Relationalism and Social Networks (original) (raw)

Social network analysis is a methodology designed for the study of social relations, and relationalism is a theoretical framework based on the primacy of relations rather than actors. Clearly, what we have here is a match made in heaven! The elective affinities between these two schools of thought are strong and together they present an extremely promising framework for exploring the tangled, dynamic complexities that constitute social life. Yet, the embrace between the two has been somewhat half-hearted on both sides. And indeed, there are conceptual inconsistencies between relationalism and social network analysis that pose challenging theoretical problems with the potential to undermine the coherence of such a combined approach and have led researchers on both sides of the equation to shy away from each other. In the following, I consider some of the issues raised by combining relationalism and social network analysis, the latter of which carries its own theoretical baggage. It is consistent with the theoretical frameworks of both relationalism and social networks to suggest that the process of bridging across distinct actors, and all the inconsistencies and differences that are uncovered in such a process, is what makes relationships generative. The process of addressing or attempting to reconcile those differences produces new, potentially innovative combinations of elements and negotiated settlements. Thus, working through the inconsistencies raised by a relational network analysis may be the one of the more fruitful paths for further development of both relational theory and social networks analysis in the social sciences. Ultimately, I would argue that relationalism can be entirely consistent with social network analysis. It just suggests a certain type of networks analysis, one that is dynamic, open to contingency, and concerned