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.

Social network analysis, Culture, Meaning, Relational sociology, Qualitative methods,

This paper offers an overview of relational sociology as developed by and around Harrison White. Relational sociology provides a substantial account of social networks, conceptualizing them as real social structures interwoven with meaning. Forms of meaning connected to network configurations (as part of their 'domains') include stories, identities, social categories (including role categories), and institutions. Recent advances lead to a network perspective on culture, and to an emphasis on communicative events in networks. In contrast to other strands of relational sociology, the approach aims at a close connection between empirical research and theoretical reflection. Theoretical concepts and arguments are geared at empirical applicability in network research, rather than mainly providing a theoretical description of the social world. Finally, the author's own version of relational sociology is sketched: social networks are seen as dynamic constructions of relational expectations. These emerge and develop over the course of communication (in the sense of Niklas Luhmann), in turn effectively channeling communicative sequence.

ZusammenfassungDer Aufsatz setzt Niklas Luhmanns Systemtheorie in Beziehung zur soziologischen Netzwerkanalyse, um Grundlagen für eine allgemeine Netzwerktheorie zu entwickeln. Er beginnt mit Luhmanns Diskussion von Sinn als einer zentralen Kategorie der Soziologie. Luhmanns Formulierung wird erweitert von einem Fokus auf die Dyade und doppelte Kontingenz hin zur Reichweite von Netzwerken und daher multipler Kontingenz. Während Kommunikations- und Handlungsaspekte von Sinn in Netzwerken ineinandergreifen, entflechtet der Aufsatz analytisch deren jeweils besondere Bedingungen und führt dabei die Konzepte Netdoms, Netdom Switching und Discipline ein. Netzwerktheorie lenkt damit den Blick auf das Zusammenspiel von zeitlichen, sozialen und interpretativen Dynamiken in der Konstitution und Verkettung von Sinnhorizonten. Darüber hinaus entfaltet der Aufsatz das Konzept »Style« als synkopierte Komplexität, um Luhmanns Top-Down-Ansatz bei der selbstreferentiellen Reproduktion von funktionalen Subsystemen zu ergänzen.

No abstract

Social structures can be fruitfully studied as networks of social relationships. These should not be conceptualized, and examined, as stable, acultural patterns of ties. Building on relational sociology around Harrison White, the book examines the interplay of social networks and meaning. Social relationships consist of dynamic bundles of expectations about the behavior between particular actors. These expectations come out of the process of communication, and they make for the regularity and predictability of communication, reducing its inherent uncertainty. Like all social structures, relationships and networks are made of expectations that guide social processes, but that continuously change as the result of these processes. Building on Niklas Luhmann, the events in networks can fruitfully be conceptualized as communication, the processing of meaning between actors (rather than emanating from them). Communication draws on a variety of cultural forms to define and negotiate the relationships between actors: relationship frames like “love” and “friendship” prescribe the kinds of interaction appropriate for types of tie; social categories like ethnicity and gender guide the interaction within and between categories of actors; and collective and corporate actors form on the basis of cultural models like “company,” “bureaucracy,” “street gang,” or “social movement.” Such cultural models are diffused in systems of education and in the mass media, but they also institutionalize in communication, with existing patterns of interaction and relationships serving as models for others. Social groups are semi-institutionalized social patterns, with a strong social boundary separating their members from the social environment.

No abstract

No abstract