varied sociability tend to be larger, as well as networks with several clustered subgroups. In the first case it is reasonable to interpret that when sociability becomes more varied, a larger number of alters is available for possible contacts. In the second case, however, it is more difficult to separate a causal direction and decide if it is the growth of the network which leads to the formation of more clusters, or the presence of dense sub-groups which leads to the growth of the network. In any case, size and dense subgroups reinforce each other. Finally, the model presents four variables associated with sociability. The presence of many countrymen in the networks tends to reduce the size of the network. A considerable amount of the Brazilian metropolitan poor are migrants from the poorer regions of the country. Previous results of this research showed that some individuals maintain, at their present location, a very intense sociability with persons who migrated from the same state, or sometimes from some small village. This is not a general phenomenon, but characterizes a subgroup of individuals, who live in almost communities’ and for ‘transplanted whom the integration process after migration happened in a very specific way. The model is informing us that this process tends to reduce the size of the networks, what can be interpreted as a creation of limits for growth. On the other hand, social interaction in the church sphere tends to enlarge the networks. The effect has also been described in the literature and in the Brazilian case involves the traditional catholic churches, but also the many neopentecostal temples which grew intensely in recent period. While the first dimension leads to homophilic ties, the church sphere tends to be more heterophilic, even when it is local (Marques, 2012a). The final two variables have a clear association with the main concern of this article. The presence of more intense sociability in the neighborhood tends to increase the networks and a higher proportion of ties between local and nodes reduces the size of the network. In both cases, this suggests that local sociability tends to increase the networks. And in fact the qualitative narratives of the research confirm this, by suggesting that developing activities locally is one of the ways of expanding the network. A substantial amount of
varied sociability tend to be larger, as well as networks with several clustered subgroups. In the first case it is reasonable to interpret that when sociability becomes more varied, a larger number of alters is available for possible contacts. In the second case, however, it is more difficult to separate a causal direction and decide if it is the growth of the network which leads to the formation of more clusters, or the presence of dense sub-groups which leads to the growth of the network. In any case, size and dense subgroups reinforce each other. Finally, the model presents four variables associated with sociability. The presence of many countrymen in the networks tends to reduce the size of the network. A considerable amount of the Brazilian metropolitan poor are migrants from the poorer regions of the country. Previous results of this research showed that some individuals maintain, at their present location, a very intense sociability with persons who migrated from the same state, or sometimes from some small village. This is not a general phenomenon, but characterizes a subgroup of individuals, who live in almost ‘transplanted communities’ and for whom the integration process after migration happened in a very specific way. The model is informing us that this process tends to reduce the size of the networks, what can be interpreted as a creation of limits for growth. On the other hand, social interaction in the church sphere tends to enlarge the networks. The effect has also been described in the literature and in the Brazilian case involves the traditional catholic churches, but also the many neopentecostal temples which grew intensely in recent period. While the first dimension leads to homophilic ties, the church sphere tends to be more heterophilic, even when it is local (Marques, 2012a). The final two variables have a clear association with the main concern of this article. The presence of more intense sociability in the neighborhood tends to increase the networks and a higher proportion of ties between local and nodes reduces the size of the network. In both cases, this suggests that local sociability tends to increase the networks. And in fact the qualitative narratives of the research confirm this, by suggesting that developing activities locally is one of the ways of expanding the network. A substantial amount of
1-1-Marques.docx