Social Networks and Relational Sociology
9.3 Networks, Interactions and Ties
to engage in such interactions is rooted in our earlier history of interaction and its formative effects.
A further, no less serious problem with indi- vidualism is that it treats social actions as dis- crete, failing to give proper consideration to interaction and interdependency between actors.
The social world is not an aggregate of individu- als and their actions but rather arises from inter- action, relations and the interdependence of human actions and thoughts.
Interestingly, some ‘methodological individu- alists’ acknowledge this point, incorporating interaction and interdependency in their work by way of game theory (which assumes that actors make decisions on the basis of how they observe and/or anticipate others will act and which, cor- respondingly, models the interdependence of individual decisions and its aggregate effects) and even, in some cases, social network analysis (which, like game theory, focuses upon interde- pendence) (Coleman 1990 ; Hedström 2005 ). In my view such thinkers are individualists in name only and have, in practice, crossed over to a rela- tional perspective – albeit a fairly minimal rela- tionalism which would benefi t from further embellishment. Neither their ontological nor their methodological inventories are reducible to
‘individuals’, since they acknowledge, at both levels, the signifi cance of interaction and, in some cases, ties and networks.
In what follows I elaborate upon the funda- mental concepts of relational sociology: i.e.
interaction, ties and networks. Before I do, how- ever, I will briefl y address a potential obstacle to the acceptance of relational thought in sociology:
namely, a residual empiricism which resists the idea that relational phenomena are real.
Empiricism identifi es the real with the percepti- ble and this generally favors individualism.
Human beings, qua bodies, can be seen, heard, touched etc. and their existence is therefore obvi- ous. Relations, by contrast, cannot be directly perceived and, to the empiricist frame of mind, this renders their existence questionable. On a strictly empirical level the social world is an aggregate of biologically individuated beings and the popularity of individualism in social and
political thought, I suggest, stems from this.
Against such empiricism, however, we should remind ourselves of the role of ‘unobservables’ in other sciences (Keat and Urry 1975 ). Neither gravity nor electricity can be directly perceived, for example. We only perceive them indirectly, by way of their effects (e.g. falling bodies or illu- minated light bulbs). However, nobody would dispute their existence or importance. If we can demonstrate the effect of relational phenomena, it follows, then it is legitimate to infer their exis- tence, whether or not we can directly observe them. This is the task of relational sociology – to which I now turn.
9.3 Networks, Interactions
Likewise Merleau-Ponty:
…my words and those of my interlocutor are called forth by the state of the discussion, and they are inserted into a shared operation of which nei- ther of us is the creator … the objection which my interlocutor raises to what I say draws from me thoughts which [surprise me]. (Merleau-Ponty 1962 : 353)
Interaction is a whole greater than the sum of the individual actors involved in it, a system, but in contrast to Parsonian and Althusserian systems, actors remain its central drivers. The direction which the interaction takes is entirely contingent upon the responses of those party to it but those party to it are transformed by it and can neither foresee nor control the direction which it takes.
We cannot abstract the actor from interaction, as the individualist would like, nor the system from its actors, as the holist prefers. We must work relationally.
Note the processual nature of this conception.
Interaction is a process and social life, as the cul- mination of interaction, is too therefore. The quo- tations from Gadamer and Merleau-Ponty suggest change and unpredictability. This is true of social life in some places, some of the time, but not everywhere and always. Interaction can reproduce patterns across time. Even where this is the case, however, ‘the system’ is still dynamic.
There is no social world outside of interaction and whatever stability can be observed is an out- come of continuously on-going interaction.
Some interactions are ‘one-shot’. Parties meet, having never met before and with little prospect of meeting again in the future. Many, however, including most of those which are per- sonally and/or sociologically most important, are not. Actors engage on numerous occasions, building a shared history and entering interaction with the (often tacit) expectation that they will meet again. In such cases actors are tied. At its most basic a social tie is a sedimented interaction history embellished by the anticipated likelihood of future interaction .
Like interaction, ties are not empirically observable but can be inferred from their effects.
Through repeated interaction actors co-produce
shared, habitual interaction repertoires involving conventions, identities, understandings, trust etc., which afford them a rapport. What happens in interaction is affected by this sedimented collec- tive history. They interact differently because they ‘know’ one another. Furthermore, knowing the effect which past has upon present, their anticipation of future interaction shapes their engagement in the present. Inappropriate behav- ior now, even if it cannot be punished now, might be punished in future interactions.
Ties and interactions are mutually affecting.
Interactions, past and future, shape ties, and ties shape interaction. Furthermore, the actor assumes an identity, which may be specifi c to that tie, and the way in which they interact is shaped, in some part, by that identity. As actors move from one interaction to another they ‘switch’ identities, to borrow a term from Mische and White ( 1998 ), and their patterns of interaction change accord- ingly. Indeed, they may switch within what, from the outside, appears to be the same interaction: a boss-to-worker interaction becoming a father-to- son or friend-to-friend interaction, for example, with a consequent shift in the properties and dynamics of the interaction.
The conventions and identities which shape ties and interactions are not built from scratch in each case. They are carried across from previous relationships and vicariously, from the observed experiences of others. Indeed, actors enjoy access to a cultural stock of ‘types’ which they can employ, albeit often with a degree of individual tailoring, to make sense of new and unfamiliar encounters (Schutz 1972 ).
My conception of interaction is akin to what Dewey and Bentley ( 1949 ) call ‘transaction’, a concept which they contrast with ‘interaction’.
Parties to a ‘transaction’, as Dewey and Bentley conceptualize this distinction, are at least partly constituted by it whereas interaction occurs between otherwise independent entities. I prefer to stick with the term ‘interaction’, even though what I mean by it concurs with their ‘transac- tions’ because the term ‘transaction’ has a strong economic connotation, which is unhelpful, and because most other writers whom I draw upon do
not make the distinction and, like me, use ‘interaction’ in a way which overlaps with what Dewey and Bentley call ‘transaction’.
9.3.1 Interdependence and Power In many cases actors’ ties also involve interde- pendence. Goods and resources are exchanged and each comes to rely upon the other for those goods and resources. This may sound economis- tic but I see it as a means of recognizing the meaningfulness of ties and the attraction involved.
Although some ties are involuntary actors gener- ally select those with whom they repeatedly interact. The reasons for their selections may be cynical and economistic (e.g. ‘because she’s loaded and buys me things’) but they often centre upon perceived personal qualities or qualities of a tie, built up over time, which make the other attractive: e.g. ‘we have a laugh’, ‘we understand and value each other’, ‘we have shared interests to talk about’. These qualities are the goods to which I am referring, at least as much as material goods, and they are important because they make ties intelligible, furnishing a reason for the repeated contact between those involved.
Interdependence is important because it cre- ates a balance of power (Elias 1978 ; Mohl 1997 ).
Each needs the other and this affords the other a lever by which to affect their behavior, albeit per- haps sometimes unwittingly (Mohl 1997 ). From romantic relations, through employment, to the ties between a colonial power and its colony, the (often tacit) threat that desired goods could be withdrawn motivates compliance with the (per- ceived) wishes of the other, making social ties relations of power.
Levels of interdependence and (im)balance vary. The pleasant conversation afforded by a casual acquaintance can easily be found else- where, for example, making the mutual hold of acquaintances relatively weak. Financial depen- dence, by contrast, can create a strong hold.
Likewise, where the exchange involved in casual acquaintance is often evenly balanced, each hav- ing the same hold over the other, fi nancial
exchanges are often imbalanced, with one party having more of a hold over the other. These varia- tions are important and we are often only inter- ested in power relations where they are strong and imbalanced. To reiterate, however, power balances are ubiquitous in social ties.
9.3.2 From Dyads to Triads and Networks
A focus upon dyadic ties, i – j , is, for many pur- poses, inadequate. Ties are usually embedded in wider networks which mediate their signifi cance and effects. Actors enjoy multiple ties and, as Simmel’s ( 1902 ) refl ections upon ‘the third’ sug- gest, the pattern of ties within which any single tie is embedded will often modify its effect.
Where different alters exert competing infl uence, for example, they may cancel one another out or inculcate a more cosmopolitan outlook on behalf of the actor, who learns to see the world from a variety of standpoints. Conversely, when singing from the same hymn sheet they may reinforce one another. To give another example, depen- dency in any one relation will be affected by other relations which potentially afford the actor access to the same goods or resources: i ’s depen- dence upon j may be lessened by their tie to k if k affords them many of the same goods as j .
Furthermore, this is affected by ties (or their absence) between actors’ alters. If i ‘brokers’
between j and k this puts him in a different posi- tion, with different opportunities and constraints, to a situation where each of the three knows the others (see Fig. 9.1 ). A broker is often rewarded for serving as a conduit of innovations and resources, for example (Burt 1992 , 2005 ). In addition, as sexual health campaigns remind us, i ’s relation with j is also an indirect tie to j ’s alters, indirectly exposing her to whatever goods (or bads) j ’s alters have. Rather than focus upon dyads, therefore, we need to focus upon net- works, remembering of course that networks are always in-process as a consequence of the inter- actions between their nodes. New ties form. Old ties change and sometimes break etc.
9.4 Social Worlds and the Social