Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research

Network Analysis: A Reappraisal Author(s): Jeremy Boissevain Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jun., 1979), pp. 392-394 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2741937 Accessed: 15/09/2010 17:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

Network Analysis: A Reappraisal'

byJEREMYBOISSEVAIN Department ofEuropean-Mediterrantean Studies,University of Amsterdam, Sarphatistraat The Nether106A, Amsterdam, lands.3 iv 78 Since the network revivalin anthropology in the late 1960s (Barnes 1968,1969; Boissevain1968; Mitchell1969), there has been ever increasing interest in the field.There have been at least a dozen conferences and symposia, a floodof articlesand discussion papersby anthropologists, and political sociologists, a computerized scientists, withalmost 1,000 enbibliography tries(Freeman1975), the collection and consolidation of computerprogrammes, thisinterdisciplinary and, to crown activity, theestablishment of theInternational Network forSocial Network Analysisand the journal Social Networks. How is the enthusiasm fornetwork analysisto be explained? Barnes(1954) and Bott (1957) planted the conceptsin the mid-1950s, but theyonlysproutedinto substantial growth15 yearslaterand now threaten to becomean impenetrable jungle.
NETWORK AND THEORY

As an adjunct or complement to other researchtechniques, network analysishas at least ten important virtues: 1. Networkanalysisfocusessystematic attentionon interlinkagesbetweenunits of analysis. These interlinkages may linksbetween be outward individuals and between groups;they out theinterrelations mayalso be inward between links, setting of a groupor otherunitof analysis. members 2. By focusing on therelations units systematically between of analysis,network their analysishighlights interdependency. In fact,this interdependency and its consequencesforsocial action are assumptions the network underlying approach.The of interlinked, and therefore configurations interdependent, to personsand groupsare thus taken into account in trying predictbehaviour.By systematically tracingall interlinkages betweenunits of analysis,one eliminatesprior assumptions and therefore biases in favourof particular typesof relations. and friendsare not singled out and Kinsmen, neighbours, viewedin isolationfrom otherrelations. and interdependency 3. The focuson interlinkage provides a framework to separatemicrowithin whichit is verydifficult from whole.Amongother macro-analytical levelsand partfrom or thenetwork theviewofa socialfield things, approach develops ofa society ofnetworks. as a network Whilethisis metaphoricalfor a city or nation-state is obviously more than simplya of networks-network network analysis does force upon the units microsocial investigator pathwaysthat lead away from of analysis.These last are therefore placed in a widerfieldof 1 This paper was presentedto the conference "Mathematical Apon such outward It is only through focusing proachesin Social NetworkAnalysis,"held at the Werner-Reimers- social relations. Stiftung, Bad Homburg, Federal RepublicofGermany, links that Wolf (1956), for example,developedthe concepts March 17-19, 1977 (Hummeland Ziegler1977). Earlier versions werepresentedto necessary to understand the relation between different levelsof seminarsat the universities of Toronto,York, and Amsterdam. I am integration in the same society, thus breaking down the artigratefulto them for their hospitalityand discussion,to Hannie ficialboundariesbetween part and whole that had hitherto Hoekstra for converting word into print,and to Rod Aya, Norm impededsocial analysis in complexsocieties. Shulman,and MarilouDreighton forcommenting on thefinal version. 392
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY

The enthusiasm fornetwork analysisis related-to and part of the theoretical in thesocial sciencesaway from shift thestructural-functional analytical framework which dominatedanthropology, sociology, and politicalsciencein Britainand the United States forthe past 30 years.This is obviously not the place to explore thereasons and dimensions ofthismethodological and paradigmatic shift(cf. Boissevain 1974, 1975,among others).I can only discuss the appeal that network analysis has had foranthropology, although I suspectthatsimilar considerationshave also influencedsociologistsand political scientists. Networkanalysisopened a door to permitthe entryof interacting peopleengagedin actionsthatcouldalterand manipulate the institutions in whichtheyparticipated. This introduceda new dimension intotheself-regulating structural-functionaledifice offormal groups, systems, and moralorderwhich was seen as impinging upon people,socializing them, moulding theircharacter, and determining theirbehaviour.In anthropology the workof Firth (1951), Leach (1954), and some of Gluckman's students(Turner1957,Van Velsen 1964) had led to a growing concernwithpeople and theirrelationsto the institutions whichweresupposedto dominatethem.Network analysisprovidedan analyticalframework fordata at a lower levelofabstraction thantheinstitutional complex. It was more down-to-earth. it also providedapparently Moreover, "hard" data whichcould be plottedand even computerized. This last has particularly appealed to sociologists, who, more than anseem to revelin data thatcan be quantified thropologists, and fitted intoelaborate formulae, thereby seeming to support their claim to being considereda hard science. Networkanalysis has also appealed to thosewhohave soughtto plot and analyze the manipulation of powerbrokers, leaders,and coalitionsas theyseek to further their interests and in so doingbring about or block development of the groups,institutions, and society of whichtheyform part. Finally,and morerecently, network analysishas providedsocial scientists in citieswitha working toolwhich enablesthemto deal withtherelation between faceto-faceinteraction and institutions in an extremely complex

social field(Wellman1976,Shulman1976). In short, network analysishas promisedto providea releasefromsome of the constraints of structural-functional analysis. It has consequently appealed to different social scientistsfor varying reasons. Networkanalysis,whilenot a theory, has theoretical implications.It is an analyticalinstrument whichviews circlesof relativesand friends, coalitions,groupsand businesshouses, industrial complexes, and even nation-states as scatterings of pointsconnected by lines that form networks. The pointsare of coursethe unitsof analysis,the lines social relations. Networkanalysisasks questions about who is linkedto whom,the contentof the linkages,the patternthey form,the relation betweenthe patternand behaviour, and the relationbetween thepattern and othersocietalfactors. This has theoretical implicationsin that it forms part of a paradigmatic shiftaway fromstructural-functionalism. The failureto recognizethese theoretical implications and to providea consistent theoretical framework within whichnetwork analysiscan be used has resultedin a sterileoverelaboration of classification and definia methodological tion,in short, involution (cf.Kapferer1973: 167). By linking network analysisto theoretical assumptions, bothKapferer and Boissevainhave attempted to movebeyond the butterfly-collector's preoccupation with classification and as represented, technique, at leastin anthropology, by Barnes's recentwork(1968, 1969, 1972), into the realmof ideas (Kapferer1969, 1972, 1973; Boissevain 1974; forfurther discussion of the relation of network analysisto theory, see Whitten and Wolfe 1974,Mitchell 1974). The most fruitful theoretical asat presentappear to be derivedfrom sumptions and exchange (trans)actiontheory.Even withoutexplicitconsideration of basic theoretical network assumptions, however, analysisis a toolforsocial scientists powerful to further their underseeking of social behaviour and processes. standing
WHAT NETWORK ANALYSIS CAN AND CANNOT

