the other ride of paul revere: brokerage role in the making of the american revolution shin-kap han

The Other Ride of Paul Revere:Brokerage Role

in the Making of the American Revolution

Shin-Kap Han

The Other Ride of Paul Revere:Brokerage Role

in the Making of the American Revolution

1. Question2. Issues – Historical and

Sociological3. Data – Membership

Networks4. Findings5. Summary and Conclusion

Folklore vs. History

Midnight Ride of Paul Revere (1931) by Grant WoodMetropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Folklore vs. History

(???)

“an uncanny genius for being at the center of events”

(Fischer 1994)

Sociological Framing

Sociological Framing

The Black Box

A Historiographical Blind Spot?A Sociological Black Box?

What was his real importance?

What was the nature of the role he played?

The Other Ride

• Revere’s role in the mobilization process of the Revolutionary movement from a social structural perspective

The Other Ride

• Revere’s role in the mobilization process of the Revolutionary movement from a social structural perspective

• Spanned various social chasms and connected disparate organizational elements– A bridge par excellence across the

“structural holes”

The Mechanism

Issues:Brokerage

• A process “by which intermediary actors facilitate transactions between other actors lacking access to or trust in one another” (Marsden 1982)

Issues: Incentives in Brokerage

• “Commissions” (Marsden)

• “Tertius Gaudens” (Burt)

• “Tariff” (Boissevain)

His was pro bono.

Issues: Incentives in Brokerage

• “Commissions” (Marsden)

• “Tertius Gaudens” (Burt)

• “Tariff” (Boissevain)

His was pro bono.

• Interest in keeping the holes from being closed up

He filled the holes.

Issues: Incentives in Brokerage

• “Commissions” (Marsden)

• “Tertius Gaudens” (Burt)

• “Tariff” (Boissevain)

His was pro bono.

• Interest in keeping the holes from being closed up

He filled the holes.

Competitive Setting

Non-Competitive Setting

Issues:Brokerage and Mobilization

• A process “by which intermediary actors facilitate transactions between other actors lacking access to or trust in one another” (Marsden 1982)

– “bridge-and-cluster” structure– “weakly coupled” structure

Network Configuration

Effi

cacy

or

Pot

entia

l of

Col

lect

ive

Act

ion

High

Low

Fragmentedstructure deficient

in bridging ties

Denselyconnectedstructure

Network Configuration

Effi

cacy

or

Pot

entia

l of

Col

lect

ive

Act

ion

High

Low

Cluster-and-bridge

structure

Fragmentedstructure deficient

in bridging ties

Denselyconnectedstructure

Issues: Brokerage and Mobilization

• Structural problems inherent in any large-scale mobilization process ― Mobilizing “men of all orders”

– Levels – “multiorganizational fields” (i.e., networks of organizations)

– Multiplexity – overlaps and intersections

Issues: Brokerage and Mobilization

• Structural problems inherent in any large-scale mobilization process ― Mobilizing “men of all orders”

– Levels – “multiorganizational fields” (i.e., networks of organizations)

– Multiplexity – overlaps and intersections

Issues: Brokerage and Mobilization

• Structural problems inherent in any large-scale mobilization process ― Mobilizing “men of all orders”

– Levels – “multiorganizational fields” (i.e., networks of organizations)

– Multiplexity – overlaps and intersections

Issues:Late 18th Century British American

Colonies

• Fault lines– “Tories, true blue, and the timid”– “The better sort and the lower sort”– Militia and crowd

• Organizational infrastructure: Diffuse alliances

In the middle of it all was Revere, as a communicator, coordinator, and organizer.

Issues:Late 18th Century British American

Colonies

• Fault lines– “Tories, true blue, and the timid”– “The better sort and the lower sort”– Militia and crowd

• Organizational infrastructure: Diffuse alliances

In the middle of it all was Revere, as a communicator, coordinator, and organizer.

Issues:Late 18th Century British American

Colonies

• Fault lines– “Tories, true blue, and the timid”– “The better sort and the lower sort”– Militia and crowd

• Organizational infrastructure: Diffuse alliances

In the middle of it all was Revere, as a communicator, coordinator, and organizer.

(1994. Oxford University Press)

Data

Membership List of Five Whig Groups

2-Mode (Affiliation) Network Data

Matrix OperationsA (P-by-G)AT (G-by-P)

A(AT) = P-by-PAT(A) = G-by-G

Findings, I

Linkages Between Organizations and Their Members

1762

1763

1764

1765

1766

1767

1768

1769

1770

1771

1772

1773

1774

48 2

2 3

3

5

45

10

10

6

6 2

2

2

2

2

St. Andrews Lodge (N = 53)

Long Room Club (N = 17)

North End Caucus (N = 60)

Loyal Nine (N =10)

Boston Committee of Correspondence (N = 21)

J. Warren

P. Revere

S. Adams,B. Church

1762

1763

1764

1765

1766

1767

1768

1769

1770

1771

1772

1773

1774

48 2

2 3

3

5

45

10

10

6

6 2

2

2

2

2

St. Andrews Lodge (N = 53)

Long Room Club (N = 17)

North End Caucus (N = 60)

Loyal Nine (N =10)

Boston Committee of Correspondence (N = 21)

J. Warren

P. Revere

S. Adams,B. Church

Findings, II

Revere’s Place

Distribution of Centrality Scores

1137

0

5

10

15

20

25

1137

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

(a) Betweenness Centrality (b) Closeness Centrality

J. Warren

P. Revere

T. Urann

S. Adams,B. Church

Network Structure of the Revolutionary Movement in Boston: All (Density

= .725)

Revere

Warren

1

2

3

5

4

Urann

Network Structure of the Revolutionary Movement in Boston: All (Density

= .725)

Revere

Warren

1

2

3

5

4

Urann

Network Structure of the Revolutionary Movement in Boston: W/O 2 (D = .500)

Changes (%) in Average Path Distance

Findings, III

Linkages Across Social Divides

Titles in Fischer —————————————————— Harvard Maier’s Number of Militia Merchant College Index Memberships N (%) N (%) N (%) Mean Mean St. Andrew’s Lodge (N = 53) 17 (32.1) 6 (11.3) 1 (1.9) .62 1.15 Loyal Nine (N = 10) 1 (10.0) 6 (60.0) 1 (10.0) 1.30 1.50 North End Caucus (N = 60) 4 (6.7) 17 (28.3) 7 (11.7) 1.73 1.33 Long Room Club (N = 17) 1 (5.9) 6 (35.3) 10 (58.8) 6.24 1.71 Boston Committee of (N = 21) 0 (0.0) 12 (57.1) 5 (23.8) 4.57 1.71 Correspondence Total/Average 23 (16.8) 47 (34.3) 24 (17.5) 2.19 1.37 L2 22.05 21.26 29.85 . . F-ratio . . . 4.11 3.88 d.f 4 4 4 4 4 p .000 .000 .000 .003 .005 τ-b –.308 .254 .314 . . Linearity . . . 11.69 12.69 p .000 .000 .000 .001 .000

Membership Characteristics

Titles in Fischer —————————————————— Harvard Maier’s Number of Militia Merchant College Index Memberships N (%) N (%) N (%) Mean Mean St. Andrew’s Lodge (N = 53) 17 (32.1) 6 (11.3) 1 (1.9) .62 1.15 Loyal Nine (N = 10) 1 (10.0) 6 (60.0) 1 (10.0) 1.30 1.50 North End Caucus (N = 60) 4 (6.7) 17 (28.3) 7 (11.7) 1.73 1.33 Long Room Club (N = 17) 1 (5.9) 6 (35.3) 10 (58.8) 6.24 1.71 Boston Committee of (N = 21) 0 (0.0) 12 (57.1) 5 (23.8) 4.57 1.71 Correspondence Total/Average 23 (16.8) 47 (34.3) 24 (17.5) 2.19 1.37 L2 22.05 21.26 29.85 . . F-ratio . . . 4.11 3.88 d.f 4 4 4 4 4 p .000 .000 .000 .003 .005 τ-b –.308 .254 .314 . . Linearity . . . 11.69 12.69 p .000 .000 .000 .001 .000

Membership Characteristics

Titles in Fischer —————————————————— Harvard Maier’s Number of Militia Merchant College Index Memberships N (%) N (%) N (%) Mean Mean St. Andrew’s Lodge (N = 53) 17 (32.1) 6 (11.3) 1 (1.9) .62 1.15 Loyal Nine (N = 10) 1 (10.0) 6 (60.0) 1 (10.0) 1.30 1.50 North End Caucus (N = 60) 4 (6.7) 17 (28.3) 7 (11.7) 1.73 1.33 Long Room Club (N = 17) 1 (5.9) 6 (35.3) 10 (58.8) 6.24 1.71 Boston Committee of (N = 21) 0 (0.0) 12 (57.1) 5 (23.8) 4.57 1.71 Correspondence Total/Average 23 (16.8) 47 (34.3) 24 (17.5) 2.19 1.37 L2 22.05 21.26 29.85 . . F-ratio . . . 4.11 3.88 d.f 4 4 4 4 4 p .000 .000 .000 .003 .005 τ-b –.308 .254 .314 . . Linearity . . . 11.69 12.69 p .000 .000 .000 .001 .000

Membership Characteristics

Titles in Fischer —————————————————— Harvard Maier’s Number of Militia Merchant College Index Memberships N (%) N (%) N (%) Mean Mean St. Andrew’s Lodge (N = 53) 17 (32.1) 6 (11.3) 1 (1.9) .62 1.15 Loyal Nine (N = 10) 1 (10.0) 6 (60.0) 1 (10.0) 1.30 1.50 North End Caucus (N = 60) 4 (6.7) 17 (28.3) 7 (11.7) 1.73 1.33 Long Room Club (N = 17) 1 (5.9) 6 (35.3) 10 (58.8) 6.24 1.71 Boston Committee of (N = 21) 0 (0.0) 12 (57.1) 5 (23.8) 4.57 1.71 Correspondence Total/Average 23 (16.8) 47 (34.3) 24 (17.5) 2.19 1.37 L2 22.05 21.26 29.85 . . F-ratio . . . 4.11 3.88 d.f 4 4 4 4 4 p .000 .000 .000 .003 .005 τ-b –.308 .254 .314 . . Linearity . . . 11.69 12.69 p .000 .000 .000 .001 .000

Membership Characteristics

Titles in Fischer —————————————————— Harvard Maier’s Number of Militia Merchant College Index Memberships N (%) N (%) N (%) Mean Mean St. Andrew’s Lodge (N = 53) 17 (32.1) 6 (11.3) 1 (1.9) .62 1.15 Loyal Nine (N = 10) 1 (10.0) 6 (60.0) 1 (10.0) 1.30 1.50 North End Caucus (N = 60) 4 (6.7) 17 (28.3) 7 (11.7) 1.73 1.33 Long Room Club (N = 17) 1 (5.9) 6 (35.3) 10 (58.8) 6.24 1.71 Boston Committee of (N = 21) 0 (0.0) 12 (57.1) 5 (23.8) 4.57 1.71 Correspondence Total/Average 23 (16.8) 47 (34.3) 24 (17.5) 2.19 1.37 L2 22.05 21.26 29.85 . . F-ratio . . . 4.11 3.88 d.f 4 4 4 4 4 p .000 .000 .000 .003 .005 τ-b –.308 .254 .314 . . Linearity . . . 11.69 12.69 p .000 .000 .000 .001 .000

Membership Characteristics

Titles in Fischer —————————————————— Harvard Maier’s Number of Militia Merchant College Index Memberships N (%) N (%) N (%) Mean Mean St. Andrew’s Lodge (N = 53) 17 (32.1) 6 (11.3) 1 (1.9) .62 1.15 Loyal Nine (N = 10) 1 (10.0) 6 (60.0) 1 (10.0) 1.30 1.50 North End Caucus (N = 60) 4 (6.7) 17 (28.3) 7 (11.7) 1.73 1.33 Long Room Club (N = 17) 1 (5.9) 6 (35.3) 10 (58.8) 6.24 1.71 Boston Committee of (N = 21) 0 (0.0) 12 (57.1) 5 (23.8) 4.57 1.71 Correspondence Total/Average 23 (16.8) 47 (34.3) 24 (17.5) 2.19 1.37 L2 22.05 21.26 29.85 . . F-ratio . . . 4.11 3.88 d.f 4 4 4 4 4 p .000 .000 .000 .003 .005 τ-b –.308 .254 .314 . . Linearity . . . 11.69 12.69 p .000 .000 .000 .001 .000

Membership Characteristics

Changing of the Guards

6

4

2

0

-2

1762 177417701766

Period 1(1762, 1766, 1771)

Period 2(1766, 1771, 1773)

Period 3(1771, 1773, 1774)

Thomas Crafts,Henry Welles

ThomasUrann

Joseph Warren

Paul Revere

Henry Bass,Thomas Chase,Benjamin Edes

Bet

wee

nn

ess

Cen

tral

ity

(Sta

nd

ard

ized

)

Old LeadersFading Out

6

4

2

0

-2

1762 177417701766

Period 1(1762, 1766, 1771)

Period 2(1766, 1771, 1773)

Period 3(1771, 1773, 1774)

James Otis,Josiah Quincy

Thomas Young,Nathaniel Appleton,

William Dennie,Joseph Greenleaf,Nathaniel Barber,William Molineux

John Adams

Samuel Adams,Benjamin Church

Bet

wee

nn

ess

Cen

tral

ity

(Sta

nd

ard

ized

)

New LeadersEmerging

Summary and Conclusion

• Revere’s importance was in his being an extraordinarily effective bridge, chiefly due to its high multiplexity and the unique ways in which it was embedded in the social and organizational setting of the 18th-century New England.

Where to go from here?

Where to go from here?

To Harness an Outbreak:A Microstructural Account of

Mobilizationfor the March First Movement

• On March 1, 1919, the tenth year of Japanese occupation of Korea, the largest mass movement in Korean history began: For a period of two months, more than two million Koreans directly participated in more than 1,500 separate gatherings all across the country, shouting “Long Live Korean Independence!”

To Harness an Outbreak:A Microstructural Account of

Mobilizationfor the March First Movement

• “Under the harsh colonial rule of imperial Japan the nationalistic spirit of resistance had grown and spread to all segments of Korean society and had almost reached the point of explosion.”

An “inevitable” outbreak?

The Other Ride of Paul Revere:Brokerage Role

in the Making of the American Revolution

1. Question2. Issues – Historical and

Sociological3. Data – Membership

Networks4. Findings5. Summary and Conclusion

The Other Ride of Paul Revere:Brokerage Role

in the Making of the American Revolution

Shin-Kap Han