Forms of Social Capital in Economics. The Importance of Heteronomous Networks in the Swiss Field of Economists (1980-2000)

Economists often argue that economics is a “pure” and “autonomous” discipline. In contrast, the relatively dense institutional and interpersonal networks owned by economists show how the discipline stands at the edge of several social fields and thus can be particularly heteronomous. These networks provide a certain volume and form of social capital which strengthen the discipline, but also highlight its important porousness toward extra-academic powers. Very few studies have focused on the importance of social capital in fields and, to our knowledge, no research has systematically investigated the role of intra-disciplinary and extra-disciplinary social capital in economics. This chapter aims to focus on the structure and evolution of social capital in the Swiss field of economists. It relies on an original prosopographical database of all economics professors at Swiss universities between 1980 and 2000 (n=200). We exploit the data in two ways: First, through multiple correspondence analysis (MCA), we identify two structuring forces among economists. The main opposition is marked by the volume of extra-disciplinary social capital, and the volume of intra-disciplinarity capital only comes in a second place. Second, we show, through class-specific MCA, that, despite the fact that intra-disciplinary social capital gains in importance in the recent period, extra-disciplinary social capital remains the prime structuring logic across time. Although the particularly strong cohesion and autonomy that characterise the discipline, this chapter points out the importance of heteronomous networks, which attest that economics is and stays much less autonomous than economists would argue.

Networks as “Islands of Meanings”

Why do activists’ minds differ from one commitment site to another? And why are people’s minds synchronized when they are engaged in the same commitment community? Chapter 6 proposes an explanation of the findings advanced in the previous chapters by adding a relational layer to the cognitive mechanisms. We show how conversational interactions shape the meanings about common good and politics that activists construct. The chapter also shows that not every interaction shapes the activist’s mind but that specific relational mechanisms are at work behind the synchronization of understandings. First, we demonstrate that face-to-face interactions are the key to the construction of socially shared meanings. By contrast, mediated interactions (through discursive outcomes of the organization like newspapers or newsletters) are insufficient to shape an activist’s mind. Second, we highlight how face-to-face interactions in interpersonal networks allow passive members to construct socially shared meanings with fellow activists. Third, we show that the redundancy and abundance of interactions are not essential to the nourishment of the activist’s cognitive map. Finally, we claim that the density of interactions is a crucial relational mechanism for cross-committed activists. This chapter ultimately shows the importance of conversational interactions to the synchronization of the activist’s mind.

Spanish Firemen and Maritime Syndicalism, 1902–1940

This chapter describes how Spanish firemen and Hispanic anarcho-syndicalists built a strong presence in the maritime industry in the opening decades of the twentieth century. They exchanged publications and developed interpersonal networks to sustain a culture of resistance across the Americas. Hispanic seaman played a major role in the Atlantic Coast maritime trade, primarily as firemen (fogoneros) working on ships sailing out of U.S. ports. Many fogoneros had experience in militant unions overseas, having fled persecution in Cuba or Spain. Firemen, though ill-paid, were central to the operation of coal-fired steamships, providing electricity to the ship as well as powering its engines. This chapter also examines the Strike of 1912.

Persuasion in Interpersonal Networks

To what extent are our political views shaped by those with whom we associate? This chapter discusses the research on interpersonal networks as they relate to processes of attitude and opinion formation. Reviewing the literature’s origins, evolution, and essential design features, the chapter focuses largely on its development in and application to the US context. At base, much of the scholarship on core social networks in the mass public posits that (non-) exposure to disagreement influences what we think about politics and how we vote in elections. The chapter examines the array of findings surrounding this and other characteristics of our “offline” social circles and notes challenges to inference stemming from questions about causal identification, debates over measurement, and ambiguity concerning mechanisms. It closes by describing several potentially fruitful areas for future research and articulating a vision for a more unified approach to the study of persuasion in interpersonal networks.