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: 06/11/2013 13:48

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 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

This content downloaded from 128.227.214.253 on Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:48:55 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
NetworkAnalysis: A Reappraisal'
byJEREMYBOISSEVAIN
Department ofEuropean-Mediterrantean Studies,Universityof
Amsterdam, Sarphatistraat106A, Amsterdam,The Nether-
lands.3 iv 78
Since the networkrevivalin anthropologyin the late 1960s
(Barnes 1968,1969; Boissevain1968; Mitchell1969), therehas
been ever increasinginterestin the field.There have been at
least a dozen conferencesand symposia,a floodof articlesand
discussionpapersby anthropologists, and political
sociologists,
scientists,a computerizedbibliographywithalmost 1,000 en-
tries(Freeman1975), the collectionand consolidationof com-
puterprogrammes, and, to crownthisinterdisciplinary
activity,
theestablishment of theInternationalNetworkforSocial Net-
work Analysisand the journal Social Networks.How is the
enthusiasmfornetworkanalysisto be explained?Barnes(1954)
and Bott (1957) planted the conceptsin the mid-1950s,but
theyonlysproutedinto substantialgrowth15 yearslaterand
now threatento becomean impenetrable jungle.
NETWORK AND THEORY
The enthusiasmfornetworkanalysisis related-toand part of
the theoreticalshiftin thesocial sciencesaway fromthestruc-
tural-functional analytical frameworkwhich dominatedan-
thropology, sociology,and politicalsciencein Britainand the
United States forthe past 30 years.This is obviouslynot the
place to explorethereasonsand dimensions ofthismethodologi-
cal and paradigmaticshift(cf. Boissevain 1974, 1975,among
others).I can only discuss the appeal that networkanalysis
has had foranthropology, althoughI suspectthatsimilarcon-
siderationshave also influencedsociologistsand political
scientists.
Networkanalysisopened a door to permitthe entryof in-
teractingpeopleengagedin actionsthatcouldalterand manip-
ulate the institutionsin whichtheyparticipated.This intro-
duceda new dimensionintotheself-regulating structural-func-
tionaledificeofformalgroups,systems,and moralorderwhich
was seen as impinging
upon people,socializingthem,moulding
theircharacter,and determining
theirbehaviour.In anthro-
pology the workof Firth (1951), Leach (1954), and some of
Gluckman'sstudents(Turner1957,Van Velsen 1964) had led
to a growingconcernwithpeople and theirrelationsto the
institutions
whichweresupposedto dominatethem.Network
analysisprovidedan analyticalframework fordata at a lower
levelofabstractionthantheinstitutional
complex.It was more
down-to-earth. Moreover,it also providedapparently"hard"
data whichcould be plottedand even computerized.
This last
has particularlyappealed to sociologists,who, more than an-
thropologists, seem to revelin data thatcan be quantifiedand
fittedintoelaborateformulae,therebyseemingto supporttheir
claim to being considereda hard science. Networkanalysis
has also appealed to thosewhohave soughtto plot and analyze
the manipulationof powerbrokers,leaders,and coalitionsas
theyseek to further theirinterestsand in so doingbringabout
or block developmentof the groups,institutions,
and society
of whichtheyformpart. Finally,and morerecently,network
analysishas providedsocial scientistsworkingin citieswitha
toolwhichenablesthemto deal withtherelationbetweenface-
to-faceinteractionand institutionsin an extremelycomplex
1 This paper was presentedto the conference"Mathematical Ap-
proachesin Social NetworkAnalysis,"held at the Werner-Reimers- social relations.It is only throughfocusingon such outward
Stiftung,Bad Homburg,Federal RepublicofGermany,March 17-19,
1977 (Hummeland Ziegler1977). Earlier versionswerepresentedto
seminarsat the universitiesof Toronto,York, and Amsterdam.I am
gratefulto them for their hospitalityand discussion,to Hannie
Hoekstra for convertingword into print,and to Rod Aya, Norm
Shulman,and MarilouDreightonforcommenting on thefinalversion. impededsocial analysis in complexsocieties.
392
This content downloaded from 128.227.214.253 on Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:48:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
social field(Wellman1976,Shulman1976). In short,network
analysishas promisedto providea releasefromsome of the
constraintsof structural-functional analysis. It has conse-
quently appealed to differentsocial scientistsfor varying
reasons.