Do

4. Networkanalysis focusesnot only on interlinkage, but In otherwords,the first also on the contentof the relations. plot of a network of relations providesa systematic blueprint into theircontent. forfurther investigation 5. Networkanalysis,by also focusing upon content, sensiin social relations to theinherent tension tizestheinvestigator whohave differential access to resources which between persons affect powerchances.The way in whichnetwork analysisacin social relations tensionand asymmetry cents thisinherent is an antidoteto the structural-functional preoccupation with and harmony. consensus, order, balancedopposition, a systematic frame6. Network analysis,thus,by providing in social relations, workforanalyzingtensionand asymmetry to the inherent sensitizesthe investigator dynamicsin such relations.Since such relationsare part of groups as well as is alerted to institutional complexes,the social investigator of the dynamic natureof societyand to the humandimension in such dynamism.Changes are thus perceivedas inherent and hencein society.This again is an antipersonalrelations dote to thestructural-functional assumption ofequilibrium. 7. Networkanalysisalso gets away fromthe piecemealor institutional approach. By charting, for example,a person's network of intimates or the network activated by an action set or that of a politicianmobilizing votes, network analysis inmovesbeyondthe tradition of limiting analysisto discrete stitutional spheressuch as economics, politics,or, especially foranthropologists, kinship.Networkanalysiscuts across the conceptualbarriers of an institutional approach. 8. By its focus on interrelation, interdependency, and interaction, network analysisalso makes it possibleto deal with forms of social organization thatemerge from interaction, such as patron-client chains,leader-follower coalitions, cliques,factions,cartels,and othertemporary alliances at various social in the recentpast levels. These formsof social organization weregenerally or relegated to interstitial, or ignored peripheral, residualcategories of social analysis(Boissevain 1968). It will of social organization be obviousthat thereare forms the unof which is essential to the comprehension derstanding of manylargeand smalleventsin thelivesofpersonsand groups. 9. Networkanalysisprovidesa way of relating abformal, stractsociological forit links analysisto everyday experience, interpersonal relations to institutions. It thushumanizes social analysisby reintroducing "people," as opposed to "roles,"and theirchoicesand actions into the streamof events that constitutes history. 10. Finally,network analysisbringsinto sharp sociological focusthedifficult those analytical category offriends-of-friends, horizonbecause personswho lie just beyondthe researcher's theyare not in directcontactwithhis informants. These, then,are some of the thingsthat network analysis can do. There are also things thatit cannotdo. Whilenetwork and conanalysiscan help plot the direction centration of immigrants and the locationof industry, forexample,used alone it cannotdeal withthe social processesthat about immigration and industrialization. In otherwords, bring it cannotdeal withthe social forces underlying long-term processes. Nor can it deal adequatelywith the impactof educational reform, land distribution, morerights forwomen,etc., or with culture, or the social forcesderiving from cognition, economicactivity.These dimensions are essentialfora comof social behaviour and developments. plete understanding Networkanalysisalone cannotprovidethem.Used alongside otherresearch howmethodsand forms of conceptualization, additionaldimensions. ever,it can provideimportant
THlE FUTURE OF NETWORK ANALYSIS

Networkanalysishas an important future. Researchers have alreadydemonstrated thatit is usefulforgaininginsight into urban-rural contrasts, male-female relationships, the relative Vol. 20 * No. 2 * June 1979

the ways in which in complexsocieties, of kinship importance and the way in which support, and manipulate leadersrecruit gossip is circulated.It has been used to combat organized power which positions from theoverlapping crime, to delineate and to examine directorships, interlocking through is exercised many otherproblems.Networkanalysis can also be used to reinterethnic relations, learnmoreabout class and interclass and the way in of multinationals, lations, the ramification mentalhealth.Yet it has made little whichsocialmilieuaffects to thesefields. contribution fora number Network analysishas not realizedits potential of technique of reasons.Amongthese are an overelaboration Basically,netresults. of trivial and data and an accumulation workanalysisis very simple: it asks questionsabout who is and how thenature thenatureofthatlinkage, linkedto whom, straightThese are relatively of the linkageaffects behaviour. simple.For of whichis fairly forward the resolution questions, variousreasons, theyhave givenriseto an arsenalof concepts, potential that terrifies manipulations and mathematical terms, have and politicalscientists sociologists, users.Anthropologists, in myopinion-from matheborrowed heavily-fartoo heavily, theyare in veryreal danger maticalgraphtheory. As a result, to developed and techniques theory, ofsuffocation bythejargon, To present in another discipline. problems quitedifferent resolve in politicalmobilization withthis interested theanthropologist fornetwork programme arsenal is like givinga do-it-yourself who merely to a fisherman terminal analysisand a computer wishesto explainto his son how to unravelhis tanglednet. have withwhichsocial scientists The batteryof techniques to answerthe limitedquestionsthat netequipped themselves work analysis can resolveproducesoverkill.Flies are killed and computer withdynamite. the help of statistical Certainly, and variables ofinformants is neededifthenumbers specialists howMost calculations, make hand computation problematic. and cross-tabulation. nosecounting ever,have to do withsimple of the Neitherthe questionsasked northe typeand reliability and concepts data normally warrant the use of the techniques netAs enthusiastic whichhave reachedus from graphtheory. network strivetowards evergreater rigour, workpractitioners from humanlifeand removed further analysisrisksbecoming inboggeddown ever deeperin the swampof methodological volution(Hannerz 1975:27; Leeds 1972:5; Sanjek 1974:596; 1971:948; Kapferer1973:167). Ottenberg network analysisis thatthosewho facing The seconddanger have chosen to use this methodof researchtend to trivialize "One does not studynetAs Sanjek has remarked, its results. methodsto answeranthropological works;one uses network nowbeing questions"(1974:589). Far too muchoftheresearch of theproblems lacks any clearformulation done on networks it seeks to resolve. Networksare comparedwith regard to muchin thewaybutterflydensity, size,and even composition, and number collectorscompare the colouring,wingspread, costly favourite of spotsof their species.Trivialbut extremely with resultsbased on samplesof thousandsare put forward Thus we learn that if you ask by sociologists. greatsolemnity severalhundred personsto name a fewpersonsoutside their theseturn withwhomtheyhave close relationships, household Other studieshave disout typicallyto be kin and friends. relations coveredthataffective changeovertime.Is thisnews? of these "scienWhat is the social or theoretical significance to drawour own contific" discoveries? We are left,too often, is thatmanyof the studiespresented clusions.My conclusion the network analystsseem merelyto confirm by enthusiastic whichsets is the discipline held view that sociology popularly language.The out theobviousat greatcost in an unintelligible and networks-as-thingsconcernwith method,classification, ratherthan with the ideas and problemsthat in-themselves, notonly to solve,characterizes are attempting thepractitioners are rebut also, alas, theway in whichthoseresults theresults s review(1974) of Boissevainand viewed.For example, Barnes' 393

