CHAPTER 8: SOUTH AFRICANS’ TIES WITH AFRICAN MIGRANTS
8.2. Nature of relationships within the social network
8.2.3 Characteristics of tie
This section explores the characteristics of the relationship between the alters and egos from the alters’ perspective in order to determine the level of reciprocity and mutuality in the various ties as well as to ascertain whether they were symmetrical or asymmetrical26. The measurement of reciprocity in a dyadic tie is very important as it reveals the nature of the tie;
in this context, from the view of the alters. White and Johansen (2005: 239) explain that “…
reciprocity is a crucial indication of mutual recognition, of the presence of agency in building alliances and hence of the closeness of ties.” Turning to symmetry, as defined earlier, symmetric ties are characterized by mutuality, that is, relationships in which node A and node B respond to each other in a similar way (Botha 2000: 5). In order to measure symmetry, the alters’ responses were cross-checked and presented alongside those of the
26 The interview guide for the Nigerian respondents asked them to identify their most important South African tie and also investigated if and why this relationship was important to them. Similarly, the interview guide for the South African respondents asked if these ties were important to them. This was done to explore if the Nigerians and South Africans have a common value of their relationship. Reciprocity was measured in this regard (see appendices 1 and 2).
164
egos who identified them as their most important relationship. The responses from the alters were mixed. Of the 32 alters sampled, 20 (63%) of their ties were symmetrical and were characterised by reciprocity. These alters acknowledged that the ties were important to them.
They consisted of seven spouses/partners (five middle class and two working class females);
nine friends (five middle class males, two working class males, and two middle class females); two work colleagues (one middle class male and one working class male); and two clergy (one middle class male and one working class male). Overall, this group had more males (11) than females (9). In terms of class, there were 14 middle class alters, made up of seven females and seven males; and six working class alters (two working class females and four working class males).
Juxtaposing alters’ and egos’ responses to check for symmetry and reciprocity, one of the middle class egos, Toju (Interviewed 24/07/14) identified his wife Ntombi, a middle class alter, as his most important South African tie. Asked why this was the case, Toju stated that his marriage has enabled his economic integration and since family is important to him and his wife cares deeply for both their nuclear and extended families, she is his most important South African tie. Ntombi acknowledged that her tie with Toju was of value to her. She states that,
It’s obvious, I’m his wife. We share everything with each other and support each other. He takes care of me and my kids. He is my best friend and confidant (Interviewed 11/08/14).
Similarly, Nosa, a middle class ego identified a work colleague, Marvin, a middle class alter, as his most important South African relationship. He described the relationship as important because of the mentoring he received from Marvin as a senior colleague. He says:
I have received a lot of professional advice that has grown me in my field because of Marvin. A lot of what I am now is largely because of his invested time and advice (Interviewed 22/10/14).
Marvin corroborates the mutual nature of this tie in his response:
165
Nosa has become a very good friend. We are colleagues and friends. When I need someone to unwind from the hardships of life with, I go to him. He is my confidant (Interviewed 10/11/14).
The symmetrical and reciprocal nature of the ties between alter and egos were present across classes. For example, Onome, a middle class migrant, identified Sne, a working class alter as her most important South African relationship. Asked why this was the case, Onome replied
Sne is a very good friend… She is a poor cleaner but when it comes to good qualities she’s very rich… She is my best friend that is why it is important. I trust her very much (10/09/14).
Sne responded in a similar manner:
It is important because she cares for me. She treats me like a human being…
My relatives say she is Nigerian and she is using muthi but I don’t believe them… My house that I am staying she gave me money to build the roof when it collapsed. When I don’t have money, she gives me to buy groceries. How many of my relatives can do this? (Interviewed 07/12/14)
The various relationships were symmetric and reciprocal because of the mutual positive value both alters and egos ascribed to them and the mutual benefits they gained from the ties.
These benefits were both tangible and intangible. For example, the benefits Toju and Ntombi gained from being married were affective (intangible) and financial (tangible). Toju was able to get his residence permit and a job because of his marriage to Ntombi. On the other hand, she states that she gained affective and affectionate types of support from the tie. In Nosa and Marvin’s case, the benefits were also tangible (mentoring, advice) and intangible (reduce stress). Nosa and Marvin show the multiplexity of ties that exist when the nodes within a network have more than one tie. Rogan (2014: 4) defines it as the multiple overlapping of social relations between the same nodes in a social network. In Nosa and Marvin’s case, they have multiple ties as work colleagues and friends which overlap. Irrespective of the class difference between Onome and Sne, their tie was symmetric and reciprocity existed within it.
While Sne benefitted financially, Onome gained affective benefits as a result of the existence of social capital within the network. As noted earlier, reciprocity in ties has various effects that impact on the characteristics of the network ties. Liu-Farrer (2010) notes that the
166
presence of reciprocity in migrants’ ties not only leads to benefits and support, as seen in Miguel and Tranmer (2009) and Lubber et al’s (2001) studies, but the establishment of trust and bonds within networks and this promotes migrants’ integration. Therefore, it can be inferred that intergroup contact fostered the formation of conviviality and networks.
Reciprocity has been identified as one of the reasons why diverse groups form ties. Brudvig (2013) explains that migrants and host members overcome their differences when they seek to achieve mutual benefits. Hence, the socio-economic interdependency that characterized these dyadic ties was a condition that produced positive intergroup contact.
Nevertheless, not all alters’ ties were symmetric and reciprocal in nature. Twelve (36%) of the alters’ responses showed that these ties lacked reciprocity and were asymmetric ties. Four of these were friends (three middle class males and one working class male); four were work colleagues (two middle class males, one working class male and one middle class female);
and four were clergy (one middle class male, two working class males and one working class female). A gender disaggregation of the 12 alters shows that two were female and 10 male. In terms of class, seven are middle class (one female and six males); and the remaining five are working class (four males and one female). Thus, more male than female alters’ ties were symmetric and characterised by reciprocity.
Taking two examples, one female and one male to check for reciprocity of ties, Funmi, a working class female migrant, identified Futhi, a middle class female alter who is a work colleague as her most important South African tie. Funmi stated that this relationship was important because Futhi supports her financially and spiritually, through advice and encouragement which has made it easier for her to stay in South Africa despite financial difficulties (Interviewed 12/09/14). When Futhi was questioned about the nature of her relationship with Funmi, she responded that,
…we are not so close... I advise Funmi, assist her with funds here and there but she is not in my circle of friends or close relationship. What I did for her, I would do to any child of God so it isn’t because she is close to me (Interviewed 21/09/14).
167
A middle class male alter, Nkosi, a clergyman was identified by Moses, a working class male migrant, as his most important South African tie. Moses stated that
Nkosi is my most important South African tie because he is not only my spiritual father but he also employed me… He gave me work and I can survive here in South Africa because of him (Interviewed 26/05/14).
On the other hand, Nkosi responded that,
…I get why he thinks it is important to him… I was in a position to help a foreigner as a Christian and I did. But I don’t get anything from him (Interviewed 19/06/14).
These 12 relationships, including the two examples above were asymmetrical and lacked reciprocity because the value that the egos ascribed to the alters was not mutual. As Uzzi (1997) explains, asymmetric ties lack reciprocity. However, this does not downplay the value of these ties. Although alters such as Nkosi and Futhi’s perceptions of the value of their relationship with their egos were not the same as the egos’, this does not imply that the egos did not benefit from these ties. All 12 egos indicated they benefitted in various ways (affective and financial); this is why they identified the alters as their most important South African ties in the first place. In sum, it is clear that the ties in these cases are asymmetric as they lack reciprocity and can thus be categorized as weak ties. This clearly shows that, even in the absence of reciprocity, intergroup contact produced conviviality.