Measuring the Dynamics of Mammalian Societies
339
periods that approximate stationarity (see “The Bout”). This might involve
consideration of, for example, “the first 50 interactions,” “the second 50 interactions,” and so forth, or “wet season interaction” versus “dry season interaction,” or “simultaneous presence of dominant” versus “absence of dominant.”
Nested analysis is a common way to achieve this goal.
SOCIAL STRUCTURE, FROM SURFACE TO DEEP
A social network provides a snapshot of one facet of society. By analogy, one
analysis of a social network is akin to the view through one window into a large
and labyrinthine house; the view through all windows gives the structure. It is
therefore necessary to compile several networks that describe different facets of
one society. This task may be made harder because different sociometric variables (e.g., grooming, aggression, play) may not follow similar patterns of stationarity; aggression may covary with age and presence of dominant, whereas
grooming may not. Notwithstanding these complexities, a society’s structure
can be described in terms of these networks. Indeed, there are layers of completeness to this description. The structure that prevails may vary on a circadian basis, or seasonally or annually; it may also be characteristic of a species’
society in only one habitat or set of environmental conditions. At its most fundamental, elements of social structure may characterize all populations of a
species. Therefore, social structure might usefully be categorized on a continuum from surface structures to deep structures. The study of social dynamics
seeks to describe and explain the patterning of transitions and stability of social
structures. An important goal of evolutionary biology is to identify the rules,
derived from a variety of empirical and theoretical sources, that are thought to
guide an individual’s decisions in a social context—Axelrod’s (1984) seminal
question of whether to cooperate. An accurate description of structure is
clearly a prerequisite to a sensible exploration of these rules. Operationally, the
point at which a thorough description of social structure is complete is probably the first point at which it is legitimate to consider exchanging data language (grooms, fights) for theory language (alliance formation, competition).
These interpretative substitutions are topics for the discussion section of a
paper, whereas in the results section data should be presented without such
interpretation.
Exploring exhaustively the layers of structure in animal societies is a major
undertaking. Not least because a major objective of studying social dynamics
is to contribute to the solution of practical conservation problems, it is inevitable that such studies may sometimes have to be undertaken quickly. The
339
periods that approximate stationarity (see “The Bout”). This might involve
consideration of, for example, “the first 50 interactions,” “the second 50 interactions,” and so forth, or “wet season interaction” versus “dry season interaction,” or “simultaneous presence of dominant” versus “absence of dominant.”
Nested analysis is a common way to achieve this goal.
SOCIAL STRUCTURE, FROM SURFACE TO DEEP
A social network provides a snapshot of one facet of society. By analogy, one
analysis of a social network is akin to the view through one window into a large
and labyrinthine house; the view through all windows gives the structure. It is
therefore necessary to compile several networks that describe different facets of
one society. This task may be made harder because different sociometric variables (e.g., grooming, aggression, play) may not follow similar patterns of stationarity; aggression may covary with age and presence of dominant, whereas
grooming may not. Notwithstanding these complexities, a society’s structure
can be described in terms of these networks. Indeed, there are layers of completeness to this description. The structure that prevails may vary on a circadian basis, or seasonally or annually; it may also be characteristic of a species’
society in only one habitat or set of environmental conditions. At its most fundamental, elements of social structure may characterize all populations of a
species. Therefore, social structure might usefully be categorized on a continuum from surface structures to deep structures. The study of social dynamics
seeks to describe and explain the patterning of transitions and stability of social
structures. An important goal of evolutionary biology is to identify the rules,
derived from a variety of empirical and theoretical sources, that are thought to
guide an individual’s decisions in a social context—Axelrod’s (1984) seminal
question of whether to cooperate. An accurate description of structure is
clearly a prerequisite to a sensible exploration of these rules. Operationally, the
point at which a thorough description of social structure is complete is probably the first point at which it is legitimate to consider exchanging data language (grooms, fights) for theory language (alliance formation, competition).
These interpretative substitutions are topics for the discussion section of a
paper, whereas in the results section data should be presented without such
interpretation.
Exploring exhaustively the layers of structure in animal societies is a major
undertaking. Not least because a major objective of studying social dynamics
is to contribute to the solution of practical conservation problems, it is inevitable that such studies may sometimes have to be undertaken quickly. The