In this section, I first review the approaches that have been used to define social networks in the social movement literature. Second, I examine the impact of embedded and
detached social networks on identity construction and individual participation in collective action. And third, I investigate the consensus account of the relationship between social networks and culture, taking up the problem of whether kinship networks should even be considered relevant or useful.
Social movement scholars agree that networks influence individuals’ participation in collective action (Gould 1995; Heckathorn 1993; Kim and Bearman 1997; Marwell and Oliver 1993; McAdam and Paulsen 1993). In the literature I discuss below we see that
networks are referred to as collectives of enabling structures; relations between actors;
and, constructed meanings. As structures, networks have topographical dimensions such as a core, boundaries, depth, distance, and positionality. These dimensions situate individuals who are trying to affect others and to carry on appropriate social actions, presenting both resources and obstacles.
Knoke and Kuklinski (1982: 12) define networks as “a set of actors or, in the language of graph theory, nodes, connected by a specific type of relation.” These nodes, which represent relationships, typically build a sense of trust, reciprocity, solidarity, and cooperation through involvement in local communities and voluntary associations, as evident in Bellah’s (1985) Habits of the Heart. Similarly, Doug McAdam’s review (2003:
285) of structural analysis theory and its critics, considers three “structural facts associated with the origins of contention:” Recruits tend to know others who are involved, social movements develop mostly within established social settings, and emerging movements tend to spread out along established lines of interaction; all of which define social action within networks.
White (1992: 67), taking a communications-centered approach, sees social networks as “a network of meanings.” Passy (2003: 23) refines this approach by asserting that network ties “are imbued with stories.” She posits that “The social networks in which actors interact convey meanings (e.g. symbols, rituals, narratives) that build and solidify
identities and shape the actors’ cognitive frames, thereby enabling them to interpret social reality and to define a set of actions that involve them in this perceived reality” (Passy
2003: 23-4). Symbols and rituals that dignify the family also define individuals’ sense of their identity and cognitive frames. The theme that emerges from these operational definitions is that individuals take action within a frame of structures, encoding and encoded by meanings or relations that are socially embedded.
Regardless of the nature of these networks, scholars concur that there is a communicative aspect to networks. Networks are symbolic and relational, yet most of the times they are dynamic and changing. Scholars who have drawn these networks have found that a few structural features are important once these networks are given physical characteristics.
Diani’s (2002) research on networks, which uses a typology based on the distinction between two important dimensions of networks, one of which is defined by the degree of centralization, and the other of which opposes reticulate and segmented networks, gives us reasons to take these parameters of the network structure as important to the social movement’s relationship to power. According to Diani (2002), as structures, networks contain cores and boundaries and individuals occupy differential positions along various cores and boundaries of certain networks. Individuals who may be traced to dense overlaps of networks have stronger connectivity than others with limited connectivity, or what Durkheim has coined as social integration. Connection produces the ability to influence and interact with more people as demonstrated by social movements theorists like Klandermans (1997), Morris (1984), and Snow Zurcher, and Elkand-Olson (1980).
Diani also introduces the concept of betweenness, which measure whether the actor is
“located in an intermediate position on the paths connecting other actors” or whether two
actors are directly connected (Diani 2002: 188). This betweenness represents the overlap of various networks. Whether an individual occupies the core of one network but the falls on the boundaries of other networks, is less important than the actor’s ability to utilize these networks to build their relational structures (Putnam 1993: 88). In Putnam’s opinion, relational structure may be horizontal, and translate into reciprocity and cooperation; or vertical and dictate authority and dependency. Take the family as an explanatory illustration of how actors benefit from networks’ communicative aspects according to their position in the core, within boundaries or in-between networks (per Diani). A woman may occupy the core of her nuclear family that consists of her husband, children and herself. She might be on the boundaries of her parents’ network and her in-laws’ network. Her position in her parents’ network might be more central than in hers with her in-laws. She is also between the two networks of parents and in-laws, noting that both networks can be characterized as vertical relational structures. However, her
relationship with her extended cousins and relatives, which we can assume to be more horizontal, is contingent upon how involved she is with them. Hence, the physical characteristics of her networks define certain features of her agency by those who are positioned within the network.
New social movement and resource mobilization scholars have been especially interested in social networks mechanisms which influence individuals. While the first group is interested in how networks help shape actors’ collective identity, the second group treats networks as a resource. Nonetheless, both groups believe that, embeddedness in
“preexisting networks” (Gamson 1990)has an impact on actors’ decision and
participation in collective action (Diani 2002; Fernandez and McAdam 1989), as that very participation reflects a social choice that is itself “deeply embedded in daily
interaction” (Gusfield 1994: 68). And that close embeddedness in social networks pushes
“prospective members to the highest level of participation” (Passy 2003: 41).