emir bayer 2782580

8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

1/45

Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of AgencyAuthor(s): Mustafa Emirbayer and Jeff GoodwinSource: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 99, No. 6 (May, 1994), pp. 1411-1454Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2782580.

Accessed: 12/12/2014 20:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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 [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 148.206.159.132 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 20:29:50 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2782580?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2782580?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

2/45

Network

Analysis,

Culture,

and the

Problem of Agencyl

Mustafa Emirbayer

New Schoolfor Social Research

Jeff

oodwin

New York University

Network nalysis s one ofthemostpromisingurrentsnsociologi-

cal research, nd yet

t

has neverbeensubjected o

a

theoretically

informedssessment nd critique. his article utlines hetheoreti-

cal

presuppositions

f network

nalysis.

t also

distinguishes

e-

tweenthreedifferentimplicit)models

n

the network iterature f

the interrelationsf social structure, ulture, nd humanagency.

It concludes hatonly strategy orhistorical xplanation hat yn-

thesizes ocial structural nd cultural nalysiscan adequately

ex-

plain the formation,eproduction,nd transformationf networks

themselves. he article ketches he broad contours f

such a theo-

retical ynthesisn the conclusion.

Recentyearshave witnessed he emergence f a powerful ew approach

to

the study f social structure. his mode of nquiry, ommonly nown

as

network nalysis, has achieved a highdegree

of

technical ophisti-

cation and has

proven extremely

seful

n

a

strikingly

ide

range

of

substantive pplications.Since the seminalwork of Barnes (1954)

and

Bott 1971), sociological tudies tilizing etwork nalysishave appeared

with ncreasing requency; veritable xplosion fsuchworkhas taken

place overthe ast 15 years,particularly ith hefounding ftwo special-

'

We would ike o thank

articipants

n

the

CROPSO

Workshop

t HarvardUniver-

sity esp.ThedaSkocpol) or heirmany elpful omments,s well s participants

n

the

Sociology

taff

eminar

t theNew

School

for

ocial

Research

esp. Janet

Abu-

Lughod,

Diane

Davis, Karl-Dieter pp, and Arthur idich) nd

the

Methodology

Workshop

t

the

New York

Universityociology epartmentesp.

Wolf

Heydebrand,

Guillermina

asso,

nd

JamesJasper).

We would

lso liketo thank eter

Bearman,

Gerardo el

Cerro,

Karen

Gelb,Jeffreyoldfarb, ogerGould,

Ann

Mische,

Calvin

Morrill, ohn adgett, lessandroizzorno,Margaret omers, harles illy, nd the

AJS referees

or

heirmanyhelpful uggestionslong

he

way. Correspondence ay

be

addressed o Mustafa

mirbayer,epartment

f

Sociology,

ew

School

or

ocial

Research, 5

Fifth

Avenue,New York,New

York 10003.

?

1994

by

The

University

f

Chicago.

All

rights

eserved.

0002-9602/94/9906-0001$01.50

AJS Volume 99 Number

6

(May 1994):

1411-54 1411

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

3/45

AmericanJournal

f

Sociology

ized ournals,Social Networks nd Connections,

n

the ate 1970s.Today

network nalysis

s

one of the most promising urrents

n

sociological

research. ts practitionersnclude ome of the mosthighly espected ig-

ures

in

theprofession: on Breiger,Ronald Burt,Mark Granovetter,

David Knoke, PeterMarsden, Barry Wellman,

and Harrison

White.

Many

other

prominent ociologists,

uch as

Claude

Fischer,

Edward

Laumann, Doug McAdam,

David

Snow,

and

CharlesTilly,

draw exten-

sively pon

network

oncepts.

he

late

GeorgeHomans,

n

his reflections

upon

the ast 50

years

of

sociology,ustly

describednetwork

nalysis

s

one ofthemost

ncouraging

ew

developments

n

the

discipline Homans

1986, p. xxvi).

Despite tsgrowing rominence, owever,networknalysishasyet o

be

subjected

to a

theoretically

nformed ssessment nd

critique.

The

secondary iterature

n this

perspective

as

tended

to restricttself o

outlining

asic

concepts, iscussing

echnical

rocedures,

nd summariz-

ing empirical esearch indings. here has been

an

unfortunateack of

interest

n

situating

network

nalysis

within he broader traditions f

sociological heory,

much ess

in

undertaking systematicnquiry nto

its

underlying trengths nd weaknesses. Theoretical precursors f

network

nalysis

have

often een invoked

n

passing-especially Durk-

heim nd Simmel-but networknalysis, tself constellationfdiverse

methodologicaltrategies,

as

rarely

een

systematicallyrounded

n the

conceptual

frameworks

hey

elaborated.

n

addition,

here

has

been

a

notableabsence

in

this iterature f any sustained onsideration f the

potentialusefulnessof networkanalysis for historical nvestigation.

Meanwhile,

ocial theoristsnd historical

ociologists,

or

heir wn

part,

have

largely gnoreddevelopments

n

this

field;we have yet

to

see a

sustaineddiscussion f this

approach

n

recentworks

of

social theory,

even

in

thewritingsfsuchwide-ranginghinkers s AnthonyGiddens

(1984, 1987)

and

Jeffreylexander 1982, 1987, 1988a) or, alternatively,

in

studies

f recent

evelopments

n

comparative

nd

historical esearch

(e.g., Skocpol 1984;

D.

Smith

1991).2

In

short,

he

task

of

rethinking

network nalysis, ociological heory, nd historical ociology

n

light f

one another

has

been

sadly neglected.

In

this

essay we aspire to accomplish recisely uch a task. We begin

with n

exposition

f the

underlyingheoreticalresuppositionsnd con-

ceptual strategies

f network

nalysis,outlining

he characteristic

ea-

turesof thisapproach n relation o broadercurrentsn social theory.

Along

the

way,

we examine

everal

exemplary

tudies

that nvestigate

historical

rocesses

f social

change using

the

tools

and

insights

f

net-

1412

2

Giddens

oes,however, riticizehe structuralismf

Peter lau, which as strong

affinitiesithnetworknalysis Giddens 984,pp.

207-13).


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

4/45

Network

Analysis

work

analysis. Upon this basis we then elaboratea critique-a funda-

mentally ympatheticritique-of the network erspective,

tressingts

inadequate conceptualizationsf humanagency n the onehand, and of

culture n the other.We carefully istinguish erebetween hree istinct

models

in the

network iterature f the relationshipsmong culture,

agency, nd social structure;ach ofthesemodels, n our view,

conceptu-

alizes

theserelationships

n

varying egrees f theoreticalophistication.

Throughout he essay,we attempt o ground ur critical rguments are-

fully

n

detailed and

substantive onsiderations

f

actual works

of

net-

work

analysis-studies that, n our estimation, ank

among the most

powerful nd impressive pplications o date of thenetwork

erspective.

Throughout his article,our primary ocus s on analytical ategories,

not on authors.Our concernwith agency nd culturehas

implications

for

network nalysis n general,but our focus here remainson

studies

that

ttempt o explain ocial changeover time-including the

transfor-

mation

f

social networks hemselves-and henceon specificallyistori-

cal studies.3

Our

argument

s

thatwhilethisnew mode of structuralist

nquiry-in

all three

f ts versions-offers more

powerfulway

of

describing

ocial

interactionhan do other

tructural erspectives hatfocus

olely

on the

categorical ttributes f individual and collective ctors, t has yetto

provide a fully dequate explanatorymodel for the actual

formation,

reproduction, nd transformation

f

social networks

hemselves.Net-

work

nalysis

ll

too often enies

n

practice

hecrucialnotion hat ocial

structure, ulture,

nd human

agencypresuppose

ne

another;

t either

neglects r inadequately onceptualizes he crucialdimension

f

subjec-

tive

meaning

nd

motivation-including

he normative ommitments

f

actors-and

thereby

ails o show

exactly

how it is

that

ntentional,

re-

ativehuman

ction erves

n

part

o constitutehose

very

ocial networks

that o powerfullyonstrain ctors n turn. n its ess nuancedversions,

in

fact,

he

network

pproach merges s

themirror

mage

of ts

nterpre-

tive

and hermeneutic

ounterpartSchutz 1967; Rabinow

and

Sullivan

1979).

