Bases of social obligation: the distinction between exchange and role and its consequences

References

• Adloff, F. 2016. Gifts of cooperation, Mauss and pragmatism. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bellah, R.N., W.M. Sullivan, R. Madsen, A. Swidler, and S.M. Tipton. 1996. Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blau, P.M. 2017. Exchange and power in social life. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Borgatti, S.P., and V. Lopez-Kidwell. 2011. Network theory. In The SAGE handbook of social network analysis, ed. J. Scott, and P. J. Carrington, 40–54. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Borgatti, S.P., A. Mehra, D.J. Brass, and G. Labianca. 2009. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323: 892–895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourdieu, P. 1992. The logic of practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burt, R.S. 1980. Models of network structure. Annual Review of Sociology 6: 79–141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Connell, R. 1979. The concept of role and what to do with it. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 15, no. 3: 7–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook, S., and J.M. Whitmeyer. 1992. Two approaches to social structure: Exchange theory and network analysis. Annual Review of Sociology 18: 109–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahrendorf, R. 1968. Homo sociologicus: On the history, significance and limits of the category of social role. In Essays in the theory of society,19–87. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, M. 1973. Natural symbols: Explorations in cosmology. London: Barrie and Jenkins.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, E. 1964. The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, E. 2002. Suicide: A study in sociology. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ekeh, P.P. 1974. Social exchange theory: The two traditions. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, R.W. 1950. Gifts. In The complete essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson, ed. A. Atkinson, 402–405. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Emerson, R. 1976. Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology 2: 335–362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emirbayer, M., and J. Goodwin. 1994. Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology 99, no. 6: 1411–1454.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erikson, E. 2013. Formalist and relationalist theory in social network analysis. Sociological Theory 31, no. 3: 219–242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erikson, E. 2017. Networks and network theory. In Social theory now, ed. C. Benzecry, M. Krause, and I. Reed, 278–304. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gerhardt, U. 1980. Toward a critical analysis of role. Social Problems 27, no. 5: 556–569.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1972. Alienation from interaction. In Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behaviour,113–136. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Goffman, E. 1983. The interaction order. American Sociological Review 48, no. 1: 1–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M.S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, no. 6: 1360–1380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M.S. 1985. Economic action and social structure. American Journal of Sociology 91: 481–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hardimon, M.O. 1994. Role obligation. Journal of Philosophy 91, no. 7: 333–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Healy, K. 2015. The performativity of networks. European Journal of Sociology 56, no. 2: 175–205.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Homans, G.C. 1958. Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology 63: 597–606.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komarovsky, M. 1992. The concept of social role revisited. Gender and Society 6, no. 2: 301–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komter, A. 2007. Gifts and social relations: The mechanisms of reciprocity. International Sociology 22, no. 1: 93–107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laumann, E.O. 1979. Network analysis in large social systems. In Perspectives on social network research, ed. P. W. Holland, and S. Leinhardt, 379–402. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawler, E.J., and S.R. Thyne. 1999. Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology 25: 217–244.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawler, E.J., and J. Yoon. 1998. Network structure and emotion in exchange relations. American Sociological Review 63, no. 6: 871–894.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi-Strauss, C. 1987. Introduction to the work of Marcel Mauss. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. 1977. Émile Durkheim. His life and work: A historical and critical study. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• McDonald, S. 2011. What’s in the ‘old boys’ network? Social Networks 33, no. 4: 317–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsden, P.V., and K.E. Campbell. 1984. Measuring tie strength. Social Forces 63, no. 2: 482–501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsden, P.V., and K.E. Campbell. 2012. Reflections on conceptualizing and measuring tie strength. Social Forces 91, no. 1: 17–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mauss, M. 2002. The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Merton, R.K. 1968. Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pachucki, M.A., and R.L. Breiger. 2010. Cultural holes: Beyond relationality in social networks and culture. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 205–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons, T. 1954. The present position and prospects of systematic theory in sociology. In Essays in sociological theory, 212–237. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Petróczi, A., T. Nepusz, and F. Bazsó. 2007. Measuring tie-strength in virtual social networks. Connections 27, no. 2: 39–52.
   Google Scholar
• Podolny, J.M. 2001. Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology 107, no. 1: 33–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyyhtinen, O. 2016. The gift and its paradoxes. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rivera, M.T., S.B. Soderstrom, and B. Uzzi. 2010. Dynamics of dyads in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 36: 91–115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schiermer, B. 2019. From holism to participation: Three phases in Durkheim’s work. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 39: 109–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simmel, G. 1950. Faithfulness and gratitude. In The sociology of Georg Simmel, ed. K. H. Wolf, 379–395. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simmel, G. 1978. The philosophy of money. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Strathern, M. 1988. The gender of the gift: Problems with women and problems with society in Melanesia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Swedberg, R. 2020. On the use of definitions in sociology. European Journal of Social Theory 23, no. 3: 431–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellman, B. 1983. Network analysis: Some basic principles. In Sociological theory 1983, ed. R. Collins, 155–200. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Wellman, B., and S.D. Berkowitz, eds. 1988. Social structures: A network approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar