It does not elude me that the title of this essay is itself the product of the processes that I will be critiquing. Paul Gilroy's Against Race (2000) and Emily Apter's Against World Literature (2013) are two well-known recent examples that adopt the classic titular form of the polemical pamphlet. It transpires that mine is not even the first polemic 'against network thinking'. In the time between proposing an essay of this title to the editors of Affirmations and sitting down to write it, Michael Coward published an essay bearing the same title that addresses the field of international relations. 1 What could be more 'networked' than the use of a construction whose meme-like popularity has shaped and connected adversarial practices of speech across the globe? It is a tacit admission that to speak against networks is the theoretical equivalent of ranting against corporate surveillance on Facebook.What is network thinking? I use the term 'network' in a general sense. At first, "net-work" referred to a fashioned net-like object made of intersecting threads or thread-like materials (OED, 1). It then came to reference biological systems at a time when these were deemed to be God's creation (OED, 2). Whether natural or human-made, networks were the result of pre-conceived design. It was only in the early nineteenth century that the term began to be used to refer to expansive interconnected systems. The earliest use attested in this sense (OED, 3) is from a sermon by Samuel Taylor Coleridge. He uses the term to refer to the global expansion of trade: "the vast depth, expansion, and systematic movements of our trade; and the consequent inter-dependence, the arterial or nerve-like, net-work of property." 2 "Net-work" now designates an outwardly irradiating system; yet, as