Whether rom he

standpoint

f

objective

ocial structures r of

subjective xperience,

oth

of

these

perspectives

n

themselves

rovide

no

more han a description

f

social reality; ltimately, othfailto

grasp

in

concepts

he

dynamic rocesses hat shape thisreality ver time. We

3We are not nterestedere,t hould epointed ut, n themore urelymethodologi-

cal and technical ontributionshatnetworknalysts ave producede.g., Boorman

and White 976;Davis 1967;Freeman 977,1979;Harary,Norman, nd Cartwright

1965; Lorrain nd White 1971; White,Boorman, nd Breiger 976). Nor are we

concerned ith overing ll of themany mportantmpiricaltudies hathave been

produced n recent earsusingnetwork echniquesnd concepts. ee, e.g., Fischer

1982;Laumann nd Knoke 1987; nd Wellman 979.

1413


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

5/45

AmericanJournal f Sociology

believe,by contrast, hat

n adequate approach o historical xplanation

must ncompassboth ocial

structuralnd cultural erspectives

n social

action. We demonstrate ow more sophisticated ersionsof network

analysis do approximate

uch a strategy, nd we sketchout the broad

contours f

our own

synthetic

xplanatory erspective

n the concluding

pages.

ANALYZING SOCIAL NETWORKS

The Priority f Relations

ver Categories

Network nalysis s not a formal r unitary theory hatspecifies is-

tinctiveaws, propositions,

r

correlations, ut

rather

broad strategy

for

nvestigating

ocial structure.

t is

not,

that

s,

a deductive

ystem

in

which lower-order

ropositions ollow as

a logical conclusion

from . . general propositions

nder . . specified iven conditions

(Homans 1964,p. 812).Rather, ike modernization

r dependency heory

in

the field of economic

development, t is more a

paradigm or a

perspective - a

loose federation f approaches Burt 1980a)-than

a

predictive

social

theory.

As a result

f

the nternal iversity f

net-

workapproaches,network nalysts hemselves ebatethe usefulness f

alternative

models

of

social

relations

nd

methodological

trategies.

n-

deed, important isagreements

ave arisenover

the

verydefinitionf

ts

fundamental

oncepts.

Network

nalystsdispute

the manner

n

which

ideas such as social structure,

etwork entrality, istance,

cohesion,

and

social

network tself-terms used

by

other sociologists imply s

metaphors-can

be

operationalized

or

purposes

of

empirical esearch.

(We

have

provided

short

lossary

f terms

ommonly

sed

by

network

analysts

n the

appendixbelow.)

Nevertheless,

etwork

nalysisproceeds

rom ertain asic theoretical

presuppositions

nd

premises

hat

are

acceptable

to

most,

f

not

all,

of

its

practitioners.

t

holds o a setof mplicit ssumptionsboutfundamen-

tal issues

in

sociological

nalysis

such

as

the

relationship

etween

the

individualand

society,

he relationship etween micro

nd macro,

and the

structuring

f social action

by objective,

supra-individual

patterns

f

ocial

relationships.

he

point

f

departure

ornetwork

naly-

sis

is

what we

shall

call

the

anticategoricalmperative.

his

imperative

rejects ll attempts o explainhuman behavior r social processes olely

in

termsof the categorical ttributes

f

actors, whether

ndividual or

collective.Network

nalysis,

s

Barry

Wellman

puts

t, rejects xplana-

tions

of

social behavior

s the

result

f

ndividuals' ommon

ossession

of

attributes

nd

norms

ather han

as the

result f their nvolvement

n

structuredocial relations

Wellman1983, p. 165).

In

other

words,

one

1414


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

6/45

Network

Analysis

can never imply ppeal to such attributess class membership r class

consciousness, oliticalparty ffiliation,ge, gender, ocial status,reli-

giousbeliefs, thnicity,exual orientation, sychological redispositions,

and so on,

in

order to explain why people behave the way they do.

Network

theory

builds its

explanations

from

patterns

f

relations,

notes Ronald Burt. It capturescausal factors n the social structural

bedrock

f

society, ypassing hespuriously ignificantttributes f peo-

ple temporarilyccupying articular ositions n social structure Burt

1986, p. 106).4

n

thisrespect,network nalysispursues he Simmelian

goal

of a

formalistic ociology Simmel 1971, chap. 3), one

that

directs

attention

xclusively o the overall structure f network

ies while

sup-

pressing onsideration f their ubstantive ontent see also Bearman

1993, p.

48).5

Given this

anticategoricalmperative, etwork nalysisemphatically

rejects ll varieties f culturalism,ssentialism,nd methodologicalndi-

vidualism.

t stands

fundamentallypposed, forexample,to certain

f

the

ssumptions f tructural-functionalism,hich tresses henormative

integration f societies.Despite a common mphasison the priority f

structures ver

essences

an

emphasis deriving ltimately

rom he

earlyDurkheim)

hat inks both

perspectives

o tendencies

n

structural

anthropology,inguistics,nd ordinary anguage philosophy-network

analysts take seriouslywhat Durkheim aw but

most

of

his

followers

did not: that the

organic olidarity

f a social

system

estsnot on the

cognition

f

men, but

rather

n

the

interlock

nd

interaction

f

objec-

tively definable social relationships Boorman

and

White 1976, p.

1442).6 It shouldbe pointed ut, on theother and, thatnetwork nalysis

does not

reject

ll ofthe enets

f

tructural-functionalism.

any

network

analysts e.g., White, Boorman,

and

Breiger1976;

Burt

1982) employ

functionalist otions uch as

role,

role

set,

and

status, although

they reconceptualize hese notions nto relationalor network-analytic

4 Thus one network nalyst Brym 988) s able

to show n his work n intellectual

radicalismmong he in-de-siecleewishntelligentsia

n Russia hat harp iscrepan-

cies n politicaldeologies an develop venwithin

arrowlyircumscribed

ategories,

depending pon

he

ctors' ifferentatterns

f

structuralootedness ithin artic-

ular

ocialnetworks.

5 This last formulationpplies omewhatess

well, t shouldbe pointed ut, to the

third f he everal etwork odels hatweshallgo ontoanalyze,hat f tructuralist

constructionism.his model upplements static nd formalisticnalysis

f

net-

work tructure ith more dynamic

ccount f

processes

f

dentity

ransforma-

tion, ne thatnecessarilyevotesmore ttention

o thecontent fnetworkies.

6

Network nalysts' isagreement ith he tructural-functionalistiew of society

s

thus eminiscentf SeligPerlman's bjection o

thoseMarxist heorists ho viewthe

working lass as

an abstractmass

n

the

grip

f

an abstract orce

1979,p. 6).

1415


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

7/45

8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

8/45

NetworkAnalysis

Therewas

no

comparableevelopment

f

ools or nalysisf

he

ehavior

of

nteractingystemsf ndividuals

rfor

apturinghe nterdependencies

of ndividualctions s

they

ombine

o

produce system-level

utcome.

The far reateromplexityequiredf ools or hese urposesonstituted

a serious mpediment o theirdevelopment.

.

. The end result was]

extraordinarilylaborated ethodsor nalysisf hebehaviorf setof

independentntitiesmost ftenndividuals), ith ittle evelopmentf

methodsor haracterizingystemicction esultingrom he nterdepen-

dent ctions

f

membersfthe

ystem.Coleman 986, . 1316]

Fromthishistorical antagepoint, ontemporaryetwork nalysis an

be

viewed as part of a second crucial watershedperiod

in

American

sociology,

ne

in

which

empirical esearch

s now

directing

ts

attention

back again to thesystemicevel,thistimeassistedbythedevelopment

of

quantitative echniques nd

methods

f

a

highly ophisticated ature.

In

thissecond pivotalmoment, nalytic oncerns re shifting ack once

more o

thosequestions f nteractional ields nd contextual etermina-

tionthat

had been so central o sociologists efore he variablesrevolu-

tion

of

the 1940s.

How, then,does network nalysis ropose o account or ocial behav-

ior andprocesses? he answer s implicit

n

thepreceding emarks. uch

behavior nd processes,tsuggests,mustbe explainedwithreferenceo

networks f

social relations

hat

link

actors

or

nodes.

These social

relations, ignificantly, ustbe understoods independentf theactors'

wills, beliefs,

nd

values; they

must also be assumed to allocate scarce

resources ifferentiallyWellman 1983, p. 176). Social structure,

n

this

view,

s

regularities

n

the

patterns

f relations

mong

concrete

ntities;

it

is

not a

harmony mong

abstractnorms nd

values

or a classification

of concrete ntities

ytheir

ttributes

White

et al.

1976, pp. 733-34;

emphasis

n

original).

A

social

network s one of

manypossible

sets of

social relations of a specificcontent-for example, communicative,

power, affectual,

r

exchange

elations-that ink actors

within

larger

social structure

or

network f

networks).

he

relevant

nit

of analysis

need not be

an

individualperson,but can also be a group, n organiza-

tion,or, ndeed,

n

entire

society i.e.,

a

territorially

ounded

network

of social

relations);7 ny entity

hat

s

connected o

a

network

f

other

such

entitieswill

do.

Network

nalysts

ften ind

t

desirable o

carry

ut their

nvestigations

at both he ndividual

nd

group evels;

uch

combinations

ighlight

hat

some ofthem, na Simmelian1955) fashion, efer oas the dualism of

groups

nd

actors-the

factthat the natureof

groups

s determined

y

the ntersectionf the actors

within

hem

i.e., by

the ties

of

their

mem-

7One

recent writer,

Margaret Somers

(1993), prefers he term relational setting.

1417


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

9/45

AmericanJournal f

Sociology

bersto

one another

s

well as to other

roups

nd

individuals),

whilethe

natureof actors s

determined y the

intersection f groups within

them i.e., by theirown variousgroupaffiliations;ee Breiger1974).

Individual and group

behavior, n thisview,

cannotbe fully nderstood

independentlyf one

another.By thusfacilitatingnalyses at both

the

individual nd group evel,network nalysis

makes t possible o

bridge

the

micro-macrogap -the theoretical

ulf

between

microsociology,

which examines the

interaction

f

individuals,

and

macrosociology,

which

tudies

he

nteraction

f

groups

r

institutions.

Thus theway nwhich

network nalysis

onceptualizes ocialstructure

is at

once moregeneral nd moreconcrete han

alternativetructuralist

approaches. t is moregeneralbecausemanydifferentinds ofgroups,

relations, nd institutionshatputatively rganize r

structureocial

pro-

cesses can be understood

n,

or be

translated nto,network

erms.

And it

is more concrete ecause these tructures eed not

be treated

s

black

boxes,

but

rather

an be

disaggregated nto

their

constituent

elements f actors

and

relations.

The

significance

f these

two

features

of

networknalysis or mpirical esearch s

considerable.Network na-

lysts re now able to

providefar moreprecise

nd accuraterepresenta-

tions f social structures

nd

social

relations han re

proponents

f com-

peting esearch trategies.

Most

network nalysts, f course,also

purport o

do far

more than

simplydescribethe

ways

in

which

actors

are connected

n

society.

As

Knoke and Kuklinski

point

out,

If

network

nalysis

were

imited

o a

conceptual

framework or

dentifying

ow a

set

of

actors s linked to-

gether,

t would

not

have excited

much

nterest nd effort

mong

ocial

researchers. ut network

nalysis ontains furtherxplicit

remise f

great

onsequence:The

structuref relationsmong ctors nd the oca-

tionof

ndividual ctors nthe network ave

important ehavioral,

er-

ceptual,

and attitudinal

onsequences

oth for he

ndividualunits

and

for the

system

s

a whole

(Knoke

and

Kuklinski

1982, p. 13).

The

hallmark

of

network

nalysis,

n

Edward Laumann's (1979, p.

349)

words,

is to

explain,

t

least

n

part,

the

behavior f network lements

(i.e., the

nodes)

nd ofthe

ystem s

a

wholeby

appeal

to

specific eatures

of the

nterconnections

mong

the

elements. More

specifically,

he net-

work

approach nvestigates

he

constraining

nd

enabling

imensions

f

patterned elationships

mong

social actors

within

system.

t is this

emphasis, n fact, hatprovides he inkbetween tstheoreticalnsights

and its

key

contributionso

empirical

esearch.What network

nalysis

provides,

n

particular,

s a

way

of

avoiding

he

pitfalls

f

what Arthur

Stinchcombe

erms

epochal

nterpretations

or,

more

memorably,ep-

ochal

garbage );

that

s,

of causal

explanations

hat

proceed by using

the

apparent

ausal

structurereated

y

narrative

f

sequence

of

events

1418


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

10/45

Network

Analysis

to

create the

illusion that

epochal

theories re

being substantiated

(Stinchcombe 978, p. 10;

see

also

Tilly 1992).

Network

nalysis llows

historical ociologists, y contrast, o pinpoint hosewide-rangingnd

recurrent ausal mechanisms whose combinations roduce,

as

Tilly

expresses t,

the actual

unique

histories e observe

Tilly 1992, p. 11).

How, specifically,

oes network

nalysis ttempt

uchan

important

ask?

RelationalAnalysis s a Way ofRepresentingocial Structure

Network

nalysts enerally

make use

of one of two

conceptual trategies

in order to explain how networks

onstrain nd enable-and thus to

accountforvarious types f socialbehavior Burt 1980a, 1987). On the

one

hand, many analysts dopt a

relational r social cohesion ap-

proachthatfocuses n the direct nd indirect onnections mong ctors.

This approach explainscertainbehaviors r processes hrough he fact

of social

connectivitytself-as well as through hedensity, trength,

symmetry,ange, nd so on, of thetiesthatbind. Fromthis

perspective,

very trong, ense,

and

relatively

solated ocial networks acilitate he

development f uniform subcultures nd

of

strong ollectivedentities;

this

notion,

f

course,

dates

back

both

o

Durkheim

1984) and

to

Simmel

(1955; 1971, chap. 18). Relationalanalyses,however, lso demonstrate

that weak ties

ndirectly

onnectingndividuals r bridging he struc-

tural holes

between solated social

groups may be crucial for many

important ocial processes, uch as

locating mployment pportunities

(e.g., Granovetter 973;Burt 1992).

The

mathematical ools

of

graph

theory

ave

been helpful

n

developing hese approaches see Harary

et al.

1965).

One

important pplication

f

network

nalysis

hat

employs

he

rela-

tional

or

social cohesion pproach s a

studyby Naomi

Rosenthal t al.

(1985)

of

women's reformrganizations

n

New York State during he

latter

halfof the nineteenthentury. osenthal nd her associates xam-

ine the

organizational ffiliationsf

202

prominent

omenreformers

n

state reform

ctivity uring

he

yearsbetween1840 and

1914. By map-

pingout these ffiliations,hey

evelop

a detailed

portrait

f the

multi-

organizational

ield

of

social movement

ctivity

hat obtained

during

that

period.Measures of centralitynable

them

oidentifyheparticular

groups

hatweremost

mportant

o thatnetwork f

reform

rganizations.

Otherrelatedmethodsprovidethemwithcarefulmeasurements f the

boundaries, hape,

and

texture

f

variousclusters

f

such

organizations.

Finally,

directional

nalysis

of

flows

of

individuals cross

organiza-

tions

provides

hemwith a

picture

f three

uniquely haped map

con-

figurations

f social movement

lusters

n

threedistincthistorical

e-

riods between 1840 and 1914, each of these manifesting different

1419


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

11/45


content o the relations

mongorganizations nd activity Rosenthal t

al. 1985, p. 1043).

Another mportantine of network esearch mploying elational nal-

ysis

concerns

tselfwith processes f recruitmento social movements.

Its point of departure s a studyby Snow, Zurcher, nd Ekland-Olson

(1980) thatexaminesmaterials n a wide variety f movements. now et

al.'s work

suggests hat

ndividualswith

preexistingies to movement

members re more

ikely o be contacted nd recruited o those move-

mentsthan are individualswithout uch ties; individualswith few or

weak

ties

to

alternative etworks re more ikely o respondfavorably

to these

recruitmentffortshan

re

ndividualswith trong ommitments

tocountervailingetworks. now etal.'s study oesnotemploy ophisti-

cated network nalysis techniques,nor does it examine systematically

the

independent ffects

f

network tructureshemselves; t focuses

n-

stead

upon

ndividual ies alone. And

yet

t does

provide

useful

orrec-

tive

to

social

psychological

nd

culturalist pproaches

hat

place undue

explanatoryweightupon

such variables as

individualmotivation o

the exclusion f actors'

patterns

f embeddedness

ithin ctual

networks

of social

ties.

A

seriesof

studiesby Doug McAdam (1986, 1988;

see

also Fernandez

and McAdam 1988, 1989)furtherorroboratesnd advances this ineof

investigation.

cAdam's

studies re concernedwith he participation

f

college tudents

n

the

1964

FreedomSummer

roject

n

Mississippi

nd

focus

on the

patterns

f social

relationships

f student

participants,

s

compared

o

those

f

tudentswho

applied

for he

project,

were

ccepted,

but failed

to

participate.McAdam's principal

onclusion s that all of

the

applicants-participants

nd withdrawals

like-emerge

as

highly

committed,

rticulate

upporters

f the

goals

and values

of the summer

campaign McAdam 1986, p. 73). What clearlydifferentiatesartici-

pants

fromwithdrawals

re

not their ocioeconomic haracteristics or

attitudinal ifferenceshat

push

individuals

nto

participating, ut

three tructural

pull

factors

hat

facilitated

nd

encouraged articipa-

tion:

1) participants elonged

o a

greater

umber f

organizations

nd

to more

xplicitly olitical rganizations

handid

withdrawals;2) partici-

pants

had

higher

evels

of involvement

n

prior

civil

rights

ctivities

than did

withdrawals; nd,

most

mportant,3) participants

ad more

ties-especially strong riendship

ies-to other reedomSummer

p-

plicants han did withdrawals.

An

article

yMcAdam

and Roberto ernandez

1988;

see also Fernan-

dez

and McAdam

1989)

extends

he

scope

of

this

nalysis

o include he

effects f even more

pecifically

tructural ariables

uch

as

the network

prominence

f

applicantsupon

their

ventual

participation

n

Freedom

Summer. McAdam and Fernandez

argue

that individuals'

positions

1420


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

12/45

Network

Analysis

within

multiorganizationalields-in this case, the various networks

f

interlockingctivistorganizations t theirrespective niversities-did

undercertain onditionsignificantlyffect he ikelihood f theirbeing

recruited o the summer roject. t was not the quantity f ndividuals'

ties to social movement

rganizations

r to other

pplicants

o

Freedom

Summer hatdetermined

heir ventualparticipation, ut rather hepat-

tern

f

their

nterpersonal

onnectionsnd commonmemberships ithin

these organizations. o capture the effects f these patterns, ernan-

dez and McAdam

employ standard ohesionmeasureof centrality-

prominence -in their nalysis; theyuse it to focus attention n the

density f applicants' ies

to othermore r ess centrallyocated ndividu-

als within ields foverlapping rganizations.

Despite

his

increasing nterest

n

the significance f networks

s

such

in

movement ecruitment, owever-as opposed to social ties

treat[ed] . . in

piecemealfashion Gould 1991, p. 717)-McAdam's

research eaves out of

consideration ne further tructural ariable:

namely, hemultiplexity

fnetworks hemselvesnd thecomplex nterac-

tions mongthem.While

McAdam's studiesneglect hepreexisting ebs

of

relationships ithinwhichFreedom

ummer pplicants

had been

em-

bedded before

oining ctivist

rganizations, oger

Gould's

1991, 1992)

studies f the ParisCommune xplore he nteractive ffectsfprecisely

such networkswith more

formalorganizational tructures. ogether,

Gould

argues-not

separately-these ndigenous

tructures

specifically,

the

neighborhoods ithinwhich the Parisian

nsurgentsived)

and

the

National Guard unitsto which the

nsurgents

ere

assigneddecisively

affected heir verall

evels

of

solidarity

nd resistance.

he

key

to

this

interaction rocesswas theresidential ecruitmentystem ftheNational

Guard. Members

of

each battalionwere tied to each other

not

only

throughheir haredorganizationalffiliation,utalso bythe factthat

they

were

neighbors.

Gould finds hat

insurgents

n

differenteighborhoodsnfluencedach other's egree f

commitment

o

the

nsurrectionhroughhenetworkf inks reated y

overlappingnlistmentsinguard nits]. igh evels f ommitment

n

one

area

enhanced ommitmentlsewhere hen nlistment

atternsrovided

a

conduitfor

communicationnd interaction.

. .

[Thus] neighborhoods

respondedoevents

n

other reaswhere heir esidentserved

n

National

Guard nits.

or

nstance,

esistance

n

the ifth

rrondissement

as

posi-

tively

ffected

y

he act hat

many

f

ts esidentserved

n

the hirteenth

legion, hosemembersemonstratedstrongommitmento hensurgent

effort.

Gould 991, .

726]

Gould concludes

from his

that

cross-neighborhoodolidarity

was a

significant

eature f the Parisian nsurrection.The

interdependence

f

resistanceevels across residential reas was .

.

. intimatelyied notonly

1421


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

13/45

AmericanJournal

f Sociology

to the quantity,

but also to the structure

f overlapping nlistments

(Gould 1991,

p. 727). Gouldthus hows

that

tructural

nalysisneeds to

take into accountnot only ndividual-level ariables suchas thosethat

are employed

n

theMcAdam

studies,but

also the complexnfluences f

multiplex roverlapping

etworks f social

ties.

PositionalAnalysis s a Way

of Representingocial Structure

Many network

nalysts mploy

differentpproachto conceptualizing

social structure;

heir

positional trategy

ocusesupon

thenatureof

actors'

ies

not to one another,

ut to third arties.This strategy

makes

senseofcertainbehaviors nd processesn terms fthepattern f rela-

tions that defines

n actor'spositionrelative

o all other

ctors n the

social system.Positional nalyses

emphasizethe importance

f

struc-

tural

quivalence -that

is,

the

sharing y

two

or

more

ctors f

equiva-

lent relations is-'a-vis

third

ctor-for understandingoth

ndividual

and collective ehavior

see

Lorrain nd White

1971).

The relevant ssue

from his point

of

view

is the specific position

r role that a set

of

actors

occupies

within he system s a whole.

Any

such set

is

termed

block.

An

algebraic procedure

called blockmodeling partitions

overallpopulations ntosets ofstructurallyquivalent ctors Whiteet

al.

1976;

Boorman and White 1976).

Structural

quivalence

modelsdiffer

rom elational

models

n

at least

two crucialrespects. irst,

whilethe atter

ail todistinguishmong

the

membersof social cliques

on the basis of those members'

different

types

of

ties

to

external ctors,

he former

o

concern

hemselveswith

the structure

f the

social

system

s a whole.

They generate

models

in

which n

actor s one of

many

n

a

system

f

nterconnected

ctors

uch

thatall defined elationsn whichhe is involvedmustbe considered

(Burt 1980a,

p. 80). Second,structuralquivalence

models

pay no heed

to whether ctors

n

a givenposition

ave any direct

iesto one another.

A

block, or

set of structurallyquivalent

ctors,from heir

erspective,

may

not be a

densely

knit ocial

clique

at all

(White

t

al.

1976).

One

interestingxample

of network

nalysis

hatmakes use of block-

modeling

nd

positional

nalysis

s

the work

of

Peter

Bearman

1993)

on

local elite

social

structure

n

England

during

he

century

efore he

En-

glish Civil

War. Bearman

examines heactual patterns f

kinship nd

patron-clienties that bound elite actorstogether and that simulta-

neously

rove

hem

part)

during

his

period,

nd

thereby

inducesparti-

tions

or

equivalency

classes

of

these

actors that

describetheir

pat-

terned nteractionsmore

accurately

han

do

the

standard

categorical

classifications.

ather

han

specify

he relevant

liteactors

from far

n

such

categorical

terms

as

middling,

rising, falling,

court,

or

1422


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

14/45

Network

Analysis

country

entry, e generates pecific

lockmodels f their nterrela-

tionships

n

four

iscrete imeperiods etween 540and 1640. Individu-

als with distinctive ersonal biographies ct coherently, e argues,

with

respect o the interestswhich arise from

he structural ositions

they hare n

local and nationalnetworks

Bearman 1993, pp. 11-12).

Changesover time

n

the

structure nd

distribution

f

thesenetworks

thus provide

the

key to understandingong-term tructural hanges.

Bearman's largerargument s that the social

transformationshat did

occur at the elite level created the structural

rerequisites or the

widespread doption f

certain bstract

heological enets,which n turn

would play a crucial

role

n

inspiring

he

tumultuous olitical vents hat

were to come. They led, in otherwords, to the formationf an elite

subworld rganized

n

the

basis

of

socialrelations

hat

transcended

he

[localist nd

kinship-based]raditionalocial

order nd created context

in

which abstract eligious and

constitutionalist]hetorics ould emerge

as

the

critical

eterminantsf elite ocial action

n

the

century receding

the English Civil

War (Bearman 1993, p. 1).

Another ighly ophisticated nd innovative

istorical ase study m-

ploying he

positional pproach o structural

nalysis s John adgett nd

Christopher

nsell's brilliant

work on

the rise of the Medici

in

early

15th-centurylorence. Padgett nd Ansell,much ike Bearman before

them, mploy

he

concept

f structural

quivalence

o

identify

thefam-

ily, economic,

nd patronagenetworks hatconstituted he Medicean

politicalparty

Padgett

nd Ansell

1993, p. 1260),

as well as theirmain

rivals

n

Florentine olitics, he oligarchs. They use archivaldata on

marital,

economic,political, and personal ties to producean overall

relational icture f

Florence's ocial structure, ithin a] 92-family ul-

ing elite Padgettand Ansell 1993, p. 1274).

Throughblockmodeling

they

find that

they

are able to

predict

ctual

party memberships

ar

moreaccurately

han through tandardcategorical

nalyses based,

for

example,

on

class and

status. Indeed,

their

nalyses

of

marriage

nd

economic ies

n

particular rove highly seful

n

revealing

he connec-

tions mong

networks, roups,

nd

party

membership.

n a

pointed

re-

minderof the

potential mpiricalusefulness

f what we have termed

here the

anticategoricalmperative, adgett nd

Ansell

concludethat

rather

han parties

being generated y socialgroups, . . both parties

and

social

groups

were nduced

conjointly yunderlying

etworks.

..

We do notargue . . that social attributes nd groups re irrelevant o

party ormation;

merely

hat their

ole needs

to

be understood

within

deeper

relational ontext. here

s

no

simple

mapping fgroups

r

spatial

dimensions nto

parties;

ocial

attributesnd

group

nterests

re

merely'

cognitive

ategories,

which

party mobilization,

networks,

nd action

crosscut

Padgett

nd Ansell

1993,pp.

12

7-78, 1274; emphasis dded).

1423


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

15/45


Blockmodeling lso proves useful

n explaining he superior apacity

for ollective ctionoftheMedici

party is-'a-vists rivalfaction, espite

thebitter ivisionbetween hosepatrician lites nd new men aligned

with the Medici. The

Medici party,Padgett and Ansell observe, was

deeplycleaved on two attributional

imensions imultaneously-social

class

(i.e., prestige) nd

neighborhood. ot onlydid the variouscompo-

nentsdespise each other; heydid not run nto each othermuch either.

Only

the Medici

family tself

inked

the segments Padgett nd Ansell

1993,p. 1281). n fact, heMedicifamily xerted n exceptional egree f

centralized ontrol ver ts followers

recisely y bridging he structural

hole betweenpatricians nd new men.

On

the

mportance

f

structural

holes moregenerally, ee Burt 1992].) The more liquish ligarch arty,

by contrast,was constantly

eset

with

cross-pressure[s]

n each

family

instead f collective onvergence, ue precisely o tsfarhigher evelsof

networkmultiplexitynd attributional

omogeneityPadgett

nd Ansell

1993, p. 1279).

Padgett nd Ansellreveal through

n analysis f network ynamics

just

how

these patterns f social

relationships

ame about

in

the first

place. Elite marriage nd

economicnetworks, hey rgue, were re-

configured y working-classevolt nd

by

wartime iscal

risis,respec-

tively Padgett nd Ansell 1993, p. 1287).As partof their trategyf

reconsolidation

n

the aftermath f the

Ciompi wool workers' evoltof

1378, the temporarilyictorious

ligarchs eliberately xcludedthe

os-

ers'

elite

collaborators, ncluding

he

Medici,

from heir

marital

net-

works. The

oligarchic lique

and

the Medicean . . .

networks,

laim

Padgett

and

Ansell,

thus

both

emerged

n

tandem,

a

single network,

each reflexively

nd

asymmetrically

tructuring

he other

Padgett

nd

Ansell 1993, p. 1298). n the

meantime, oreignwars withMilan (1423-

28) and Lucca (1430-33) had theeffect fseverelyweakening heFloren-

tine

conomy

nd of

sendingmany

lite

families

with

he notable

xcep-

tion of the Medici

themselves,

who

enjoyed special papal ties)

into

bankruptcy.

he elite

families

ttempted

o

help

themselves

y depriving

in

turn he socially

nd

politicallymore vulnerablenew mercantile le-

ments-the new men-of

offices nd tax revenues.

After

427,

the

Me-

dici

began

to

pursue

conomic elations

with

hese

new elements n their

local residential eighborhoods.t was preciselyt thatmoment hat he

Medici

partyemerged

s a

powerful

nd

self-consciousoliticalactor

engaged n struggle gainstthe dominant ligarch action.

THREE

NETWORK MODELS OF HISTORICALEXPLANATION

Each of thesetwoalternativemodelsof social

structure

as

its strengths

and

weaknesses.

Proponents

f

the relational

pproach emphasize

ts

1424


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

16/45

Network

Analysis

suitability ormappingthe typicalrelations hat ndividuals

have with

one another. t is more

amenable to traditional urveyresearch ech-

niques, they laim, ncontrast o positional pproaches hatrequire ata

for

ll the elements

n

the

system. roponents f structuralquivalence,

conversely, tress ts moreconsistentlytructuralistature, ts

capacity,

that is, simultaneously

o take into account all of the

relationaldata

pertaining o

a

givenactor, ncluding

his

patterns fexternal

elation-

ships- the relations n

which

he is

involved s well as therelations

n

which

he

is

not involved

Burt 1980a, p. 131).

A

global [positional]

approach,

notes Michael

J.

Mandel

(1983, pp. 376-77), examines ll

interlocks etween oles t

the ame time ... [This]

imultaneous onsid-

eration f all actors n an entire opulation .. spotlightshe nterdepen-

dence of the differentolesfound

n

thepopulation.

Each role

therefore

has built nto t the

elementswhichdifferentiatet from ther oleswithin

the same overall tructure. ositional

nalysts

ontend hat

hisfeature

lends theirmodels significantlyreater egree f predictive

ower. For

example,

n

a reconsiderationf a

classic cohesion tudyby

Coleman,

Katz,

and

Menzel (1966),Burt shows how the structural quivalenceof

physicians etter ccounts

forthe informal ocial pressures hat ed to

the diffusion

f

the use

of

the

drug tetracycline

han

does their ocial

cohesionBurt 1987).

Network

practitioners

mploy

oth

of

these

pproaches

o

make sense

of

an

impressive rray

of

substantive ssues.

Despite

the

considerable

methodological sefulness f

both strategies, owever,we contend hat

each can be

subjected

to a number

of

important

riticisms. he

very

assumptions nd premises hat have

made network nalysis

n

both

of

its

methodological

ariants uch a powerful ool raise seriousquestions

about ts

adequacy

as an

overall

research

trategy.We contend hat

here

have been three

models mplicit

n the

iterature n network

nalysis-

models

f

the

relationshipsmong ulture, gency, nd

social

structure-

that

have

led to

varying

egrees

f

difficulty

n

elaborating atisfactory

explanations

f

historical

rocesses.

The

first

f

these

mplicit

models,

thatof structuralist

eterminism,eglects ltogether

he

potential

ausal

role of

actors' beliefs,values, and normative

ommitments-or,more

generally,

f the

significance

f

cultural

nd

politicaldiscourses

n

his-

tory.

t

neglects

s well thosehistorical

onfigurations

f

ction hat

hape

and

transform

regiven

ocial

structures

n

the first

lace.

A

second and

more satisfactory-butstill deeply problematic-approach is that of

structuralist

nstrumentalism.tudieswithin his

perspective

ccept

the

prominent ole of social

actors

n

history, ut ultimatelyonceptualize

their

activity

n

narrowly tility-maximizing

nd

instrumental orms.

And

finally,hemost ophisticatedetwork

erspective

n

social

change,

which

we term tructuralist

onstructionism,

hematizes

rovocatively

1425


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

17/45

AmericanJournal f

Sociology

certainhistorical rocesses f

identity onversion

nd robust

ction.

It is themost uccessful f ll ofthese pproachesnadequately onceptu-

alizing human agency nd thepotentiallyransformativempactof cul-

tural idioms

and

normative ommitmentsn

social

action.

However,

even thisperspective alls hort

n

understandinghe full omplexitiesf

the theoretical

nterconnectionsmongculture, gency, nd

social

struc-

ture. It too pays insufficientttention

o

the

structuring

nfluences f

cultural nd political

discourses pon historical ctors.8

Structuralisteterminism

All threeof these basic approaches are represented y practitionersf

bothrelationalndpositional

etwork nalysis.

The

aforementionedela-

tional

tudyby

Rosenthal t al.

(1985),

for

xample,

tands s

an

illumi-

nating ase study n

structuralisteterminism. osenthal nd herassoci-

ates

delineate

hree

istinct istorical

eriods

f women'sreform

ctivity

in New York State between he years 1840 and 1914.The first fthese,

theyclaim,

lasted from1840

to the

late

1860s; t was

dominated

by

a

women's

rights

movement nd also featured

igh

evels of nvolvement

in

antislavery nd temperance rganizations. he second period was a

transitional ne; betweentheend of the CivilWar and the late 1880s

there

was

comparatively

ittle

ctivity,many

of the

earlier

roupsdisap-

peared,and the

possibility

f

creating

ew national

organizations

was

limited

Rosenthal t al. 1985, p. 1044). And finally, etween he ate

1880s nd 1914,therewas a

resurgence

f

ntense

eform

ctivity, enter-

ing around an increasing

umber f new organizationsinkedprimarily

by

the

suffragessue. Rosenthal t

al.'s

delineation

f

these hree eriods

of

women's

reform

ctivity y

means

of

relational

nalysis urely

anks

as a significantnd worthy ontribution. ut its limitations re also

considerable: hestudyprovides ittle

ystematic xplanation

s

to

pre-

ciselywhy

hese

hanges

ccurred rom

ne

historical

eriod

o the

next,

settling

nstead for

a succession f static

map configurations

r rela-

tional

snapshots '

f network

atterns.

The individualand social ac-

tions

that

ed from

ne structural

onfiguration

f

reform

ctivity

o the

next re

leftunanalyzed,

s

are the

developments

n

social structure

nd

8

Our term tructuralist onstructionisms coincidentally eminiscent f Pierre Bour-

dieu's phrase, constructivist tructuralism Bourdieu 1990). But we do not imply

by

this

any direct connectionbetween the network nalysts whom we are discussing

and Bourdieu, although t is true that these various thinkers ll share an underlying

concern

to overcome at both

the

theoretical

nd

empirical evels

the

dichotomy

be-

tween subjectivist and objectivist standpoints. Bourdieu's understanding of

fields, e.g., does bear striking nalytical affinitieswith that of social networks

(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p. 114).

1426


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

18/45

Network

Analysis

cultural nd politicaldiscourse hat underlay nd

motivated hem. At

best, Rosenthal t

al.

treat hese

various

developments

n

their nalysis

as exogenous ariables.

On

the ide of

positional

ather hanrelational

nalysis,

he

early

work

ofHarrisonWhite nd his associates n blockmodeling

echniquesWhite

et

al. 1976; see also Boorman and White 1976) provides nother llumi-

nating xample of structuralisteterminism.9 hite's

research ncludes

studies

of network

ata

describing tructural hangesover time

White

et al.

1976, pp. 763-68); each of these studies,however like that

of

Rosenthal t al.), ultimatelyulminatesn a succession f static epresen-

tations f social structure.

ach manages, hat

s

to

say,

to

generate

no

modelsof processes ver time. Whiteet al. recognize hat transforma-

tions

n

social structuretillneed to

be

explained: Models of structure

are not

sufficientntothemselves. ventually ne mustbe able to show

how concrete ocial processes nd individual

manipulations hape and

are

shaped bystructure.... One fundamentalroblem ere

s

that

many

settingsmay

admit not

ust

a

single quilibrium utcome,

but

multiple

alternative quilibria. .

. In

turntheinteresting

uestionsmay

bear

on

what external

orcesmay

cause a social structure o

pass

from ne

equilibrium onfiguration

o

another

White

t al.

1976, p. 773; empha-

sis added). Toward the end of anothermportantrticle n blockmodel-

ing techniques nd role structures,White and his collaborators urther

acknowledge

hat the next

analytic

ask is

to provide

ways

to

probe

how

role structures

. .

actually ome ntobeing

Boorman nd White

1976, p. 1442). But again, theyprovideno systematic

ay

of

building

concern

or

human

agency

nd

processualityntotheir xplanations.

Another hortcominghatboth fthese xamples f

structuralisteter-

minism ave

in

common

s

theassumptionhat ocial networks an best

be

conceptualized

s

linking ogether

concrete ntities uch as

persons

and

organizations,

ather

than

as

also

embodyingdeals,

discursive

frameworks,

nd

cognitivemaps. The latter, rom heir

perspective,

remain mere abstractions. '0 tructuralist eterminism

ests analyti-

cally

on

a

reification f

social

relations;

t

transformshe

mportant

heo-

retical distinction etween a structure f social relations, n the one

hand,

and

cultural ormations,n theother, nto n

ontological ualism.

It thereby ruthlessly bstracts he formal r

objective

dimensions

of

social relations rom heir

ultural

nd

intersubjective

ontexts o as

to be able to representnd analyze such relationswithsophisticated

9

We

discussbelowtherather ifferent

nalytical erspective

hat

White

has

subse-

quently

dopted-e.g.,

in

Identity

nd

Control1992).

10

For a

telling xample, ee

Granovetter'synopsis f Cambridge niversityress's

series n

Structural nalysis

n

the

Social Sciences Knoke 1990,frontmatter).

142

7


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

19/45


technical ools;

n

the process,however, t drains uch relations

f

their

active, subjectivedimension nd their ultural ontents nd meanings.

To compound heproblem, hisvariant fnetwork nalysis hen heoreti-

cally privileges ne side of this dualism-namely, that of social rela-

tions tselfalbeit ocial relations ow blanched f boththeir ctive and

symbolic spects)-over that of cultural nd discursive ormations.

t

uses social networks social being,

n Marx's

famousformulation)o

explain social consciousness

nd

culture,

ut not

also)

the

otherway

around.

ndeed,

in

Wellman

nd

Berkowitz'swords

1988, p. 5), sym-

bols, meanings, nd values . .

.

are a derivative nd oftenresidual

concern.)

Structuralist

nstrumentalism

Perhaps because of its theoreticalimitations,tructuralisteterminism

has givenrise o relativelyittle mpirical esearch n historical rocesses.

Far more commonhas been

the

perspective f structuralistnstrumen-

talism,

which has also

been adopted by practitionersf both relational

and positional etwork nalysis.

This

perspective ertainlyakesthe his-

toricalrole

of

social actors

very arefully

ntoaccount.

However,

t also

draws mplicitly pon residual ategories rom utside ts ownconcep-

tual framework-in particular, model

of homo economicus-for ex-

plaining heformationnd transformationf social networks hemselves.

There s a strikingendency mong tructuralistnstrumentalists,n fact,

to

smuggle conceptions

f

agency

nto

their

nvestigations,

hether

overtly

r

covertly,

rom he domainof rational hoice

theory.Many,

f

not most,

uch

network nalysts ssume unproblematically

hat ctors-

individuals and even groups or organizations-are utility

maximizers

who

pursue

theirmaterial

nterestsn

money, tatus,

nd

power

n

pre-

cisely he ways predicted y

theorists f

rational

hoice.

n

effect,

hese

analystsprojecttheirown anticategoricalism

n the

actorsthey tudy,

neglecting ow the latter'sown cultural nd moral categorieshelp

to

structureheir

beliefs nd behaviors.

A

useful xample

of structuralistnstrumentalism

n

the

side

of

rela-

tional

analysis

are

Roger

Gould's aforementionedtudies

of the 1871

Paris Commune 1991, 1992). Gould begins by posit[ing]n influence

process

n

which a [Parisian]district's esistance evel

is a

function f

a

set of exogenousvariables and ofthe resistance evelsofall theother

districts,weighted y

the

strength

f

ts inkswiththem

Gould 1991,

p. 721; emphasis n original).He investigates hree such exogenous

variables that

help

to

explain

these

varying

evels

of

resistance:

1)

the

levels

of

poverty

n

an arrondisement;2)

the

percentage

f

skilled

ala-

riedworkers esiding herein; nd (3) thepercentage

f

white-collar,

id-

1428


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

20/45

Network

Analysis

dle-class mployees ocated nany specific eighborhoodGould 1991, p.

723). Resistancewas stronger,

oncludesGould, in areas that were

poor and working lass, althoughhis expectation hat white-collar

and unskilledworkerswouldplay ess prominentoles n the nsurrection

is not supported Gould 1991,

p. 725). Gould departs here fromhis

own

anticategorical pproach byrelying pon exogenous gradational

measures f poverty nd occupational omposition-in addition o social

networks-in order o make

sense of the mobilizationn each arrondise-

ment see also Gould 1992, p.

727).

Not

only

mustGould move from

elational o

gradational

ata

inorder

to identifyccurately he social base of the Paris Commune,but, more

troublingly,e neverprovides plausiblecausal account s to whyPari-

sians would have risked heir

ives for he Commune n the first lace.

At timeshe seems imply o

assume,dubiously n our view, thatworking

people or, at least, working-class

ales of 19th-centuryrance) would

automatically ight nd die for state representingheir lass interests.

He predicts, or xample, hat

white-collarmployees, who often ame

frommiddle-class amilies,would have been ess ikely hanartisans r

workers o

participate

n

the nsurrectionGould 1991,p. 724). As noted

above, this expectation s

unsupported y the data, an outcome that

Gould himselfneverexplains.At othertimes, Gould emphasizes the

importance

f

neighborhoodand cross-neighborhood)oyalty r solidar-

ity.

n

this account, he argues

that Parisians oined the nsurgency ot

because of

class interests er se, but rather ecause of social

pressure

fromneighbors: Failure to

participate n the nsurgent ffort as con-

strued

s a

betrayal f oyalty o the

neighborhood

nd was sanctioned

accordingly Gould 1992, p.

748).

This

argument, owever,

fails

to

explainwhy

or

how certain ies nd interactions

mongneighbors,

hich

Gould does

not

specify oncretely, enerated

uch

a

powerful eighbor-

hood loyalty n the first lace; it begs the questionas to how certain

(unspecified)

orkers

ame

to

believe,

and

apparentlymanaged

to con-

vince

others,

that

neighborhoodoyalty required nothing

ess than

risking

heir ives for

the Commune. Gould's

assumptions

bout

the

purely

nstrumental

oundations

f

political

mobilization-whether lass

or

status based-in the

present

tage

of his

research

revent

him

from

analyzing

uch cultural nd normative nfluences

n

a

fully atisfactory

manner.

Gould implies hat

simply elonging

o a

neighborhood

ith

a

certain ccupational ompositionand tiesto other uchneighborhoods)

producedpro-Commune

olidarities. ut why did such belongingness

generate owerful olidarity

nstead

of,

for

xample, nterpersonal

ndif-

Goulddoesnot aymuch bout he omplexlyenderedharacterf

he nsurgency,

simply oting hatwomenwerenot dmittednto heNationalGuard.

1429


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

21/45


ference r even

cutthroat ompetition,s amongthe oligarchic lique

in

Padgett nd Ansell's study?

We recognize hatGould'sworkhas thusfar ppeared only n ournal

articles nd that ater,more

expansiveversionsmightwell exemplify

differentortof explanatory trategy.

n

its present orm, owever,we

claim

that it does relatively ittle o

explore

the

specifically

ormative

commitments

f

the social actorsengaged

n

politicalresistance uring

the Commune.

The difficultyere

s not

that Gould

neglects culture

per se, but rather hat heunderlyingogicof hisargument-its theoreti-

cal

logic-fails to accord normative

ommitmentsny independent x-

planatory ignificance.)n a more omplete istorical xplanation,Gould

would have to direct ar moreattention han he does to thespecifically

cultural ases

of

cross-)neighborhoodolidaritynd their nfluencepon

individuals'projects f action.

Exactlywhat sorts f practices nd ritu-

als,

he

would need to ask, produced hepowerfulolidarities f Parisian

neighborhoodsnd the National Guard?Whatrole did political deolo-

giesand cultural iscourses lay n

sustaining r even expanding elations

of

solidarity?Gould mentions

he discourses

f socialism nd

of re-

publican patriotism

n

thiscontext, ut

he

neverexamines heirmean-

ingsto

workers

nd thus heir ausal

significance

n

any systematic ash-

ion.) And finally, hat do sources f nformationuch as diaries, etters,

union

records,

nd

journalistic ccounts

reveal

to us about

popular

cul-

tural

practices

n

19th-century

aris and

during he Commune tself?

(See, e.g.,

Sewell

1980]

nd the sources

ited

n

Edwards

1973, p. 175].)

Such

data

sources

would demonstrate ow

popularpractices

nd

popular

culture,

arfrom

eing

additional actors r forces

eeding o be either

controlled or or examined

alongside

of

network tructures, ere

in

fact

mportant

imensions f

those tructures

hemselves-grounded n,

and sustaining, pecific,dentifiableocialties.

On the side

of

positional nalysis,

PeterBearman

1993), too, adopts

the

perspective

f

structuralist

nstrumentalism.earman

tells

the

story

of

changing

lite

social relations

n

England during

he

long

sixteenth

century y

means of

a

sequence

of

blockmodel

epresentations

f

elite

social

structure.

y examining

hese

blockmodels,

e

specifies

the

slow

and arduous

processby

which

religious

eterodoxy

as embedded

n

the

fabricof

local elite social

and

political ife,

the

tangible

mechanisms

by

which ocal elitescame

to perceive hemselves nd others s actors

whose activitywas of religious ignificance Bearman 1993, pp. 171,

132). Bearman's approach s not

dissimilar

o

what Max Weber 1949)

long ago

termed he

analysis

of

electiveaffinity -the tudy

of

how

particular

discourses nd

culturalformations

ome to find a

match

and to

resonate with

specific istorically

mbedded ctors. Where

his

approach

differs

rom

hat

of

Weber,

however,

s in its

tacit nstrumen-

1430


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

22/45

NetworkAnalysis

talism-that is, tstendency o devote lmost ll

of ts nalytical ttention

to uncovering he structural reconditions or this elective affinity,

rather han to also exploring he ndependentausal significancef these

discursive rameworkshemselves. ndeed, Bearman

seems to attribute

littlemorethan purelymaterial nterestsinmoney, tatus, nd power)

to the historical ctors at the centerof his account. The eclipse of

localism, the decline of kinship, nd the emergence f a national elite

subworld, he argues, were aggregate utcomes

f the gentry's ursuit

of ocal

status

nd

power Bearman 1993, p.

3). The searchfor politi-

cal

advantage

was the

drivingmechanism,

n

otherwords,behindthe

crucial historical ransformationsf the

period-and

not (also) the be-

liefs, values, and normative ommitmentsf these elite actors them-

selves. Bearmanmightwellhave noted,

n

theopening age of

his

study,

that he

is primarilynvestigatingnly one side

of

the

interaction e-

tween

structural nd ideationalprocesses .

. the complexrelationship

between ction and structure

Bearman 1993,p. 1).

Structuralist

onstructionism

Several networknalystshave, inrecent ears,developedmore ophisti-

cated

approaches han these o studying istorical rocesses, pproaches

that

take

into account

culture

nd

agency

as well as social structure.

Again, practitionersf both relational nd positional

nalysishave pur-

sued such

nvestigations. ne revealing xample

f tructuralistonstruc-

tionism n the

side of

relational

nalysis

s

Doug

McAdam's recent

work

on Freedom

Summer

1986, 1988).

McAdam

explicitly

ejects

many

of

the

instrumentalistlaims

of

othernetwork nalysts.

He

qualifies

the

notion, specifically,

hat

structural vailability

for social

movement

participation enders attitudinal ffinity o a movement ompletely

irrelevant. uch a notionmighthold true of

low-risk/costctivism,

but

participation

n

nstances f

high-risk

ctivism

such

s

theFreedom

Summer

roject nd,

we

might dd,

theParis Commune nd the

English

Civil

War]

would

appear

to

depend

on an intense ttitudinal

nd

personal

identification ith

the

movement McAdam

1986, p. 73). Surely,high

levels of such

dentification ere required

or he FreedomSummer

ol-

unteers o

aspire

to

participate

n such a

demanding

nd

potentially

an-

gerousundertaking; oreover,hevolunteers' ccounts ftheir wn mo-

tives n

open-ended pplication uestionnaires

learly

demonstrate hat

they

elt

deep-seated

dealism nd a

strong

ommitmento the

project's

goals.

The

real

question

s:

Were

the volunteers'

rior

ttitudes

uffi-

cient

n

themselves o accountfor heir

articipation?

y

answer

here s

a

qualified

no.... Attitudinal

ffinityas

well

as] biographical

vailabil-

1431


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

23/45


itymustbe considered ecessary ut not ufficientauses of participation

in high-risk/costctivism McAdam 1986, pp. 73, 87).

Exactly where, then, did this attitudinal ffinity or the Freedom

Summer roject or, moregenerally, or ny social action) ctually

ome

from?One of McAdam's major nnovations n Freedom ummer 1988)

is to elaborate n implicit heory f identity onversion hat takes seri-

ously the formation f motivations nd identitieswithout acrificingt

all the moment f structuralocation. McAdam argues that the key

to his account ies

in

those

organizations

hat drew the

applicants

nto

civilrights ctivity eforereedomSummer.... Extremely isky, ime-

consuming

nvolvements

uch as

Freedom

Summer,

he

contends,

are

almost lways precededbya seriesofsafer, essdemandingnstances f

activism. n effect, eople commit hemselves o movementsn stages,

each

activity reparing

he

way

for

he

next

McAdam 1988, pp. 50-51;

emphasis

n

original).

ndividuals

irst

ome

nto

ontact

withmovement

participants

nd

engage

in

discussions

nd

joint

activitieswith

them,

confronting

irsthandhe

ssuesthat hemovement

as

set

out to address

and

gaining

n the

process deeperunderstanding

f

and moral

ommit-

ment o its goals. Then, eventually, at the

evel of

dentity, heybegin

to

'play

at'

and

[to] grow

more comfortable

ith the role of activists

themselves McAdam 1988, p. 51). Unlike many othernetwork na-

lysts,McAdam recognizes hat ctors an undergo ar-reachingrocesses

of

dentity ormation

n

the course ftheir nvolvements

n

extraordinary

affairs. uch an

insight

s

especially mportant

o bear

in mind when

analyzing

heir

participation

n

high-risk/cost

ctivities

uch as Free-

dom

Summer-or, for that matter,

n

any major social

or

political

movement.

In a recent ublication,McAdam concludes hat network heory ails

to offer

plausible

modelof ndividual ction nd therefore

convincing

mechanism ywhich nterpersonalontacts ndorganizationalmember-

ships

draw

individuals nto

activism

n

the first

lace (Friedman

and

McAdam 1992, p. 160). Friedman nd

McAdam claim

nstead hatnet-

work

theory

an

yield

robust

xplanations

f

collective ction

only

when

synthesized

ith

a

modified

ational

hoice

model of individual

ction,

one

that views collective dentities

and

not

ust

material

esources)

s

potentially owerfulncentives or action: One of themostpowerful

motivators f individual

action, theywrite,

is

the

desire

to

confirm

through ehaviora cherisheddentity.

.

. Integrationnto [activist]

networks

makes

t more

ikely

hat he

ndividualwill value the

dentity

of

'activist'

and choose

to

act

in

accordance with it

(Friedman

and

McAdam

1992, pp. 169-70).

It is our contention hat the distinctive

contribution f McAdam's work

is, indeed,

to

expand

the

concept

of

purposive ationality

tself o the

point

of

bursting hrough

he

seams of

1432


8/10/2019 Emir Bayer 2782580

24/45

Network

Analysis

standard

ational

hoice heory.t

is

historical ctors' pecifically orma-

tivecommitments,ather han or

n addition o) their ursuit fmaterial

goals,thateffectivelyrives heir ocial movement articipation.

If

there

s

a weaknesstoMcAdam's analysisof Freedom

Summer,

t

lies in his insufficientttention

o precisely his element f normative

commitmento cherisheddeals. In

one

of

their rticlesFernandez

and

McAdam

(1988)

notethatrecruitment

ontexts,

the residue f

a

protest

culture, ffected the number

nd

form

emir bayer 2782580

Documents