7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
1/14
Social Network
as
a Subjective
Construct: A New Application for
an
Old Idea
R O B E R T
A.
S T E B B I N S / MemorialUniversityofNewfoundland
Bott a dCfini le rCseau social com me Ctant un ensemble
de
relations sociales qui ne
posshdent pas de frontikres communes.
Par
ailleurs personne ne sest prCoccup6
explorer les rCpercussions quengendrent cette connexion entre ces deux con-
cepts.
En
se basant
sur
la dC6nition WebCrienne dune relation sociale
ou
nterper-
sonnelle ( R),
il
devient 6vident quessentiellement cest une orientation mutuelle
entre deux individus; cest une perception subjective ou une prhdisposition.
Les
conskquences logiques de cette observation par rapport au rCseau social sont
exam inks. On arrive la conclusion que les rCseaux sont aussi des modeles sub-
jectifs et , par voie de consCquence, ils possiident le pouvoir de guider la conduite
dans une situation sociale.
Bott has defined social network
as
a set
of
social relationships for which there is
no common boundary. Yet, no one has ever bothered to explore the implications
of this connection between these two concepts. By examining Webers definition
of
social or interpersonal relationship
(
IR)
,
t becomes evident that
it is
basically
a mutual orientation between two persons; it is a subjective construct or pre-
disposition. The logical consequences of this observation for the social network
are considered, and it is concluded that networks are also subjective constructs
and therefore have the potential to guide behaviour in the social situation.
T h e ever-growing body of literature incorporating the notion of social net-
work in to its analysis
is
strong evidence
for
th e fertility
of
an idea formally
introduced into social science by J. A. Barnes 1954). T he numerous studies
which have ap peared since tha t time have related social network t o a n ex-
tensive a rray of subjects. A m ajority of the se have em ployed
this
dea as an
explanatory factor, explaining or helping
to
explain such diverse phenomena
as
social
change, efficiency
of
communities as melting pots, links between
the various groups in a society,
social
class, maintenance
of
rur al ties, a nd
nature of contacts outside the family (Epstein, 1961; Gutkind, 1965;
P.
Mayer, 1962; Mitchell, 1966; Srinivas and Beteille, 1964; Bott, 1957;
Nelson, 1966; Young and Wilmott, 1957; Barnes, 1954).
A
somewhat
smaller proportion of studies or summaries has treated social networks as
objects of explanation while investigating influences of rural to urban migra-
tion
on
networks, formation
of
interpersonal relationships as they atrect
networks, types of networks, gossip and networks, and how networks
originate (Frankenberg, 1965; Katz, 1966; Adams, 1967; Bott, 1957;
Barnes, 1954;Hannerz, 1968).
would like
to
express my gratitude to D.
Ralph
Matthews and Robert Paine for
their
valuable
comments on a
draft of this
paper.
Rev.
canad.
k Anth./Canad.
Rev.
Soc Anth. 6 1)1969
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
2/14
For the purposes of this introductory discussion we can accept Botts
definition of social network as a set of social relationships for which there is
no common boundary Bott, 1957: 59). In the strict sense of the word a net-
work is not a structure, since it has no shared boundaries boundaries recog-
nized by everyone in the social network) and no commonly recognized
hierarchy or central co-ordinating agency. Nevertheless, there are intercon-
nections between others in the network in that some of its members are
directly in touch with each other while others are not. Thus, it is also a charac-
teristic of networks that their mesh may be closely-knit many members
having direct contact) or loosely-knit few members having direct contact)
Barnes, 1954; Bott, 1957:59). Many of the studies mentioned above pro-
vide evidence for Botts definition of social networks as comprised of social
relationships.
A certain amount of confusion has sprung
up
among those who have
endeavoured to consider the idea of network on a theoretical plane. This
confusion is almost entirely centred in the question
of
whether a network
should be approached from the point
of
view of a particular person ego-
centred perspective) or from a more totalistic stance in which the component
relationships are seen as a
sum
total of every persons network holistic per-
spective). The ego-centred perspective is like the standpoint used in kinship
analysis, whereas the holistic perspective focuses less on any particular point
in the network than on the total structure of relationships.
What has happened, as Adrian Mayer 1966) recently observed, is that
Bott used network in an ego-centred sense, a usage which Barnes originally
reserved for the term set which he never developed to any definitive degree.
Most subsequent writers have continued to follow Bott, and we shall do the
same here. This definition has become established in the parlance of anthro-
pologists and sociologists.