Mitchell(1973) is exclusively withterminology concerned and technique, while Sanjek's (1974) also examinesthe problems withwhichthe analystsattempted to deal. It is becoming increasingly obvious that if anthropologists and sociologists to view network continue analysisas a special and if thosewho use it continueto encourage fieldof inquiry, thisview,it willrapidly becomeoverly technical and its results progressively trivial (Sanjek 1974:596). Networkanalysis is a research whichcan help resolvecertain instrument social and theoretical problems.It must not become an esotericend in itselfwhose practitioners can communicate only with each otherabout scientific puzzles of interest onlyto themselves. If those who have used networkanalysis considerthat it can providevaluable insights, let themdemonstrate this to their scepticalcritics by makingtheirresultsand methodsrelevant and understandable. of network"specialists,"a Conferences journal,and a special societyto cater to theirneeds are disturbing signsof an involution whichwill ultimately resultin networkanalysis's joining the dodo, Neanderthalman, and as an extinct sociometry species.

References Cited
BARNES,

J. A. 1954. Class and committeesin a Norwegian island parish.Human Relations7:39-58. . 1968. "Networksand politicalprocess,"in Local levelpolitics. Edited by Marc Swartz,pp. 107-30. Chicago: Aldine. --. 1969. Graph theoryand social networks:A technicalcommenton connectedness and connectivity. Sociology 3:215-32. 1972. Social networks. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. 1974. Review of: Network analysis,edited bv J. Boissevain and J. Clyde Mitchell (The Hague: Mouton, 1973). Man 9: 497-99. BOISSEVAIN, JEREMY. 1968. The place of non-groups in the social sciences.Man 3:542-56. 1974. Friendsoffriends:Networks, and coalimanipulators tions.Oxford:Basil Blackwell. BOISSEVAIN, JEREMY, and J. CLYDE MITCHELL. Editors. 1973. Network analysis:Studiesin humaninteraction. The Hague: Mouton.

ELIZABETHI. 1957. Family and socialnetwork. London: Tavistock. FIRTH, RAYMOND. 1951. Elementsof social organization. London: Watts. LINTON FREEMAN, C. 1975. A bibliography ofsocial networks. Departmentof Social Relations,Lehigh University. HANNERZ, ULF. 1975. Thinkingwith networks. MS, Departmentof Social Anthropology, of Stockholm. University HANS J.,and ROLF ZIEGLER.Editors. 1977. Anwendung HUMMEL, mathematischer zur A nalysesocialerNetzwerke. Verfahren Duisberg: Sozialwissenschaftlichen Kooperative. KAPFERER, BRUCE.1969. "Norms and the manipulation of relationships in an African in Social relations factory," in urbansituations. Edited by J. Clyde Mitchell, pp. 181-244.Manchester:Manchester Press. University -. 1972. Strategy and transaction in an Africanfactory.Manchester:ManchesterUniversity Press. . 1973. "Social networkand conjugal role in urban Zambia: Toward a reformulation of the Bott hypothesis," in Network analysis. Edited by J. Boissevain and J. Clyde Mitchell,pp. 269-80. The Hague: Mouton. LEACH, E. R. 1954. Politicalsystems ofhighland Burma.London: London School of Economics. ANTHONY. 1972. Urban anthropology LEEDS, and urban studies. UrbanAnthropology Newsletter 1:4-5. MITCHELL, J. CLYDE. 1969.Social networks in urbansituations. Manchester:ManchesterUniversity Press. -. 1974. Social networks.Annual Reviewof Anthropology 3: 279-99. OTTENBERG, SIMON. 1971. Review of: Social networks in urbansituations,by J. Clyde Mitchell (Manchester: ManchesterUniversity Press, 1969). AmericanAnthropologist 73:946-48. SANJEK, ROGER. 1974. What is network analysisand what is it good for?Reviews in Anthropology 1:588-97. SHULMAN, NORMAN. 1976. Networkanalysis: A new addition to an old bag of tricks.Acta Sociologica19(4). in an Africansociety. TURNER, U. W. 1957. Schism and continuity Manchester:ManchesterUniversity Press. VAN VELSEN, J. 1964. Thepolitics ofkinship. Manchester:Manchester Press. University WELLMAN, BARRY. 1976. Urban connections. Centre for Urban and Studies and Departmentof Sociology,University Community of Toronto,Research Paper 84. WHITTEN, NORMAN E., JR., and ALVIN W. WOLFE. 1974. "Network analysis," in Handbookof social and culturalanthropology. Edited by J. Honigmann.Chicago: Rand McNally. WOLF, ERIC R. 1956.Aspectsofgrouprelations in a complexsociety: Mexico. AmericanAnthropologist 58:1065-78.
BOTT,

Continuities andChange in Tropical Savanna Environments

byDAVID R. HARRIS Department of Geography, University College London,Gower St., LondonWC1E 6BT, England.14 x 78 Between the equatorial rain forests and the perennially dry desertsof the subtropicalhigh-pressure belts lie the world's "savanna lands." They occupyabout one-fourth of theworld's land surface,supportvaried plant and animal communities, and encompassthe greatestnumberand diversity of human societies within the tropics. Perhapsbecauseof their greatecological and social diversity, they are seldom perceivedas a and theyhave attracted geographical entity, less scholarly attentionthan eitherthe desertsor the rain forests. It was to help redressthis imbalancethat a Wenner-Gren Foundation was held at Burg Wartenstein conference August4-13, 1978, on the theme"Human Ecologyin Savanna Environments." The purposeof the conference was to examinein worldwide comparative the ways in whichpast and present perspective humanpopulationshave adapted to and made use of tropical savanna environments. Comparative examination of this themewould,it was hoped,yield improved of understanding theecological and socioeconomic changes taking place in savan394

na nationstoday. Human occupationof the savannas reaches in Africa, back manymillennia Asia, Australia, and theAmericas, duringwhichtime diverseways of life evolved in these environments; but todaypatterns of resource use are changing rapidlyas established systems of pastoralismand cultivation are beingmodified and replacedby commercial ranching and by large-scale projectsof agricultural and industrial development.Many of thesechangesare takingplace in nation-states thatareexperiencing rapidpopulation growth and urbanization while enduringpersistenthazards of droughtand endeKiic disease.Analysis ofthecapacityof savannaecosystems to support morepeople and to sustainnew modes of land use is a forsuccessful prerequisite development. The conference brought a groupwhoseexperience together spannedthe tropical continents and whoseexpertise fellwithin thefields ofarchaeology, anthropology, botany, economics, epidemiology, geography, nutrition, physiology, and zoology.The first questionaddressed-and quicklydisposedof-by participantswas thedefinition ofsavannaenvironments. A necessarily in his climaticdefinition arbitrary proposedby the organizer preconference paper was acceptedas setting broadlimits within variationwere recognized. whichgradients of environmental Thus theIntermediate Tropicalor SavannaZone can be defined as thatpart of the tropical a dryseason worldthat experiences of2.5 to 7.5 months' climatic denominaIts common duration. tor is the occurrence of a winter dryseason that checksplant
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY