intellectual

distance.

For subsequent analyses, it will be

necessary to focus on three particular

subjective elements of psychological

distance. One is interest-distance ,

which reflects the perceived differences

and similarities in interests, and thus

entails one's perceptions of another's

intentions, wants, goals, and means.

Interest-distance is illustrated in Figure

16.3a, which show interests as

activated attitudes--vectors with

projection on attitudes within the subspace of psychological needs.

The two attitudes are shown as coordinates in i's need-space and their

activation is indicated by the interest vector for individual i.

Now let i perceive j's interests as shown

in Figure 16.3b. The latter's interest can

be opposed to, irrelevant to, or

complementary to i's. If it is opposed, it

will be in an opposing direction as along

the promotion-attitude in the figure. If

irrelevant, it will be at right angles to i's

interest as along the to-be-liked-

attitude. If complementary, it would lie

in the same direction as i's. The interest-

distance vector shown in Figure 16.3c



then reflects the overall interests of j

relative to i's.7

A second subjective element of

psychological distance is ideological

distance. Among a person's interests are

those involving interconnected political

and social programs, policies, goals, and

means. Wanting to legalize abortion and

drugs, redistribute income, desegregate

schools, ship food stocks to the world's

hungry, control the military, eliminate

the CIA, and elect only true liberals

constitute a socio-political cluster of

interests, an ideology. We perceive other

ideologies in terms of our own, as a cluster of interest-distances all

impinging on our self-perceived location in attitude subspace.

There is one more distance to consider.

The above distances delineate the

subjective psychological and

motivational differences and similarities

between people. Two people, however,

may be quite disparate in interests and

personalities, have different

perspectives, and yet be very close. As

opposites sometimes do, they may

attract each other, grow to appreciate

their differences as adding spice to their

relationship. This attraction is not

captured by the other psychological

distances, and yet it seems

psychological. But is it? An answer depends on how we define social

versus psychological.



In this book I have restricted the concept psychological to our inner

or mental components, forces, and processes. Social then has meant

interactions or relations between people involving an orientation

towards or taking account of their mutual selves. Of course, all

behavior is fundamentally psychological, since all of our activities

involve our inner realm, our selves. However, social scientists have

found it fruitful to restrict psychological to what is inner oriented,

leaving to the sociological domain behavior externally and manifestly

oriented towards others. Thus, kissing is usually sociological, as is

hugging or striking another. The feelings and sentiments of love,

liking, or animosity underlying such behavior, however, are

psychological. They are inner emotions, feelings, or dispositions,

aspects of our temperament or motivations.

Therefore, the affinity we feel towards another is by itself

psychological and yet I have presented no concept for it. Such a

concept does exist in the literature. Called "social distance," it is most

identified with the sociologist Emory Bogardus, who defined (1925, p.

299) it as "the degrees and grades of understanding and feeling that

persons experience regarding each other"8--the sympathy between

people, their positive or negative feelings. Social distance so

measured becomes a good index to racial prejudice, and Bogardus and

his followers used it primarily to quantitatively study racial attitudes

and behavior.

Social distance as Bogardus defined it is an affinity between people,

and regardless of the label, it is primarily a subjective psychological

distance, as some like Sorokin (1969, p. 362) have alleged.9 To

conceptualize the degree of liking, sympathy, and understanding

between people as social distance is misleading. Therefore, I will use

the term affined distance for Bogardus' concept.

16.4 SOCIAL DISTANCE

Sociologists have found distance a most congenial concept, even if

they have given it all kinds of incompatible meanings. The first to use



distance in sociology may have been Gabriel Tarde, who in his The

Laws of Imitation used it to refer to class difference. Simmel and

Durkheim subsequently found the concept useful and Park and

Burgess brought it to the attention of American sociologists (Poole,

1937, p. 99). The one who most popularized the concept in sociology,

however, was Bogardus. But his distance, as already pointed out, was

basically psychological.

As I have done with psychological distance, I will classify social

distances into basic types encompassing social relationships, which

are status, power and class. But first a word about social distance. As

part of their fields of expression, all participants in social interaction

present a configuration of characteristics identifying their social

backgrounds, role dispositions, class, and status. Income, home

ownership, educational level and school, neighborhood, occupation,

organizational memberships, family, sex, age, race, and so on identify

a person's position in social space, his location within the web of

social relationships. And the differences and similarities between

people are then captured by their objective distance on these

characteristics, or by what I call social distance.

Social distance is a force underlying social relationships. To turn this

around, relationships reflect distances. Clearly, social distance is the

independent variable. Some, however, who also have seen a close

connection between the two have made distance dependent. For

example, Leopold von Weise says (1932, p. 243):

Social distances are but the most formal and general aspects ofsocial relationships, and social relationships are the results of

social processes; social distance may therefore be defined as acondition produced by a social relationship in conjunction withother social relationships. In other words, any specific social

distance is a resultant of at least two relationships of differingtendencies, and inasmuch as a social relationship is after all only

a relatively stable state of association or dissociation amonghuman beings brought about and maintained by one or more



social processes, it is impossible to define the latter in terms ofdistance: any social process is a sequence of occurrences throughwhich the distance prevailing between human beings, etc., is

increased or decreased. The importance of distance as asociological category thereby becomes apparent; it is the

relatively stable equilibrium (of motions of approach andavoidance) produced by the dynamic interplay of social

processes, and although the present system lays primaryemphasis on social dynamics, it is a category of rank co-ordinatewith social process. In distance we have the most abstract

aspects of action pattern.10

The difference between us as to which is the dependent variable is a

matter of perspective. What is important is the agreement on the

close association between social distance and social relationships.

Now I dislike the term social distance, because of its possible

confusion with Bogardus' well-known social distance concept.

Unfortunately, since no other term so well fits the meaning of this

distance, I will use it at the risk of ambiguity or miscommunication.

But just to be clear, social distance means here the over-all distance

between people in their sociological attributes,11 not their liking,

attraction, or affinity.

Social distance as a term captures the idea of social differences and

similarities between people, and of their relative location in social

space. Of primary interest in understanding different kinds of social

interaction, however, is the relative locations of people on the

components of this space. Accordingly, I should bring out three

subtypes of social distance: status, power, and class distances.

The first subtype, status-distance , will be developed in Chapter 17.

People are differently located within patterns of deference and

domination; each has a position within society's stratification system;

each is part of a "pecking order." And where people sit in this order,

their total status, is generally a function of their wealth, power, and

prestige. Thus, the status-distance between people is their objective




differences on these three components.

The second subtype is a subset of status-distance. Of special

importance to understanding conflict and war is the configuration and

distribution of power among people and their groups, the change in

this configuration and distribution, and the role power plays in

perception, expectations, and behavior. I will present a thorough

discussion of all this in Chapter 20 and Chapter 21. For the moment I

will just pose power-distance as one of the three objective

sociological distances of concern.

Class-distance is the third subtype of social distance. As will be

described in Chapter 24, class is a dichotomous classification of

people into those who authoritatively command or rule and those who

are commanded or ruled. All individuals are members of organizations

and all organizations have some division between those who occupy

authoritative role positions and those who do not. This is a class

division, I will argue, which confers benefits, rights, and duties and

which ultimately separates interests into those supporting and those

opposing the status quo.

But people also belong to many organizations, such as a nation,

province, city, religion, occupation, and so on. Consequently,

individuals may alternatively belong to one class or another,

depending on the organization. A mayor may also head a national

association of mayors, but be simply a member of his church and of

the American Bar Association, and a citizen of the United States. Thus,

relative to each other, the class position of two individuals may be

reversed depending on the organization. We can therefore define an

objective class-distance as the consistency in class relationship. If

regardless of the organization one individual is always in the

superordinate class relative to some other, then his class-distance is

maximal. Later (Section 24.2) I will argue that the larger the

aggregate class-distance in society, the more likely is a conflict front

traversing society.

Class-distance is clearly objective, a framework an observer imposes






on the relations between people. An actor may have no cognition or

perception of it. Nonetheless, I will argue, class-distance is correlated

with the growth of class interests, with the conflict between the "ins

and outs," "them and us," "those who have and those who want."

Abstractly, class-distance reflects the objective probability that

individuals will be found on the same or opposite sides of the clash

between supporters and opponents of the status quo.

As will be discussed later, class and status are not the same. A person

of high prestige, such as a gold medal winner in the Olympics, may

have no authoritative position of command. Similarly with a famous

scientist of much intellectual power, such as Einstein or Fermi.

Similarly with a wealthy person whose millions come from oil found

under his property. On the other hand, a person holding the highest

position of command may find that his status is almost destroyed, as

with Nixon in his last months as President. Thus, status and class

distances comprise different objective sociological characteristics,

although they certainly overlap.

16.5 CULTURAL DISTANCE

We see reality and each other differently. We invest this reality with

varying meanings, weight it with contrasting and opposing values,

judge it from dissimilar modalities, and obey incompatible norms.

Clearly, a distance encompassing these differences is relevant to the

social space. Therefore, I will define cultural distance as the objective

differences between people in their meanings, values, and norms.

These differences, as previously discussed (Section 13.2), encompass

the common, cultural components of philosophy-religion, science,

language, ethics-law, and fine arts.

Should not differences on these

separate components also

comprise distances? Is it not



important to also define

objective religious-philosophical

distance, ethical-legal distance,

and so on? Of course. The

difference in religion between

two people surely helps us

understand their social

interaction. However, this degree

of discrimination in cultural

distances is unnecessary at the

level I am working. For most of

my purposes in describing the

sociocultural field and our social

interactions and conflict, the

concept of cultural distance in

conjunction with the previously

defined psychological and social

distances will suffice.

Overall, I have defined four types

of distances and eleven subtypes

as shown in Table 16.1. My

interest here is not basically

classificatory, but in making

meaningful distinctions that aid

our understanding of our social

selves and our interactions.

These distinctions will then be

worked in subsequent chapters.

One other point should be made.

These distances are interrelated and interdependent; they overlap in

those different aspects of distances they describe. Social distance

subsumes class, status, and power distances, and the latter is

subsumed by the status-distance. Our objectively different meanings,

values, and norms are clearly reflected in our psychological distances.



Why not, then, classify distances into logically independent and

distinct types? Because these different overlapping distances manifest

different aspects of the sociocultural field, different actualities,

depending on which perspective on behavior we find useful. To

separately conceptualize a person as husband and companion is to

take different views on his behavior, views that provide important

different understanding, but still entail interrelated and overlapping

phenomena.

16.6 THE NATURE OF DISTANCE

Hence the application of the principles of identity and difference

on the basis of the meanings manifested by material objects,overt actions, and persons often leads to results radicallydifferent from those arrived at on the basis of their biophysical

properties. ---- Sorokin, 1969, p. 50

Distance as a concept can mislead unless we keep in mind three

assumptions involved in its use here, assumptions about

commonality, behavior, and directionality. Concerning commonality, a

distance assumes that there is something common between

individuals which can be compared in some quantitative or qualitative

fashion. It requires some common attribute along which the

difference can be assessed.

Thus, the very application of a distance concept requires a

corresponding similarity . For example, to consider the philosophical

distance between a Burmese and Frenchman requires that they both

have a philosophy; to determine the class-distance between two

Australians requires that they have some common group



memberships; to assess the language distance between a Lebanese

and Syrian assumes that both have a language. We cannot assign a

distance when there is no corresponding commonality. Consider

evaluating the physical distance between the Catholic church, a

nonterritorial religious group existing throughout the world, and

Canada, a territorially defined group. A territorial distance between

them has no meaning.

It is important to recognize this commonality that underlies distance.

For not all differences, but only those along a common dimension, are

reflected. If we were to meet an alien being completely different from

us, we could not conceptualize any distance between us until we

found a commonality (such as having a specific physical location,

sharing a similar molecular structure, employing sound waves to

communicate, and so on). This in turn shows that distance assumes a

common space with common components. Distances cannot reflect

differences in unique attributes.

The ten distances suggested here are within a common space, with

common cultural components (such as language, religion-philosophy),

common social components (e.g., class, wealth), and common

psychological components (e.g., sex, self-assertion). And indeed, in

previous chapters and in The Dynamic Psychological Field, I have

dealt with only common components and spaces.12

Through understanding that distances measure diversity in

commonality, we should recognize that a distance reflects both

similarity and dissimilarity. China and the United States may be

different, but we cannot impose a distance relation on that difference

until we determine an underlying commonality. The distance will then

reflect how similar and dissimilar the two nations are along this

commonality, such as a distance in status in the international

stratification system.

The second assumption of the distance concept is behavioral. Often it

is assumed that the greater the distance, the more antagonism,

dislike, hostility, and conflict; the less the distance, the more




solidarity, cooperation, affinity, and so on. Likes attract and unlikes

repel. I will deal with this question in detail in Vol. 3: Conflict In

Perspective, but here I want to emphasize that distance is

behaviorally an empty concept. Later I will argue that certain

distances (such as in wealth) lead to particular behavior. But for the

moment, the general idea of distance implies neither cooperation nor

conflict, neither solidarity nor antagonism.

Finally, my distance concept assumes directionality. In virtually all the

social science literature employing distance, it is assumed to measure

only the magnitude or degree of similarity and dissimilarity between

two people on some commonality. Distance is then a number, a scalar,

as in the between-city, mileage-distance tables in travel atlases.

However, there is another aspect to distance, which is not only the

distance-magnitude but its direction along the common dimension or

in the common space that is involved.

For example, let the wealth of Bob, Jim, and John be $30,000,

$20,000, and $10,000 respectively. Now, the magnitude of the wealth

distance between Bob and Jim, Jim and John would be $10,000. That

is, Jim is equally distant in magnitude from the others. However, the

direction here is also important. For understanding Jim's behavior it is

significant whether Bob and John were richer or poorer than he is.

Thus, if we took direction into account we would find that the

distance between Jim and Bob is for Jim -$10,000 and for John

+$10,000. The signs then show whether the magnitude is greater or

less than Jim's.13

Another example is power. Without going into detail, it is important

for explaining behavior to know not only how powerful an actor is

relative to another, but also whether he is stronger or weaker than the

other.

Such examples seem trite, when written down. But it is extraordinary

that trivial though the point may seem, social scientists have

concerned themselves with only distance magnitude.14




Since both the magnitude and direction of distance are significant to

social behavior, I conceive of distance as a vector . A vector is

precisely defined by both these characteristics; its orientation in space

and its arrowhead indicate the direction of the distance such as in

Figure 16.2, and its length measures the distance magnitude.

Distance is a dynamic part of the social field--a force with power

(magnitude) and direction of movement. Distance as a scalar

magnitude could not carry this interpretation. Only distance as a

vector in sociocultural space can.

And as a force, the sociocultural distance vector is simply a composite

of the social and cultural distance vectors.

NOTES

* Scanned from Chapter 16 in R.J. Rummel, The Conflict

Helix, 1976. For full reference to the book and the list of its

contents in hypertext, click book. Typographical errors have

been corrected, clarifications added, and style updated.

1. Poole systematized distances in the following way:

(1) The personal distances

(a) Subjective--the individual's conceptionof his relation to another.

(b) Objective--individual differences inideas, ideals, philosophies of fife, etc.(c) Forms of socialization--the overt pattern

of interaction.(2) The social distances

(a) Subjective--a group's conception of itsrelation to an out-group. Some phases we

call race prejudice.(b) Objective--cultural differences betweenthe in-group and out-group.

(c) Forms of socialization--norms of social




distance and their expression in society.

2. My use of this concept is close to Poole's (1937)

"Subjective Personal Distance." About this distance, he says

the following (p. 100): "Regarding individuals apart from

their positions as members of various groups (we can do this

for practical purposes), the relation between any two can be

spoken of as their personal distance. What is their

relationship; what is the nature of this distance? There is,

first of all, their own idea of the relation, the relationship as it

exists for them, a matter quite apart from the relationship in

itself, as it would appear to an observer who knew each

individual thoroughly, despite the fact that no such observer

can exist. Of these two relationships, the one held by the

interacting parties and the one that might prevail if either

knew the other better, only the first is of importance for

immediate social interaction. What you think another to be

determines your treatment of him. We will call this distance

'subjective,' for it is an idea in your head. Its objective reality

is unknown, but you treat your idea as if it were the true

distance."

3. See, for example, Morrill and Pitts (1967).

4. For a comparison of studies using distance-mass functions,

see David L. Huff (1965). A typical distance-mass function is

B = ( P1P2)/D2, where B is some kind of behavior, such as

communication, P1 is the population of the sender location,

P2 the population of receiver, and D is the physical distance

between them.

5. Hall also uses the concept of personal distance, with

meaning similar to mine.

6. Remember that roles in psychological space are clusters of



attitudes sharing the same goals and activated in the same

situation.

7. The most direct measure of relative interests between any i

and j would be the cosine between their interest vectors. It

would be negative if interests tend to oppose, zero if they

tend to be irrelevant, and positive if they tend to be

complementary, and the size of the cosine would measure the

degree of perceived opposition, irrelevance, and

complementarity. However, here I am dealing with i's

interests alone. The actor i is fixed in space and only the

perceived others vary. The variation in interest-distance

vectors across all others is then a linear function of their

location in this interest subspace. Thus i sees others' interests

relative to his own. They are distance vectors with magnitude

and orientation in terms of i's own interests.

8. See also Bogardus (1933, p. 268).

9. Incidentally, Sorokin's whole Chapter 7 (1969), "The Roles

of Similarity and Dissimilarity in Social Solidarity and

Antagonism," is worth careful study.

10. Compare with Wright (1942, p. 1442): "Social distance is

the relation of social entities to others measuring the degree

of their contact or isolation."

11. Then why not use "attribute distance" as the appropriate

term? Because there are a multitude of nonsociological

attributes, such as cranial size, length of feet, use of false

teeth, average hours of sleep, and so on. Such a definition

implies a distance on all such attributes, as well as those of

sociological significance. Distance measures similarity, and

some actually do define the sociological relevant similarity

and dissimilarity as across all attributes. See, for example,

Davis (1966), who argues that the greater the similarity

across all attributes, the greater the mechanical solidarity , in



Durkheim's terms (p. 80).

12. This may seem another point at which philosophical

analysis outruns scientific methodology. But techniques are

available for quantitatively defining these common

components and spaces and the appropriate distances within

them. See Rummel (1970, Section 5.2 and 22.1) and Chapter

33.

13. The distance-direction is arbitrary. Let i be the actor's

wealth and j be the object's, then the distance could be

computed as i minus j or j minus i. By convention, I compute

the distance as actor minus object, so that the distance vector

is pointing towards the actor (i.e., it is a power bearing upon

the actor).

14. An indicator of this one-sided view of distance is the

development and popularity of smallest space analysis

(alternatively called multidimensional scaling or nonlinear

factor analysis), which are techniques based on distance

magnitudes (see Rummel, 1970, Section 22.3). Sorokin

(1969, P. 362) also saw social distance as simply a

magnitude: "This conception of sociocultural space contains

in itself a definite conception of such derivative notions as

'social distance.' Sociologically, two or more sociocultural

phenomena are near to one another if they occupy the same

or an adjacent position in the vector system of the

sociocultural space; and they are distant from one another if

their position in the vector system is different . "

For citations see the Vol. 2: The Conflict Helix REFERENCES

Go to top of document


http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/TCH.REF.HTM

23/2014 SOCIAL DISTANCES

Documents

Transcript of 23/2014 SOCIAL DISTANCES