Outside of these few attempts at conceptual clarification, there has been
a regrettable paucity
of
theoretical discussion about the concept of social
network. In order to strengthen the explanatory power
of
this idea, we shall
examine its logical connection with the concept of interpersonal or social
relationship
( IR)
and the implications which this link has for the network as
an explanation. The set of statements belowwill serve as a sort of itinerary for
the theoretical excursion which follows:
1
Interpersonal relationships as mutual orientations between persons are
basically psychological predispositions to respond which guide behaviour in
the social situation.
2. Interpersonal relationships are the component parts of social networks.
3. If
one or more of a persons
IRs
influence his actions as they are being
carried out with reference to still another IR, then we can say that part or all
of that persons social network directly guides his situated behaviour.
4. Therefore, we can say that a social network is also a psychological pre-
disposition to respond.
1 For
a critique of the term social network and the closely related notion of field
also used
by
Barnes), which is som ewhat contradictory to Mayer, see Jay 1964).
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
3/14
5
The observation that the network is a predisposition which can directly
explain behaviour, although perhaps not wholly new, has received little or no
systematic empirical or theoretical attention in the past.
I N T E R P E R S O N A L R E L A T I O N S H I P S
Max
Weber
I
1947: 118)
can be given credit for setting the basic theoretical
foundation of the contemporary approach to social or interpersonal relation-
ships: The term social relationship will be used to denote the behaviour of
a plurality of actors in so far as, in its meaningful content, the action of each
takes account of that of the others and is oriented in these terms. The social
relationship thus consists entirely and exclusively in the existence of a prob-
ability that there will be, in some meaningfully understandable sense, a course
of social a c t i ~n .~t is clear from this quote and Webers subsequent discus-
sion that mutual orientation is the essence of IR. In order to have a more
concise definition at hand, which emphasizes this subjective quality, we shall
redefine the interpersonal relationship as egos sustained orientation toward a
particular alter which is perceived by ego to be reciprocated by that alter.3
Certain basic characteristics of IRS must first be discussed as a prerequisite
to our later consideration of IRS as predispositions. Accordingly, we shall
briefly review the intimate nature of IRS, their changeability, some of the rea-
sons for their continuation, the relationship of sentiments to IRS, and the pri-
vate culture of IRS.
Interpersonal relationships are born in the prolonged interaction of two
people, and it is not unusual to find that more than one has sprung up be-
tween them Znaniecki,
1965:89) .4
Related to this observation is the fact
that there is i l strain toward totality whereby as time goes on, the flow of
external events calls forth more and more of the total set of identities of the
individuals involved McCall and Simmons, 1966: 186) .
Each
of
the parties in an IR recognizes the other as a distinct individual
about whom he has some degree of prior knowledge McCall and Simmons,
1966:169) . This knowledge
is
not only historical knowledge about ones
partner but intimate knowledge as well, a facet of
IRS
which probably charac-
terizes all but themarginal cases Simmel,
1950: 12 127).j
It is probably acknowledged by most participants in IRS that they are by no
2 Cooley 1922: 114-120) also approached
IRS
from
a
subjective point of view by treat-
ing them as clusters of sentiments attached t o a symbol or image of another person.
3
Because IRS develop through sustained contact, it is probably safe to say that, in fact,
they are reciprocated. There appears to be little likelihood that a normal person
would see an IR between himself and another individual while the latter did not see
one between them. Of course, the intensity
of
the sentiments involved may vary, as
we shall see shortly. Evidence that
IRS,
in fact, are reciprocated can be found in New-
comb 1961 ). Schutz 1964: 11 1 ) presents what is basically a n operational definition
of
an interpersonal relationship: each
of
them [the partners
in
the
IR]
has the chance
to reestablish the we-relation,
if
interrupted, and to continue it as if no ntermittance
had occurred.
4 A common example of two IRS between the same parties
is
that of the father-son and
employer-employee relationships.
5
Schutz 1964: 1 1 3 ) has also defined intimacy in an operational manner: the degree
of reliable knowledge we have of another person.
3
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
4/14
means totally static conditions even though some exhibit a greater constancy
than others. Strauss notes that involvements are evolvements
-
n the course
of
which parties and their relationships become transformed (Strauss,
1959:37 ) . Thus, there are unevenly spaced high points in the career of any
IR after which one is a difEerent person to the other and the other is difEerent
to oneself. Such experiences along with less dramatic ones may actually effect
the development
of
additional
IRS
as
when the
boss
invites his subordinate
to accompany him on a fishing
trip
thereby initiating a sequence of interaction
which may lead to a friendship relationship.
It is also important for our purposes to recognize that while IRS quite fre-
quently terminate, there are forces which may prevent this from happening.