Networkanalysis,whilenot a theory,has theoreticalimpli-
cations.It is an analyticalinstrument whichviews circlesof
relativesand friends,coalitions,groupsand businesshouses,
industrialcomplexes,and even nation-statesas scatteringsof
pointsconnectedby lines that formnetworks.The pointsare
of coursethe unitsof analysis,the lines social relations.Net-
workanalysisasks questionsabout who is linkedto whom,the
contentof the linkages,the patternthey form,the relation
betweenthe patternand behaviour,and the relationbetween
thepatternand othersocietalfactors.This has theoreticalim-
plicationsin that it formspart of a paradigmaticshiftaway
fromstructural-functionalism. The failureto recognizethese
theoretical implicationsand to providea consistenttheoretical
framework withinwhichnetworkanalysiscan be used has re-
sultedin a sterileoverelaboration of classificationand defini-
tion,in short,a methodological involution(cf.Kapferer1973:
167). By linkingnetworkanalysisto theoreticalassumptions,
bothKapfererand Boissevainhave attemptedto movebeyond
the butterfly-collector'spreoccupationwith classification and
technique,as represented, at leastin anthropology, by Barnes's
recentwork(1968, 1969, 1972), into the realmof ideas (Kap-
ferer1969, 1972, 1973; Boissevain 1974; forfurther discussion
of the relationof networkanalysisto theory,see Whittenand
Wolfe 1974,Mitchell 1974). The most fruitful theoreticalas-
sumptionsat presentappear to be derivedfromexchangeand
(trans)actiontheory.Even withoutexplicitconsiderationof
basic theoreticalassumptions,however,networkanalysisis a
powerfultoolforsocial scientistsseekingto further theirunder-
standingof social behaviourand processes.
WHAT NETWORK ANALYSIS CAN AND CANNOT Do
As an adjunct or complementto other researchtechniques,
networkanalysishas at least ten importantvirtues:
1. Networkanalysisfocusessystematicattentionon inter-
linkagesbetweenunits of analysis. These interlinkages may
be outwardlinksbetweenindividualsand betweengroups;they
mayalso be inwardlinks,settingout theinterrelations between
membersof a groupor otherunitof analysis.
2. By focusingsystematically on therelationsbetweenunits
of analysis,networkanalysishighlights theirinterdependency.
In fact,this interdependency and its consequencesforsocial
action are assumptionsunderlying the networkapproach.The
configurations of interlinked,and thereforeinterdependent,
personsand groupsare thus taken into account in tryingto
predictbehaviour.By systematically tracingall interlinkages
betweenunits of analysis,one eliminatesprior assumptions
and therefore biases in favourof particulartypesof relations.
Kinsmen, neighbours,and friendsare not singled out and
viewedin isolationfromotherrelations.
3. The focuson interlinkage and interdependency provides
a framework withinwhichit is verydifficult to separatemicro-
frommacro-analytical levelsand partfromwhole.Amongother
things,thenetwork approachdevelopstheviewofa socialfieldor
ofa societyas a network ofnetworks. Whilethisis metaphorical-
for a city or nation-stateis obviously more than simplya
networkof networks-networkanalysis does force upon the
social investigator pathwaysthat lead away frommicro-units
of analysis.These last are therefore placed in a widerfieldof
links that Wolf (1956), for example,developedthe concepts
necessaryto understandthe relationbetweendifferent levelsof
integration in the
same society,thus breaking down the arti-
ficialboundariesbetween part and whole that had hitherto
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
 4. Networkanalysis focusesnot only on interlinkage, but
also on the contentof the relations.In otherwords,the first
plot of a networkof relationsprovidesa systematicblueprint
forfurther investigation into theircontent.
5. Networkanalysis,by also focusingupon content,sensi-
tizestheinvestigator to theinherenttensionin social relations
betweenpersonswhohave differential access to resourceswhich
affectpowerchances.The way in whichnetworkanalysisac-
cents thisinherenttensionand asymmetry in social relations
is an antidoteto the structural-functional preoccupationwith
consensus,order,balancedopposition,and harmony.
6. Networkanalysis,thus,by providinga systematicframe-
workforanalyzingtensionand asymmetry in social relations,
sensitizesthe investigatorto the inherentdynamicsin such
relations.Since such relationsare part of groups as well as
institutionalcomplexes,the social investigatoris alerted to
the dynamicnatureof societyand to the humandimensionof
such dynamism.Changes are thus perceivedas inherentin
personalrelationsand hencein society.This again is an anti-
dote to thestructural-functional assumptionofequilibrium.
