The Meaning Structure of Social Networks

Abstract

This essay proposes to view networks as sociocultural structures. Following authors from Leopold von Wiese and Norbert Elias to Gary Alan Fine and Harrison White, networks are configurations of social relationships interwoven with meaning. Social relationships as the basic building blocks of networks are conceived of as dynamic structures of reciprocal (but not necessarily symmetric) expectations between alter and ego. Through their transactions, alter and ego construct an idiosyncratic "relationship culture" comprising symbols, narratives, and relational identities. The coupling of social relationships to networks, too, is heavily laden with meaning. The symbolic construction of persons is one instance of this coupling. Another instance is the application of social categories (like race or gender), which both map and structure social networks. The conclusion offers an agenda for research on this "meaning structure of social networks."In research on social networks, the structure of relationships is depicted as the decisive variable leading to diverse phenomena like status attainment, intellectual creativity, or collective action. Network research thereby usually pays little attention to the expectations, symbols, schemata, and cultural practices embodied in interpersonal structures: the meaning structure of social networks. This essay argues for the importance of this cultural level in sociological analysis, and it offers a theoretical sketch for the interplay of structure and meaning in networks and of its methodological implications. Its focus lies on mechanisms of this interplay in networks, systematizing theoretical arguments, and empirical evidence. This sketch draws heavily on the relational sociology of Harrison White and others, while relating it to the categories and methods of empirical research. It incorporates insights from diverse research traditions such as systems theory, social psychological research on relationships, symbolic interactionism, and social anthropology. The main argument runs against a purely structural understanding of networks. But I also argue against individualist accounts, which depict social structure as the aggregate of actors' independent actions, and against views of culture as independent of its grounding in social structure.The first section discusses the role of meaning in network analysis on a theoretical and methodological level. It is argued that social structure is substantively composed of cultural constructs such as expectations, identities, and categories. Therefore, , and the late Chuck Tilly (who even in bad medical times never failed to give good advice to his students and colleagues) for helpful comments and suggestions.

How Do Fields Change? The Interrelations of Institutions, Networks, and Cognition in the Dynamics of Markets

“…A similar strategy can also be detected in those approaches of network analysis that attempt to 'endogenize' cognition. Networks are interpreted as 'networks of meaning' and are said to exercise their influence on actors based on narratives which express mental maps of the structure of social relations (Dequech 2003;Fuhse 2009;Kilduf and Tsai 2003;Mützel 2009;White 1992: 65ff). Hence, in these accounts, the objectivity of networks is not constituted by the position of nodes and the structure of their connections as such, but by the dominant interpretations through which actors perceive the network structure.…”

Alternativas para la comprensión de la pobreza: hogares y capital social en México

“…Las relaciones sociales pueden ser clasificadas a partir de varios criterios: fuerza del lazo entre dos o más personas -fuerte o débil- (Granovetter, 1973), motivaciones que producen esas relaciones (Wellman, y Wortley, 1990), papel de los actores (Woolcock, 1998), función y tiempo de las relaciones sociales (Nahapiet, y Ghoshal, 1998), entre otros. Las redes, por otra parte, tienen que ver con el número y estructura de las relaciones sociales (Fuhse, 2009). En una red cerrada, donde la mayoría de los actores se conocen entre sí, se refuerza la homogeneidad del grupo y su identidad (Putnam, 1995;Svendsen, y Haase Sevendsen, 2009;Woolcock, 1998), mientras que en una más abierta se permite la conexión entre actores de diferentes perfiles (Burt, 2005).…”

Networks in the Russian Market Economy

“…This study belongs to the strand of qualitative and mixed-methods approaches to network analysis (Lonkila 1999a;Castrén 2000;Salmi 2006;Fuhse 2009) in which, instead of network structure, the meaning and formation of personal network ties are at the center of attention. 9 It responds to the call by Smith-Doerr and Powell (2005: 394) for 'more process-oriented, case-based approaches' which should offer accounts of 'why ties are created, how they are maintained, what resources flow across these linkages, and with what consequences '.…”