Reward dependability is a characteristic feature
of
many IRS and a major
reason for their existence and continuation.6 Ascription, both desired and
undesired, is a second compelling reason for maintaining a certain relation-
ship,
as
well as for initiating it. Men may also be more or less forced to re-
main in an
IR
for reasons other than ascription. Commitment,
as
this pro-
cess is sometimes referred to, is manifested
by
means
of a
variety
of
arrange-
ments, such as the existence of pension funds and seniority rights which make
it costly for a person to quit his
job
simply because he does not get along with
his boss (Becker, 1960) . Of course, the person may also become positively
attached or involved
in
an IR. Furthermore, ones investment in terms
of
time and other resources may operate to sustain a relationship. The effective-
ness of these forces apparently depends somewhat upon the IR under con-
sideration; for instance, kin relationships, at least for some segments of the
population, are harder to break than others (Bott,
1957:93;
McCall and
Simmons,
966: 179 ).
Sentiments and InterpersonalRelationships
Essential to any discussion of
IRS
is the idea of sentiment, or the basic unit
of
organization of affect
(Pear,
1964
:
634-635 )
8 A
sentiment is the generalized
feeling which one person has for the other in an IR, and it is to be identified
through a pattern of response, rather than through any particular act (Shi-
butani, 1961:333). Thus, a man in love with a woman expresses different
emotions according to the situation
in
which he finds himself; he expresses joy
in her presence, sorrow in her prolonged absence, fear when her life is in
danger, and so forth.Sentiment organizes the appropriate emotions in the
ongoing situation and it must be stressed that neither this underlying senti-
ment nor its emotional manifestations need always
be
positive in a relation-
ship. One can have a negative IR with a neighbour or work superior, for in-
stance, based upon the sentimentof hate, and it seems that this is especially
likely to happen where he is committed to that
IR.
Although there is con-
siderable empirical and theoretical work on specific negative relationships,
6 Most of these forces
are
presented by McC all and Simmons 1966: 179).
7 For
a further discussion
of
the distinction between attachment and commitment, see
Stebbins (1969) .
8
ome
of the basic works on sentiment are those of Shand (1 920 ), McD ougall(1908),
4 and Shibutani (1961).
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
5/14
general discussions of the nature of
IRS
tend to overlook this characteristic by
by limiting their focus to relationships built on positive bonds 0nly.O
Of course, the intensity of the sentiment in an IR varies from situation to
situation for each person, as well as varying over the career of the relation-
ship. Variation in the intensity of sentiments alerts us to the fact that senti-
ment
is
only part, albeit a very important part, of the meaning which an
enduring
IR
may have for a person.
An
IR
may also have rational, evaluative,
and traditional meanings for those involved in them, and these forms of mean-
ing may also vary from situation to situation and over the career
of
the rela-
tionship. If there were not several kinds of meaning contained in an IR, many
relationships would probably disintegrate or come dangerously close to dis-
integration with each dip of the intensity of the supporting sentiment. We are
assuming,
of
course, that no one will maintain an IR which does not hold some
meaning for him.
The Private Cu lture
Because
IRS are
basically subjective constructs, it should be apparent that they
develop from virtual social identities or the categories to which the parties
of the relationship judge the other to belong (GofFman,
1963:2).1
These
are to be distinguished from actual social identities or those categories to
which one can
be
proved, by objective analysis, to belong and those attributes
which one can be proved to possess.
In the broad senseof the term, identities have roles attached to them; roles
shall be defined here as sets of expectations of behaviour. This set of expecta-
tions can always be subdivided into a publicly-recognized component and a
private component, the latter having been generated exclusively
in
the inter-
action of the two participants. The public expectations are generally acknowl-
edged by members of the community to apply to those persons claiming to
have or imputed to possess certain attributes and to those claiming
to
be or
said to be members of certain categories. While there are always some com-
munity-wide or public expectations associated with them, for certain kinds
of IRS e.g., enemy, friend, and lover) the private aspect, nevertheless, is said
tobeby farthelargest Nadel, 1957:42).
This private aspect of role is part of the larger private culture associated
with the IR, which may include a rudimentary common language, common
goals, memories of common experiences, and so forth. The recognition of a
private culture associated with an
IR
contributes to the perception
of
the rela-
tionship as being unique among other relationships.
Znterpersonul Rela tionships asPredispositions
By treating interpersonal relationships as predispositions, we give them a
more explicit psychological foundation, a foundation implied in the words
reciprocal or mutual orientation found within the definitions presented
9 See, for example, S i m e l ( l 9 5 0 : 118-142) and McCall and Simmons (1966, chap. 7).
10Identity
is
preferred over closely related ideas like status, position, and rank
because
of its
apparently broader
scope.
For example, one can have the identity of
neighbour, but we would not ordinarily call
this
a position or a status.
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
6/14
earlier. Furthermore, as we shall see later, the proposition that
IRS
are predis-
positional is an essential part of the causal nexus linking this concept and that
of social network to situated behaviour. Social relationships have traditionally
been seen in this latter role of guiding behaviour, a view which can be traced
back to Webers statement on this subject. However, their conceptualization
as predispositions and, hence, as subjective constructs has never been clearly
formulated.
The usage of the term predisposition follows that of Campbell
( 1963 97-112). He limits his statement to acquired states, stressing the im-
portance of the fact that predispositions or as he calls them, acquired
behavioural dispositions) are enduring and that they remain dormant until
activated by situational stimuli. When activated, these products of past
experience impinge upon our awareness, equip us with a specific view of the
world, and guide behaviour in the immediate present. Values, attitudes, bits
of knowledge, memory, habits, and meanings all have predispositionalqualii-
ties about them.
The use of the term orientation in definitions of the
IR
is itself a clue to
the latters status as a predisposition. Websters Third International Diction-
ary defines an orientation in one sense
of
the word as the choice or adjust-
ment of associations, connections, or dispositions. It is of interest that
Campbell includes adju~tment,~orientation, and disposition in his
extensive list of acquired behavioural dispositions. In harmony with the defi-
nition of orientation as an adjustment of predispositions, there are several
subsidiary presdispositions to be found in any IR. Knowledge about the other
person, whether intimate or simply historical, may be considered as one such
predisposition. The same is also true of the knowledge ego holds about alters
expectations of him and other aspects of the private culture. Commitment or
attachment to a particular IR is a predisposition and soare the sentiments and
other meanings which are part of any relationship.
Interpersonal relationships are also special views of the world; views which
develop from their component subsidiary predispositions. It is perhaps this
facet of IRS which explains best Nadels observation 1957:9) that there is
a consistency about the many diverse acts which take place within them.
Within wide limits we may still say of persons in a given relationship that
they act towards each other always in the same manner.
To
the people in them IRS when activated have a very poignant reality which
is
manifested in at least three ways. First of all, the continuous interaction be-
tween the two parties works to emphasize the existence of the relationship.
Secondly, the high points in the career of the I R also make the participants
conscious of it. Finally, the basic sentiment and its various emotional expres-
sions make the person aware of the relationship.
T H E S O C I A L N E T W O R K
As we have already observed, Botts definition
of
social network 1957:59)
indicates the importance of interpersonal relationships as the basic elements
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
7/14
of
this construction. She viewed a social network as a set of social relation-
ships for which there is no common boundary. How ever, we have also noted
tha t the traditional approach to IRS is essentially predispositional w hich means
that upon activation these mental states help guide behaviour in the immediate
setting.
Now.,
since most peo ple have several relationships a t any o ne period
in their lives, there is a strong possibility th at on e o r more of them will be
activated during interaction with members of the community. Where the
ongoing interchange is with one of egos relationship partners and his be-
haviour is at least partially guided by his reflection about o ne o r more other
I R S
activated because they a re relevant to th e business at hand, we ca n say that
all or a portion
of
his social network is influencing his actions. Because
clusters
of
IRS, and pe rhaps not infrequently even the total set
of
IRS, can in-
fluence a persons action
in
the situation, we are forced to conclude that the
social netwo rk also has subjective or predispositional qualities.l
Awareness
of
the ocial Network
Like an IR, a social network as an activated predisposition m ust also be sub-
jectively real to th e individual whose n etwork it is; that is, we a re aware of
activated predispositions. T he re is a considerable am ount
of
theoretical dis-
course and empirical evidence in various social science fields which support
this assertion. W e shall briefly review some of them here.
One of the ways subjective awareness is manifested is through the direct
an d indirect effects which
IRS
in a network have upon each other. Direct con-
tact between others in the various IRS is especially likely where the social net-
work is closely-knit. Un der these circumstances what transpires between two
people in one relationship may affect another relationship through trans-
actions in the social network of the second person. In this way a cha in reac-
tion can be set up, becoming, for examp le, a form
of
social control (Epstein,
1961; Hannerz, 19 68 ). This direct influence is also seen where a third party,
an
IR
signific:ant in the network of both ind ividuals, intercedes o r threatens
to intercede in the affairs of their I R . ~Fo r instance, Kemper ( 19 68 ) found
that wives arid parents influence egos response to alter in
IRS
established in
a w ork organization.
Another possibility of direct influence is seen in Newcombs
A-B-x
theory
of the symm etry of o rientation (1961 , chap . 2). W here A is th e central actor in
an IR, B is his partner, and x is another person (for our purposes one with
whom both have I R S ) , the following postulate may be advanced: The
stronger the forces toward AS co-orientation in respect to
B
and
x, a )
the
greater
AS
strain toward sym metry with B in respect to
x ;
and 6 ) he greater
the likelihood of increased symmetry as a consequence of one or more
1 1 Statements
by
B l u e r
1956),
Cicourel
1964: 119),
and Fenton
1968)
all support
the belief that if structural variables can be said to influence ongoing behaviour, then
they are mediated by the personal interpretation of the actor; and if personal inter-
pretation has
not
been demonstrated, then any putative causal link between structure
and behaviour may actually be
no
more than a chance correlation.
12
Nadel 1957:86-87) refers to this situation as the triadization of roles. See also
Blau
l964:31-32).
7
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
8/14
comm unicative acts.13 The influencing force here is the desire on the part
of
the centra l actor to maintain some sort of cognitive equilibrium with respect to
the elements of his social network through comm unication about this matter
to his pa rtner,
B.
The intensity of co-orientation determines which xs will
require symm etry. T he possibilities of disequilibrium, and hence awareness
of the network, are considerab le when we remember that
A
may see himself
in
a positive o r negative relationsh ip to
B
as well as to
x.
The various IRS also may have indirect effects through the person whose
network it is. M uch, if not all, of this can be fitted into one of the various bal-
ance theories, which are in many ways like Newcombs
A-B-x
model but do
not involve communication with the actors partner. In general, a state of
balance exists for the actor when the elements in the social network have non-
contrad ictory relationships for himThe basic proposition in balance theory
is that where there is imbalance a person strives to restore the state of balance.
U d i i e the A-B-x model the elements themselves are not, as a rule, in contact.
Thus
when in one mans social network his clergyman demands attitudes of
racial equality whereas close friends in his neighbourhood demand attitudes
of discrimination, a state of imbalance prevails. Balance theory hypothesizes
that the individual
in
question will strive for balance, which may
be
achieved
in various ways. Unfortunate ly, it is beyond the
scope
of this paper to examine
these at the present time; our objective is simply to point out that the social
network is very much a reality to the individual because of the pressures
which originate within it.
In addition to the pervasive influence of the component IRS on each other,
the problems
of
trying to intermesh the daily and weekly routines associated
with each relationship create an awareness of the over-all network. One
comes to realize which IRS mean the most to him as he distributes his time to
each. As McCall and Simmons (1966:246) put it, it is a concern
of
agenda-
construction, and ones agenda is not altogether a personal matter but must
be
interactively
determined.
Because of he problem s of agenda-construction connected with m aintain-
ing several IRS, the addition o r loss of an
IR
also calls for a certain am oun t of
planning,
an
activity which in itself makes one conscious of his network.
Moreover, gaining new IRS or losing old ones may upset network balance or
symmetry.
It
may be hypothesized that these problems are especially acu te in
what
Bott
(1957:95) has called the transitional network: where one is
changing
from
tightly-knit to a loosely-knit network, or vice versa. Finally,
Morenos discussion (1960:W) about death in the social atom (see footnote
15) can be interpreted as illustrating these points: If we happen to survive
the ones we love or hate, we die a bit with
them
as we feel the shadow of death
marching from one person in our social atom to another.
13
The term a-orientationor simultaneous orientation is equivalent
to
attitude in
the more inclusive sense of refemng to both cathectic and cognitive tendencies.
Symmetry refers to the similarities
of
AS and BS orientations to x.
14For a further discussion and bibliography of some of the various balance models, see
8
Brown
(1965,chap.
1 1 ) .
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
9/14
size is also an important factor for agenda-construction; only so many IRS
can
be
properly maintained in any given
period
of time. Thus, we can say that
size makes the network subjectively real by curtailing the addition of new rela-
tionshipsand by pushing the claims on ones time resources to the limit. After
assessing a variety of IRS, Jennings 1950:309) iscovered that the typical
maximum number was twelve. Nelson 1966) has provided some evidence
from his study of families that tightly-knit networks
are
more demanding
of
time than the loosely-knit ones. Another important observation on the factor
of size is supplied by Goodenough (
1965:7)
o the effect that the number of
IRS depends upon how many are available, and this may vary from one culture
to another. Finally, we may note that even if further expansion is possible
from the point of view of the agenda, the psychological necessities
of
main-
taining balance and symmetry set or strongly favour network growth in par-
ticular directions, directions which are compatible with the existing IRS. It
would seem, in light of this last statement, that people also become at least
partially committed to networks,as well as to certain
IRS.
Social N etwor ks as Predispositions
If social networks are to be accepted as predispositions, then we must be able
to demonstrate this characteristic of them in a way independentof the disposi-
tional nature of their component
IRS.
ust because each individual IR in the
network is a tendency to respond is not reason enough to assert that the net-
work as a whole or any subpart of it also has this quality when activated.
What features of a social network and its various segments give it the alleged
predispositional character?
We can answer this question
by
pointing out that, like an IR, a social net-
work is an orientation or an adjustment of subsidiary dispositions. The knowl-
edge which a person has about the direct influence which IRS in his network
have upon each other may be taken as one of these dispositions. Imbalance
stemming from the presence of contradictory elements is definitely a state
of
mind which also predisposes a person to respond. Conflict of the daily and
weekly routines associated with each
IR
not only creates awareness of the
over-all social network but activates an adjustment disposition which is mani-
fested in agenda construction. The same sort of conflict emerges when one
attempts to increase the sizeof his set of IRS. Adjustment, in this case, may be
simply to refuse to interact with the person in question, thereby preventing
the development of a relationship.
Botts earlier definition of social network while noting the role of IRS does
not adequately convey this subjective characteristic which we have been dis-
cussing.
It
has been pointed out that she generally takes an ego-centred
approach. A social network from our perspective is not ego-centred, in that
the individual is merely the point from which analysis may begin, but person-
centred: it is seen from the subjective standpoint of the individual whose net-
work it is. Thus, we can now redefine social network as the orientation which
develops from considering all or a portion of ones interpersonal relationships.
9
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
10/14
Formulated in
this
way this notion differs from several related ones which
have appeared in the sociological and social psychological literature.ls
S O C IA L N E T W O R K I N E X P L A N A T I O N S
O F
B E H A V I O U R
The principal use to which networks have been put in the past is that of help
ing
to account for the pattern of distributionof values, attitudes, or some sort
of information. The kind of content conveyed may be gossip, rural values in
the city, news about kin, or any number of other interests which can be spread
by human contact. Recognizing and treating the social network as a predis-
position does not in any way supplant this approach, but rather the predis-
positional point of view complements the communicationsnetwork stance by
opening up a new avenue of application: the direct explanation of behaviour
in the social situation. Just how new this use of social network actually
is
could be a matter of conjecture. Observations like the following from Eliza-
beth Botts study 1957:94)have, no doubt, appeared from time to time in
the network literature: But although external people may help the elemen-
tary family, close-knit networks may also interfere with conjugal solidarity.
A wifes loyalty to her mother may interfere with her relationship with her
husband. Similarly her relationship with her husband may interfere with her
relationship with her mother.
A
mans loyalty to his friends may interfere
with his obligations to his wife and vice versa.
The point which should
be
stressed is that there has been no explicit for-
mulation of a predispositional or subjective approach to networks. And, such
an approach has utility as an explanation for certain kinds of human action
as it is played out in social settings.
We can begin by asking when is this predispositional point of view of social
networks and IRS called for in explanations? Or, perhaps, why is it needed at
all? Is not the ordinary objective stance adequate? In answering these ques-
tions we may note that first of all, the predispositional point of view is re-
quired when the object of explanation is human social action of some kind:
e.g., migration to an urban centre
or
the channels of gossip, to name two
15
The formulation which comes closest to being synonymous with
our
version of social
network is Morenos social atom
196052-54).
However, the following two fea-
tures of social atoms disqualify them as social networks from
our
point of view. 1)
Moreno states that actors can be related to others even when those others do not
know it. However, the best evidence to date suggests that
IRS,
as we have been dis-
cussing them in this paper, are reciprocated (Newcomb, 1961). ( 2 ) Moreno includes
wished-for relationships in his social atom, while the idea of social network as de-
veloped in this paper is comprised only of ongoing
IRS.
Other similar formulations
like Mertons status-set and role-set
1 957:368-384) or
Znanieckis social circle
1965:203-209) focus on one role or identity of the individual actor, while a social
network encompasses all of the actors identities and roles as long as there are estab-
lished IRS involved. Finally Kempers reference-set 1966) should be mentioned
since it includes the total aggregation of others from whom one derives central no-
tions about oneself. Certainly any social network would include many of these, but
it would, at the same time, exclude certain reference others with whom there areno
IRS established (e.g., the prominent baseball star for the ten-year-old boy) and it
would include certain non-reference others (e.g., the hated superior or the hostile
10 neighbour).
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
11/14
recent foci
of
network studies. M ore specifically, and this is the second point,
it is needed when structural or cultural explanations or both fail
to
d o their
job adequately
-
when there
is
variation in social action w hich these frame-
works cannot: account for. When this happen s we may be sure that perso nal
interpretation has entered the picture. This personal interpretation has been
referred
to
as the definition
of
the situation (see Stebbins, 19 67 b ); th e com-
bination
of
internalized (and therefore previously interpreted) elements of
culture an d social structure, of personality, a nd of the situation w hich when
reflected
upon
and defined in the ongoing setting can lead to behaviour that
is to some degree different from what is categorically expected. The
signifi-
cance
of
th e process of interpretation for th e social sciences has been clearly
stated
by
Herbert Blumer in his critique of variable analysis: In my judg-
ment, the crucial limit to the successful application of variable analysis to
hum an group life is set
by
th e process of interpretation o r definition that goes
on
in human groups. This process, which
I
believe to
be
the core
of
human
action, gives a character to hum an g roup life that seems at variance with the
logical premnses of variable analysis. ... Any scheme designed to analyze
human
group
life in its general character has to fit this process
of
interpreta-
tion
(1956:686) .
The definition of the situation is basically an interrelation and interpreta-
tion of other predispositions which have been activated by certain situational
factors. It
is
our contention that among the persons predispositions will be
found specific
IRS
and all or a portion of his social network, where activated.
Thu s, the strength
of
this predispositional view lies in the fact that it enables
us to study peoples social networks at the situational level where it is hypo-
thesized that on some occasions these networks modify culturally expected
behaviour.
Research utilizing these concepts in this way should n ot b e diflticult. Inter-
personal reIationships c an be inferred in a variety of ways; such as, by length
of time in which ego has known alter, by a mou nt of contact between the pair,
by
ability
to
predict the others behaviour, as well as
by
the chances of re-
establishing the relationship as suggested by Schutz and cited earlier in this
article. W hether o r not any particular IR was influencing behaviour in a given
situation could easily be discovered by in-depth interviewing with regard t o
alters salience at that time. Social networks could
be
determined by getting
the respon den t to report all interperson al relationships of sufficient length,
intimacy, an d frequency of conta ct in various spheres of life: occupational,
familial, recreational, neighbourly, religious, political, educational, commer-
cial, and governmental. The activation of ones social network in any specific
situation coulld be uncovered by a question like were there certain things you
wouldnt do with or say to certain other persons present because you were
afraid it would get back to a mutual acquaintance? Information about the
respondents awareness of th e incompatibility of expectations stemm ing from
various IRS as they affect his behaviour indicates influence of the network as
does aw areness of a conflict of routine. 11
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
12/14
S U M M A R Y A N D C O N C L U S I O N S
Ou r m ain purpose has been to examine the logical connection between the
concept of interpersonal or social relationsh ip ( IR) and that of social net-
work, and to determ ine the implications of this link for network as an expla-
nation. On the basis of the observation that since Webers time IRS have been
regarded
as
reciprocated orientations between two people, we presented a
definition which more adequately conveyed this subjective or predispositional
nature of the relationship. It follows that because of their status as predisposi-
tions IRS influence actual behaviour in the social situation. Botts definition
of social network as a set of relationships was assessed from this point
of
view. If one or more of a persons
IRS
influence his actions as they are being
cam ed out with reference to one or more other IRS, then it is possible to con-
clude that part o r all of that
persons
social network directly guides his situ-
ated behaviour. Therefore, we can say that a social network is also a psycho-
logical predisposition. This observation that the network is fundamentally
a
subjective construct which can be used as a direct explanation of behaviour,
although perhaps not wholly new, has received little or no systematic em-
pirical or theoretical attention in the past. Yet, such an application of network
could be very fruitful in helping to account for why men d e situations as
they do and hence, why they act as they do. Moreover, as Boissevain
1968:546-9)
has pointed out, non-group phenomena like networks help to
free social anthropology from the grip of functionalism, thus opening new
vistas for research and explanation.
R E F E R E N C E S
Adams, B. N.
1967 Interaction theory a nd th e social network. Sociom etry 30:64-78.
Barnes, J. A.
1954
Class and comm ittees in a Norw egian island parish.
Becker,
H. S.
1960
Notes on th e concept
of
commitment.
Blau,
P.
M.
1964
Power and Exchange in Social Life. New York: Joh n Wiley Sons.
Blumer,
H.
1956 Sociological analysis and the variable.
Boissevain, J.
1968 The place of nongrou ps in the social sciences. M an 3:542-556.
Bott,
E.
1957 Family an d Social Network. Lon don : T avistock Publications.
Brown, R.
1965 Social Psychology. New York: T he Fre e
Press.
Campbell,
D.
T.
1963 Social attitudes and oth er acquired behavioral dispositions,
Hu m an Relations
7:39-58.
American Journal
of
Sociology 66:3240.
Am erican S ociological Review
21:683-690.
pp. 94-172 in Sigmund Koch (ed .), Psychology: A Stu dy of
a
Science.
Vol. 6.
New
York:
McGraw-Hill
Co
Cicourel, A.
V.
1964 Method and M easurement in Sociology. New Yo rk: Th e Fr ee Press.
2
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
13/14
Cooley, C. H.
1922 Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Schocken
Books.
Epstein, A. L.
1961 The network and urban social organization.
Rhodes-Livingstone Journal 29:
29-62.
Fenton, C.
S .
1968 The myth
of
subjectivism as a special method
of
sociology.
Frankenberg, R.
1965 Communities in Britain. Harmondsworth Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Goffman,
E.
1963
Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Goodenough,W. H.
1965 Rethinking status and role,
pp.
1-24 in Association
of
Social
The Sociological Review
16:333-349.
Anthropologists, The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology, V O ~ .
1.
London: Tavistock Publications.
Gutkind, P. W.
1965 African urbanism, mobility, and the social network.
Hannen, U.
1968 Gossip, networks, and culture in a black American ghetto.
Jay,
E.
J.
1964 The conceptof field and network in anthropological research.
Jennings, H.
H
1950
Leadership and Isolation, 2nd ed. New York: Longmans, Green Co.
Katz,
F.
E.
1966 Social participation and social structure. Social Forces 45: 1 210.
Kemper, T. D.
1966
Self-conceptions and the expectationsof significant others.
1968 Third
party
penetration of local social systems. Sociometry 31:1-29.
Mayer, A. C.
1966 The significance of quasi-groups in the study of complex societies,
pp.
97-122
in Association of Social Anthropologists,The Social
Anthropologyof Complex Societies,vol. 4. London: Tavistock Publications.
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 6:48-60.
Ethnos 32:35-60.
M a 64~137-138.
Sociological Quarterly 7: 323-344.
Mayer,
P.
1962
Labour migrancy and the social network, pp.
21-34
in J. F. Holleman,
et al. eds.), Problems
of
Transition: Proceedings of the
Social Science Research Conference held in University
of
Natal, Durban.
Pietermaritzburg: Natal University Press.
McCall,
G. J.,
and J. L. Simmons
1966 Identities and Interactions. New York: The Free Press.
McDougall,
W
1908
An Introduction to Social Psychology. London: Methuen Co.
Merton, R. K.
1957
Social Theory and Social Structure, rev. ed New York: The Free Press.
Mitchell, C. J.
1966 Theoretical orientations in African urban studies, pp. 37-68 in
Association
of
Social Anthropologists, The Social Anthropology of
Complex Societies, vol. 4. London: Tavistock Publications.
Moreno, J. L., et al.
1960
The Sot-iometry Reader. New York: The Free Press.
Nadel,
S.
F.
1957 The Theory
of
Social Structure. New York: The Free Press.
Nelson, J.
I.
1966 Clique contacts and family orientations.
American Sociological Review 3 1 :
663-672.
13
7/25/2019 Social Network as a Subjective Construct Artricle 1969 Social Networki
14/14
Newcomb, T. M.
1961
The Aquaintame Process. New York: Holt, Rinehart &Winston.
Pear, T. H.
1964 Sentiment, pp. 634-635 in Julius Gould and W. L. Kolb (eds.),
Schutz,
A.
1964 Collected Papers
11:
Studies in Social
Theory.
The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
and,
A.
F.
1920 TheFoundations
of
Character. London: Macmillan.
Shibutani,T.
1961
Society and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Simmel, G.
1950 The Sociologyof Georg Simmel, trans. K. Wolff.
Srinivas, N.
M.,
and A. Beteille
1964 Networks in Indian social structure. Man 64:165-8.
Stebbins, R. A.
1967 A
theory of the definitionof the situation.
1969
Commitment to Deviance: the Non-professional Criminal
in
the
Strauss, A. L.
1959 Mirrors and Masks. New York: The Free Press.
Young, M., and P. Wilmott
1957 Family and Kinship in East London. New York: TheFree Press.
Znaniecki,
F.
1965
Social Relations and Social Roles. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co.
A Dictionaryof the Social Sciences. New York: The Free Press.
New York: The Free Press.
Canadian Reviewof Sociology and Anthropology4: 148-164.
Community. New York: Greenwood PublishingCorp
14