Seite - (000142) - in Knowledge and Networks

135 between the bourgeois and the proletarians, constructing well-organized communi- ties able to dominate the opportunities created by movement. It is not easy to see whether someone has the opportunities that others may not have. These opportuni- ties are comparable to the very efficient implicit or informal rights, often self- granted in an organized group, that are linked to the positions in the inconspicuous relational structure (White, 1970). Organizations, for example, help align social cleavages to create a system of inequality in which these cleavages reinforce each other, achieving exclusion and exploitation. In the monopolization of opportunities, Tilly (1998) saw the key mech- anism that reproduces social inequality, joining the mesosocial level to the macro- social level. Organizations and stratifications reinforce each other, even though the knowledge of their own opportunity structures for the individual actors is not obvi- ous or the modality and the yield of monopolizing are not mechanical. They depend on the link-up of a long-term process at the macrolevel and the operations of local organizations with their stabilized and specific social disciplines. The starting point proposed by Tilly is a complex socioeconomic process at the heart of the neostruc- tural approach to relations between the meso- and macrosocial levels. Neostructural sociologists can measure and model this monopolization by using social and orga- nizational network analysis as a method that was developed for updating the various forms of conflicts and interdependencies between actors and between categories of actors. If synchronization is necessary for the organization to benefit from the individual action of its members, especially from individual action that takes place outside the organization, creating asynchronies is sometimes what helps individuals break free. Collective action at two vertically interdependent levels of agency can thus also be a story of one level’s emancipation from the influence of the other and of either catching up with that other level or creating a new emergent structure (or, more modestly, a new substructure). The lag between the two vertically interdependent levels of collective agency can be considered the main source of morphogenesis, and the generalization of lags can be seen as the cause of morphogenesis unbound: Structuration at one level drives structuration at the other in mostly conflicting, chaotic, and unequal ways. There is not always time to adjust and adapt; enormous waste and disorganization may characterize the multilevel structuration process.9 When agents emancipate and create their own organizations, structure and culture 9 Because this morphogenesis creates dynamics of multilevel networks marked by different levels of agency, a new family of models is needed to account for such dynamics. This family of models could be a multilevel extension of Snijders’s (1996) model of network dynamics and could use characteristics of a level 2 network as a set of exogenous factors in the evolution of a level 1 net- work and vice versa. The coevolution of both level networks is added to the coevolution of behav- ior and relational choices. In terms of model specification, new independent variables from interorganizational networks operate at the interindividual level and vice versa. A multilevel ver- sion of Snijders’s model of network dynamics could, for example, introduce dual alters or induced potentials (extended opportunity structures as defined by Lazega et al., 2013) into Snijders’s for- malism in order to propose concepts such as multilevel closure and to measure the effects that one level of agency has on the other. 7 Organized Mobility and Relational Turnover as Context for Social Mechanisms…