7. Networkanalysisalso gets away fromthe piecemealor
institutionalapproach. By charting,for example,a person's
networkof intimatesor the networkactivated by an action
set or that of a politicianmobilizingvotes, networkanalysis
movesbeyondthe traditionof limitinganalysisto discretein-
stitutionalspheressuch as economics,politics,or, especially
foranthropologists, kinship.Networkanalysiscuts across the
conceptualbarriersof an institutional approach.
8. By its focus on interrelation, interdependency, and in-
teraction,networkanalysisalso makes it possibleto deal with
formsof social organizationthatemergefrominteraction, such
as patron-client chains,leader-follower coalitions,cliques,fac-
tions,cartels,and othertemporaryalliances at various social
levels. These formsof social organizationin the recentpast
weregenerallyignoredor relegatedto interstitial, peripheral, or
residualcategoriesof social analysis(Boissevain 1968). It will
be obviousthat thereare formsof social organizationthe un-
derstandingof which is essential to the comprehensionof
manylargeand smalleventsin thelivesofpersonsand groups.
9. Networkanalysisprovidesa way of relatingformal,ab-
stractsociologicalanalysisto everydayexperience,forit links
interpersonal relationsto institutions.It thushumanizessocial
analysisby reintroducing "people," as opposed to "roles,"and
theirchoicesand actions into the streamof events that con-
stituteshistory.
10. Finally,networkanalysisbringsinto sharp sociological
focusthedifficult analyticalcategoryoffriends-of-friends, those
personswho lie just beyondthe researcher'shorizonbecause
theyare not in directcontactwithhis informants.
These, then,are some of the thingsthat networkanalysis
can do. There are also thingsthatit cannotdo.
Whilenetworkanalysiscan help plot the directionand con-
centrationof immigrants and the locationof industry,forex-
ample,used alone it cannotdeal withthe social processesthat
bringabout immigration and industrialization. In otherwords,
it cannotdeal withthe social forcesunderlying long-term pro-
cesses. Nor can it deal adequatelywith the impactof educa-
tional reform, land distribution, morerightsforwomen,etc.,
or with culture,cognition,or the social forcesderivingfrom
economicactivity.These dimensionsare essentialfora com-
plete understandingof social behaviour and developments.
Networkanalysisalone cannotprovidethem.Used alongside
otherresearchmethodsand formsof conceptualization, how-
ever,it can provideimportantadditionaldimensions.
THlE FUTURE OF NETWORK ANALYSIS
Networkanalysishas an importantfuture.Researchershave
alreadydemonstratedthatit is usefulforgaininginsightinto
urban-ruralcontrasts,male-femalerelationships,the relative
Vol. 20 * No. 2 * June 1979
This content downloaded from 128.227.214.253 on Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:48:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
importanceof kinshipin complexsocieties,the ways in which
leadersrecruitand manipulatesupport,and the way in which
gossip is circulated.It has been used to combat organized
crime,to delineatetheoverlappingpositionsfromwhichpower
is exercisedthroughinterlocking directorships,and to examine
many otherproblems.Networkanalysis can also be used to
learnmoreabout class and interclassrelations,interethnic re-
lations, the ramification of multinationals,and the way in
whichsocialmilieuaffectsmentalhealth.Yet it has made little
contribution to thesefields.
Networkanalysishas not realizedits potentialfora number
of reasons.Amongthese are an overelaborationof technique
and data and an accumulationof trivialresults.Basically,net-
workanalysisis very simple: it asks questionsabout who is
linkedto whom,thenatureofthatlinkage,and how thenature
of the linkageaffectsbehaviour.These are relativelystraight-
forwardquestions,the resolutionof whichis fairlysimple.For
variousreasons,theyhave givenriseto an arsenalof concepts,
terms,and mathematicalmanipulationsthat terrifies potential
users.Anthropologists, sociologists,and politicalscientistshave
borrowedheavily-fartoo heavily,in myopinion-frommathe-
maticalgraphtheory.As a result,theyare in veryreal danger
ofsuffocation bythejargon,theory, and techniquesdevelopedto
resolvequitedifferent problemsin anotherdiscipline.To present
theanthropologist interestedin politicalmobilizationwiththis
arsenal is like givinga do-it-yourself programmefornetwork
analysisand a computerterminalto a fisherman who merely
wishesto explainto his son how to unravelhis tanglednet.
The batteryof techniqueswithwhichsocial scientistshave
equipped themselvesto answerthe limitedquestionsthat net-
work analysis can resolveproducesoverkill.Flies are killed
withdynamite.Certainly,the help of statisticaland computer
specialistsis neededifthenumbersofinformants and variables
make hand computationproblematic.Most calculations,how-
ever,have to do withsimplenosecountingand cross-tabulation.
Neitherthe questionsasked northe typeand reliabilityof the
data normallywarrantthe use of the techniquesand concepts
whichhave reachedus fromgraphtheory.As enthusiasticnet-
workpractitioners strivetowardsevergreaterrigour,network
analysisrisksbecomingfurtherremovedfromhumanlifeand
boggeddown ever deeperin the swampof methodological in-
volution(Hannerz 1975:27; Leeds 1972:5; Sanjek 1974:596;
Ottenberg1971:948; Kapferer1973:167).
The seconddangerfacingnetworkanalysisis thatthosewho
have chosen to use this methodof researchtend to trivialize
its results.As Sanjek has remarked,"One does not studynet-
works;one uses networkmethodsto answeranthropological
questions"(1974:589). Far too muchoftheresearchnowbeing
done on networkslacks any clearformulation of theproblems
it seeks to resolve. Networksare comparedwith regard to
density,size,and even composition, muchin thewaybutterfly-
collectorscompare the colouring,wingspread,and number
of spotsof theirfavouritespecies.Trivialbut extremely costly
resultsbased on samplesof thousandsare put forwardwith
greatsolemnityby sociologists.Thus we learn that if you ask
severalhundredpersonsto name a fewpersonsoutside their
householdwithwhomtheyhave close relationships, theseturn
out typicallyto be kin and friends.Other studieshave dis-
coveredthataffective relationschangeovertime.Is thisnews?
What is the social or theoreticalsignificance of these "scien-
tific"discoveries?We are left,too often,to drawour own con-
clusions.My conclusionis thatmanyof the studiespresented
by enthusiasticnetworkanalystsseem merelyto confirmthe
popularlyheld view that sociologyis the disciplinewhichsets
out theobviousat greatcost in an unintelligible language.The
concernwith method,classification, and networks-as-things-
in-themselves, ratherthan with the ideas and problemsthat
thepractitioners are attempting to solve,characterizes notonly
theresultsbut also, alas, theway in whichthoseresultsare re-
viewed.For example,Barnes's review(1974) of Boissevainand
393
Mitchell(1973) is exclusivelyconcernedwithterminology and
technique,while Sanjek's (1974) also examinesthe problems
withwhichthe analystsattemptedto deal.
It is becomingincreasingly obvious that if anthropologists
and sociologistscontinueto view networkanalysisas a special
fieldof inquiry,and if thosewho use it continueto encourage
thisview,it willrapidlybecomeoverlytechnicaland its results
progressivelytrivial (Sanjek 1974:596). Networkanalysis is
a researchinstrument whichcan help resolvecertainsocial and
theoreticalproblems.It must not become an esotericend in
itselfwhose practitionerscan communicateonly with each
otherabout scientificpuzzles of interestonlyto themselves.If
those who have used networkanalysis considerthat it can
providevaluable insights,let themdemonstratethis to their
scepticalcriticsby makingtheirresultsand methodsrelevant
and understandable.Conferencesof network"specialists,"a
journal,and a special societyto cater to theirneeds are dis-
turbingsignsof an involutionwhichwill ultimatelyresultin
networkanalysis's joining the dodo, Neanderthalman, and
sociometry as an extinctspecies.
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 technicalcom-
menton connectednessand connectivity.Sociology3:215-32.
1972. Social networks.
Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
1974. Review of: Networkanalysis,edited bv J. Boissevain
and J. Clyde Mitchell (The Hague: Mouton, 1973). Man 9:
497-99.
BOISSEVAIN, JEREMY. 1968. The place of non-groupsin the social
sciences.Man 3:542-56.
1974. Friendsoffriends:Networks,manipulatorsand coali-
tions.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
BOISSEVAIN, JEREMY, and J. CLYDE MITCHELL. Editors. 1973. Net-
workanalysis:Studiesin humaninteraction. The Hague: Mouton.
Continuities
andChangein Tropical
SavannaEnvironments
byDAVID R. HARRIS
Department of Geography, University CollegeLondon,Gower
St., LondonWC1E 6BT, England.14 x 78
Between the equatorial rain forestsand the perenniallydry
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 diversityof human
societieswithinthe tropics.Perhapsbecauseof theirgreateco-
logical and social diversity,they are seldom perceivedas a
geographicalentity,and theyhave attractedless scholarlyat-
tentionthan eitherthe desertsor the rain forests.It was to
help redressthis imbalancethat a Wenner-GrenFoundation
conferencewas held at Burg WartensteinAugust4-13, 1978,
on the theme"Human Ecologyin Savanna Environments."
The purposeof the conference was to examinein worldwide
comparativeperspectivethe ways in whichpast and present
humanpopulationshave adapted to and made use of tropical
savanna environments.Comparative examination of this
themewould,it was hoped,yield improvedunderstanding of
theecologicaland socioeconomic changestakingplace in savan-
394
This content downloaded from 128.227.214.253 on Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:48:55 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
BOTT, ELIZABETHI. 1957. Familyand socialnetwork. London: Tavi-
stock.
FIRTH, RAYMOND.1951. Elementsof social organization.London:
Watts.
FREEMAN, LINTONC. 1975. A bibliography ofsocial networks.
Depart-
mentof Social Relations,Lehigh University.
HANNERZ, ULF. 1975. Thinkingwith networks.MS, Departmentof
Social Anthropology, Universityof Stockholm.
HUMMEL,HANS J.,and ROLF ZIEGLER.Editors. 1977. Anwendung
mathematischer Verfahren zur A nalysesocialerNetzwerke. Duisberg:
Sozialwissenschaftlichen Kooperative.
KAPFERER,BRUCE.1969. "Norms and the manipulationof relation-
ships in an Africanfactory,"in Social relationsin urbansituations.
Edited by J. Clyde Mitchell,pp. 181-244.Manchester:Manchester
UniversityPress.
-. 1972. Strategyand transactionin an Africanfactory.Man-
chester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
. 1973. "Social networkand conjugal role in urban Zambia:
Toward a reformulation of the Bott hypothesis,"in Networkanal-
ysis. Edited by J. Boissevain and J. Clyde Mitchell,pp. 269-80.
The Hague: Mouton.
LEACH, E. R. 1954. Politicalsystems ofhighlandBurma.London: Lon-
don School of Economics.
LEEDS, ANTHONY. 1972. Urban anthropologyand urban studies.
UrbanAnthropology Newsletter 1:4-5.
MITCHELL, J. CLYDE. 1969.Social networks in urbansituations.Man-
chester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
-. 1974. Social networks.Annual Reviewof Anthropology 3:
279-99.
OTTENBERG, SIMON. 1971. Review of: Social networks in urbansitua-
tions,by J. Clyde Mitchell (Manchester: ManchesterUniversity
Press, 1969). AmericanAnthropologist 73:946-48.
SANJEK, ROGER. 1974. What is networkanalysisand what is it good
for?Reviewsin Anthropology 1:588-97.
SHULMAN, NORMAN. 1976. Networkanalysis: A new addition to an
old bag of tricks.Acta Sociologica19(4).
TURNER, U. W. 1957. Schism and continuity in an Africansociety.
Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress.
VAN VELSEN, J. 1964. Thepoliticsofkinship.Manchester:Manchester
UniversityPress.
WELLMAN, BARRY. 1976. Urban connections. Centre for Urban and
CommunityStudies and Departmentof Sociology,Universityof
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.Aspectsofgrouprelationsin a complexsociety:
Mexico. AmericanAnthropologist 58:1065-78.
na nationstoday. Human occupationof the savannas reaches
back manymillenniain Africa,Asia, Australia,and theAmeri-
cas, duringwhichtime diverseways of life evolved in these
environments; but todaypatternsof resourceuse are changing
rapidlyas establishedsystemsof pastoralismand cultivation
are beingmodifiedand replacedby commercialranchingand
by large-scaleprojectsof agriculturaland industrialdevelop-
ment.Many of thesechangesare takingplace in nation-states
thatareexperiencing rapidpopulationgrowthand urbanization
while enduringpersistenthazards of droughtand endeKiic
disease.Analysisofthecapacityof savannaecosystemsto sup-
port morepeople and to sustainnew modes of land use is a
prerequisiteforsuccessfuldevelopment.
The conferencebroughttogethera groupwhoseexperience
spannedthe tropicalcontinentsand whoseexpertisefellwithin
thefieldsofarchaeology, anthropology,botany,economics,epi-
demiology, geography, nutrition,
physiology,and zoology.The
firstquestionaddressed-and quicklydisposedof-by partici-
pantswas thedefinition ofsavannaenvironments. A necessarily
arbitraryclimaticdefinition proposedby the organizerin his
preconference paper was acceptedas settingbroadlimitswithin
whichgradientsof environmental variationwere recognized.
Thus theIntermediate Tropicalor SavannaZone can be defined
as thatpart of the tropicalworldthat experiencesa dryseason
of2.5 to 7.5 months'duration.Its commonclimaticdenomina-
tor is the occurrenceof a winterdryseason that checksplant
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY