Machine Translated by Google

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL NETWORK

Felix Requena Santos

Malaga University

SUMMARY. It is about establishing a clear definition of the concept of social network,

conceiving it not metaphorically, but from an analytical point of view. That is, understood
as a set of points (social actors) linked by a series of relationships that meet certain
properties. Social networks have their own structure and morphology, whose qualities,
such as the possibility of quantifying relationships and their subsequent mathematical
treatment, show important applications for the analysis and interpretation of social
behaviors. This work shows some of the many applications that this path of analysis
allows.

Introduction

The metaphorical image of a network has often been used to refer to a

complex series of interrelationships within a social system. The figure of
"network of social relations" in certain social structures has been used in a
multitude of sociological and anthropological writings throughout the history of
these disciplines. However, this use had a simply metaphorical meaning and
was very different from the concept of a social network as a series of links
between a defined set of social actors.
The characteristics of these links as a whole have the property of providing
interpretations of the social behavior of the actors involved in the network.

Reis
48/89 pp. 137-152
Machine Translated by Google

FÉLIX REQUENA SANTOS

In the second half of the 1950s , some British anthropologists * carried out field
studies in which they rigorously used the concept of social network , giving it a heuristic
value. But it has been during the past decade that network analysis has gained greater
interest within disciplines such as sociology or anthropology2 . Initiating, in numerous
universities in the English-speaking world, lines of research coinciding with the most
diverse applications of network analysis .

However, it is surprising that there is practically not a single article or book in

Spanish that is interested in this type of analysis, which in other places has proven to be
applicable, and to respond to key relational questions in the study of countless social
situations. Network analysis is susceptible to application in the most diverse specialties,
from political and electoral sociology to the sociology of work , through the analysis of the
structure of formal organizations, or the sociology of business. Hence the purpose of
this article, to try to introduce some
3 consumption

defining ideas about the concept of social network .

The concept of social network, from an analytical point of view, is closer to J. Moreno
4
's idea of sociogram than to Radcliffe Brown 's idea when he defined social structure
as " the network of relationships . "
5
existing among the people involved in a society" using the notion . The latter was
of "network" in a vague and imprecise sense , and not in an analytical way. The interest
in radically separating these two uses of the term network is that if it is considered in an
analytical way, then describing the nodes of a network as people or groups implies that
the existing links (unions between nodes) between them fulfill a series of properties that

1
See JA BARNES, “ Class and committees in a Norwegian Island Parish”, Human
Relations, vol. 7, 1954, pp. 39-58, and by E. BOTT, Family and social network works, New
York, Free Press, 1971 (2nd ed.), where the concept of network is used for the first time in
a systematic and analytical way.
2
An example of the interest aroused by this type of relational analysis has been the
creation, in 1978, of the International Network for Social Networks Analysis, and its two
journals , Connections and Social Networks.
5
See, for example, K. COOK and RM EMERSON et al . , “The distribution of power in
exchange networks: Theory and experimental results ,” American Sociological Review, vol.
89, September 1983, pp. 275-305; M. GRIECO, Keeping it in the family: Social networks and
Employment change, London, Tavistock Publications, 1986; RD ALBA and G. MOORE,
"Elite and social circles", in RS BURT and MJ MINOR, Applied network analysis, Beverly
Hills (Calif.), Sage, 1983; D. SNYDER and EL KICK, «Struc tural position in the world
system and economic growth, 1955-1970: a multiple network analysis of transnational
interactions», American Journal of Sociology, vol. 84, 1979, pp. 1096-1126, among others.
4
Although the notion of social network is similar in some aspects to that of sociogram,
they have focused their attention, almost exclusively, on the phenomenon of leadership
election and training . However , network analysis extends its application to the interpretation
of the behavior of actors involved in a wide variety of social situations . See, for example,
his Fundamentals of Sociometry, México, Paidós, 1940.
5
Structure and conjunction in primitive society, Barcelona, Peninsula, 1974 (2nd ed.), pp.
218-228.

138
Machine Translated by Google

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL NETWORK

They impact the different aspects of social relations between the actors in the network.
Such are the intensity of the relationship, the position of the actor, the accessibility of
an actor with respect to others, etc. Properties that define the function or functions of a
social network. While the metaphorical use simply encourages us to see a certain
structure as an interrelated and interconnected system, which is already implicit within
the concept of structure. Therefore, the simple metaphorical use of the word "network"
is quite poor or of very little use from the point of view of social analysis.

The idea of a network, as we want to use it here, is largely taken from the
mathematical theory of graphs. In this theory , a series of points linked by a series of
relationships that meet certain properties is called a network . That is, one node in the
network is linked to another by a line that shows the direction and meaning of the link.
As Flament6 points out, this relationship can be all or nothing, and symmetrical:
between two points , there is a line or there is not. The relationship can be oriented:
between two points A and B there can be an arrow from A to B, or an arrow from B to
A, or a line without any arrow head or nothing. Two points there can be multiple types
7
of relationships represented by different graphs: these multigraphs are used . Between

when two points are related to more than one link of a different nature.

A network in graph theory is a set of relationships in which the lines that connect
the different points have a specific value, whether numerical or not. This possibility of
quantifying a link is one of the qualities that may be of greatest interest to sociology. In
his study of the parishioners of the Norwegian islands, it approximately
8
The concept of social network introduced by Barnes agrees with the
definition and properties that graph theory has stated. Although this mathematical
theory is not restrictive to finite networks, however, in sociology, for pragmatic reasons,
it is normally necessary to work with an identifiable set of actors (people, groups, etc.)
and the relationships that exist between them. In network analysis, not as much
attention is paid to the attributes of the actors that are in the network as to the links that
relate

6
Communication networks and group structures, Buenos Aires, Nueva Visión, 1977.
7
Arrows are used to describe non-symmetrical relationships.
8
This anthropologist was the first to define the concept of network in an analytical
sense . His definition was as
follows: 'Each person is, so to speak, in contact with a certain number of other
people , some of whom are in contact with each other and some of whom are not.
I think it is convenient to call a social field of this type a network . The image I have
is of a network of points, some of which are joined by lines. The points in this
image will sometimes be people and other times groups, and the lines would
indicate who interacts with each other.
In op. cit., p. 43.

139
Machine Translated by Google

FÉLIX REQUENA SANTOS

with each other, to give a possible explanation of the behavior of the actors involved in
the network9 .

Structure and morphology of social networks

The concept of social network, as it is intended to be defined here, has particular

qualities and structure, which make it very operational when analyzing certain relational
structures.
of network structures, Numerous authors have contributed to the internal analysis
distinguishing some important qualities within it. The main appreciation that must be
taken into consideration in a social network is the position that a social actor occupies
n
within the network structure. Not all positions are equal, or even equivalent. Referring
to this position, the greater or lesser possibility of action of a given actor will be
determined. Turning again to the topological structure of graphs, we can distinguish, a
priori, two levels of positions: central positions and peripheral positions. There is no
doubt that the concepts of centrality and periphery are relative to each other. Therefore,
12
the correct thing would be to talk about more or less central positions, and more or
less peripheral positions depending on the location of the rest of the actors in the
network. Following Linton Freeman, we can say that a position is more central or more
peripheral, respectively, as the number of points adjacent to a given position increases
or decreases. The centrality, both of a specific position and of a network as a whole,
can be quantified. Thus, C. Flament defines the centrality of a position as the quotient
between the sum of all the distances that separate each point from the others and the
sum of the distances of the considered position. And the centrality index of the entire
network will be the sum of the centrality indexes of all the positions that

make up the network

13
.
The concept of position is very important for two reasons: first, it helps simplify the
analysis as the level of complexity of the network increases; and, secondly, it has
14
proven to be an important factor
9
J. Clyde MITCHELL, "The concept and use of social networks", in the book, edited
by himself, Social networks in urban situations, Manchester, Manchester University Press,
1969,
10
pp. 1-50.
See RS BURT and MJ MINOR (eds.), Applied network Analysis, Beverly Hills
(Calif.), Sage, 1983; PV MARSDEN and N. LIN (eds.), Social structure and network
analysis, Beverly Hills (Calif.), Sage, 1982, and D. KNOKE and JH KUKLINSKI Network
analysis, Beverly Hills (Calif.), Sage, 1982.
We must understand the position of the actor as his location within a
eleven

any12network.
LC FREEMAN, «Centrality in social networks. I. Conceptual clarification», Social
Networks,
13
vol. 1, 1979, pp. 215-239.
Op. cit., pp. 58-62.
14
KS COOK, RM EMERSON et al., op. cit.

140
Machine Translated by Google

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL NETWORK

important in the behavior of actors in exchange networks, since in a certain way

it determines the degree of autonomy or dependence of an actor with respect to
others. The positions of actors in a social network determine the “opportunity
structure” of an actor with respect to the ease of accessing the resources of
other actors in the network. Thus, if in a network each actor has resources that
the rest of the actors value, and each link (in the case of graphs, lines) represents
the opportunity to access those valued resources, then a network structure
represents a structure of opportunity, in this case of exchange between the
actors of the network. These structures determine the behavior of the actors. A
typical case of application of this type of networks is to the study of power
attributions, which varies directly depending on the position that the actor
occupies in an opportunity structure. The results of the experiments determine
that power is a function of position in the network.

fifteen

Regarding the morphology of the networks, Mitchell distinguishes four

morphological elements in social networks: anchoring or location of the network,
accessibility, density and range. And with respect to the characteristics of the
interaction processes, the content of the relationship, its directionality, duration,
intensity and frequency can be distinguished. Below we will analyze each of
these characteristics.

Anchorage or location of the network [anchorage]. Some authors, such as

JA Barnes and E. Bott, when they refer to the concept of social network, are
thinking of a mesh of links that extend, branching throughout an entire community
or organization. This idea is fine to refer to total social networks, but it is more
useful to locate the social network around certain social actors, limiting the
network in a certain way. Thus, normally, a network has to be drawn from some
initial point or actor.
That is, it must be anchored to a reference point. For example, when a young
person decides to gather the advice necessary to obtain his or her first job, he
or she will probably begin by obtaining information from relatives and their
friends who are in a position to provide such information regarding a job. or
even access to a job.
The binding network, in this case, will have to extend from their relatives and
friends to the young person entering the job market.
The anchoring point of a network is normally determined by some specific actor,
whose behavior we want to interpret.

Accessibility [reachability]. This can be rigorously defined as the strength

with which an actor's behavior is influenced by his or her relationships with
others. Sometimes these relationships serve to be in
fifteen

Op. cit.

141
Machine Translated by Google

FÉLIX REQUENA SANTOS

contact with others who are relevant to the subject to which the social network
refers.
Reachability within a network can be summarized by distances in a matrix.
Where the number of steps required to reach another actor appears at the
intersection of the rows with the columns specified for each actor. Once the
concept has been reduced to numbers in a matrix it is easily quantifiable.
16
.
Two magnitudes of accessibility in a network can be distinguished:

a) the proportion of actors that can contact each given actor in the network;
and b) the number of
intermediaries that must be used to connect with another; That is, the
number of links that have to be crossed to reach a certain actor.

The notion of accessibility has an important sociological significance, since

it provides the way in which the links in an actor's network can be communication
channels that transmit particular information, including value judgments,
opinions, etc. Especially when these channels serve to put pressure on other
actors. In this case, accessibility has important manifestations in the applications
of network analysis to power attributions. Or even to study the influence that a
relatively closed and compact social environment can exert when voting for a
certain candidate in an election.

Density. This notion is taken directly from graph theory . The density of a
network will vary depending on the number of links that exist within it. Thus, a
network where all the actors are linked to all the others, we will say that it has
maximum density. But in networks in which some actors are linked to some but
not all of the remaining actors, there will be areas of greater or lesser density.
In those denser parts of the network, fewer intermediate steps will be needed
to reach most of the rest of the actors. For example, in a network such as the
one shown in Figure 1 (a), the density according to the basic Barnes formula
and completed by us for a given moment / will be:

D, = 200*/«(nl) = %

where Dt is the density of a network at a time t expressed as a percentage, a is

the total number of ties at the current time /, and n is the total number of actors
involved in the network.

16
JC MITCHELL, in op. cit., p. 17, create a small formula for its calculation.

142
Machine Translated by Google

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL NETWORK

FIGURE 1

(b)
(to)

Density Dt = 40% Density Dt = 100%

(Total network)

Range. In all social networks, some actors have direct access to a few others. A first
order rank is the number of actors in direct contact with the actor to which the network
is referred or located.
The concept of network range is very significant when it comes to personal networks. In
this particular case, the range could be defined as the number of people who are directly
linked (without any intermediary) to the individual. Thus, an individual who is better
connected than another will have a personal network* of greater rank.

At the same time that its morphology is distinguished in a social network, we must
not forget that, by definition, a network refers to a set of interaction processes. In which
we must distinguish the following determining qualities or characteristics when defining
a certain relationship within a network.

Continuing with Mitchell's explanatory model, we can distinguish, as we have said,

the following: content, directionality, duration, intensity and frequency of a relationship.
Aspects that may be essential to understand the social behavior of the actors involved.

Content. The links between an individual and the people with whom he interacts
always occur for some purpose, or because there is some recognizable interest on one
or both sides. In this case we can talk about the content of a link in a person's network.
From a sociological point of view, the most important aspect in interaction is the quality
of the link that exists in a person's network, since the content of a link refers to the
content of the communication flow through the network.

Analysis of the content of links in a network can lead to

the overlapping of social networks whose content is different.

143
Machine Translated by Google

FÉLIX REQUENA SANTOS

FIGURE 2

•"0
kinship ties

occupational ties

Figure 2 shows two overlapping networks of different content.

where, for example, A and B (and others) are related through kinship , and B, C
and D (and others) are related by occupational ties,
then A can obtain services from C and D through B.

Directionality. There are many cases in which links provide

reciprocal relationships, but in others not. There are certain links such as
friendship, neighborhood, kinship, etc., where there is almost always reciprocity in
the relationships between the actors who maintain said relationship;
therefore, its direction (or directionality) does not have much importance. However,
there are other relationships where the flow of communication circulates more
ease towards a certain meaning of the relationship. That is, they are relationships
with a certain direction: for example, in the employer-employee or sponsor-
sponsored relationship there is no reciprocity, so the influence is considerably
greater in one direction than in the opposite. According to
the direction of the interaction, whether or not there will be influence from one actor on another.

Duration. Like social groups, social networks have a

certain period of life. During this period, a network makes some variations in its
composition, if only because the ages of its members
constituents vary, and therefore the relationships they maintain also vary.
with others. For this reason, it is possible that throughout the life cycle of
its members, the network expands or contracts, so that at different moments in
time the networks referring to a certain social actor

144
Machine Translated by Google

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL NETWORK

They will be radically different. If it is a personal network, it is not the same network that
is covered in adolescence or youth as in maturity.
Although some members who belonged to an actor's network during his youth also
continue in the mature subject's network.
A network continues to exist as long as rights and obligations towards others are
maintained and it is recognized for specific purposes. Those of recognized rights and
obligations are a potential link in a series of action or series of communication between
a set of actors, since through them certain objectives (goods, services, or information
and influence) can be achieved.

Intensity. This can be understood as the degree of involvement of the actors linked
to each other. That is, the greater or lesser impact that the behavior of an actor has on
the other actors with whom it is linked in the network. Thus, for example, a person will
probably be more influenced by his or her closest relatives than by his or her neighbors,
17
but the intensity of a bond should not be confused with the physical . Without em

proximity of the linked actors. In this way, there are face-to-face relationships that are
less intense than others that are not. There are many circumstances in which a very
intense bond can exist between people who are at a relatively great distance; where
one person may be an important factor in the behavior of the other (for example, two
competing colleagues working on similar topics).

Frequency. Obviously, this is another important characteristic of the existence of a

network. A relative repetition of contacts between the linked actors is necessary for
such a link to survive. However, there is not much relationship between the frequency
and intensity of contacts.
Thus, a high frequency of contacts may sometimes not necessarily generate a high
intensity in relationships. For example, contacts between co-workers may be regular
and frequent, but the influence of these co-workers on the behavior of a given subject
may be less than that of very close relatives who are seen infrequently. and irregularly.
In this way, the frequency of a relationship has, in network analysis, an importance that
in some cases is marginal.

17
Especially in large cities, where large buildings with a multitude of neighbors
proliferate. However, in smaller communities, or in rural areas, the influence of neighbors
can be as much or greater than that of kinship.

145
Machine Translated by Google

FÉLIX REQUENA SANTOS

Network formation

In our daily lives we are continually forming, generating and building social
networks. In many situations we use others as a reference for our behavior, and other
times others use us as a reference for their actions. When we are born, with the
beginning of the socialization process, and incorporation into primary social groups, we
are potentially beginning to form part of the fabric of more than one social network: the
one to which our parents, our parents' relatives, belong. parents, who are, in turn, our
relatives, and the friends of our relatives, who are often our friends. At the same time,
when we grow we generate a specific personal network, referring to ourselves and
that varies over the years.

Empirically, it is clear that individuals become part of social networks on the basis
of a multitude of different relationships and that, furthermore, the types of relationships
they use to recruit and form networks vary with their social situation and position. In
this way, by the mere fact of living in a place, in a city for example, for a given period
of time serves to build a multitude of relationships with people in several different social
contexts. All of these people can become part of a social network. And let's not say if it
is an institutionalized collective actor, as is, for example, the case of a company, which,
simply for its establishment, needs several different networks to be able to start
functioning (suppliers, clients, etc.). ), the more so to be able to stay in the market.

Every social network reflects a variety of social relationships, some will be more
particularistic and others more universalistic, in which a social actor is involved.
Probably, an individual actor will have more particular relationships than a collective
one. But, in any case, any social scenario that requires relationships is valid for
generating social networks. For example, the workplace can be their own setting,
although it only covers part of a broad network to which each worker belongs; An
individual may have relationships with his co-workers, but only with some of them does
he continue to maintain relationships of another nature outside the work context.

Another important notion in the formation of social networks is that of potential

members. These can be defined as a category of actors, who in the general terms of
values of a community can be required by the actor to whom the network refers, to
obtain some service or support. In the formation of social networks, two types of
relationships are evident:

a) Concrete relationship : are those relationships that imply a considerable level

of specificity; for example, supporting the election of a candidate for secretary of a
political party. The content of the network is

146
Machine Translated by Google

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL NETWORK

concrete and specific links aimed at a specific goal: the specific election of a candidate.

b) Diffuse relationship : is one that involves support and services of a general

nature, such as those entailed by neighborhood or kinship relationships .

Also in a social network there can be potential links. That is, not all the links that a
person may have have to be activated at all times. These can remain dormant for an
indefinite period of time. Thus, an actor's potential relationships may be inactive or
latent until the time comes for them to be needed for some social action. For example,
in a city there are probably many relatives who only become recognized when the
content of the relationship requires it. Thus, when a person needs certain support, then
they turn to another as a relative. That is, these relatives only exist when some
requirement is needed from them.

The concept of social network also makes complete sense in its use as a means of
social integration and involvement of subjects within a given social system; thus favoring
balance within a particular social system: occupational, political, etc.

18
In this way, Granovetter has indicated that many times one of the
strongest ties of social cohesion are the weak ties that exist in a large number of
relationships in large cities. The relative weakness of the institutional integration of
these industrial societies implies the small multiple relationships in which people relate
in an infinite number of social situations.

Applications of network analysis

The applications of the concept of social network have been and are very
numerous , you just have to do a little research to find abundant bibliography where the
notion of social network is used as an analytical instrument. Some of these applications
have already been stated in the explanatory examples throughout this article. Social
networks, as seen above, can be made up of individual and/or collective actors;
However, to more easily demonstrate the possibilities of social analysis through the
network concept, we will divide the applications into two large groups, according to the
nature of the social actors that make up the network. Respectively, whether individual
or collective, the levels of analysis can be associated with micro and macrosocial
aspects. Which does not prevent that in the same

18
"The strength of weak ties", American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78, 1973, pp.
1360-1380 .

147
Machine Translated by Google

FÉLIX REQUENA SANTOS

social network the two types of actors come together; Thus, there are works, now classics,
such as that of E. Bott19 where families and individuals are included in the same network,
considering both the latter and the former as nodes of the same network.
Another consideration to take into account when applying the network concept is the
level of analysis within the network. Using the entire social network of a person as a frame
of reference is not the same as considering only dual relationships with another member of
the network, or triads with two other members, etc. Or, if the entire network is considered in
all its expansion, studying, in this case, how each actor conditions the rest, and vice versa.
Knoke and Kuklinski20 consider four possible levels of analysis:

— Personal (or egocentric) network.

— Level of couple relationships.
— Triadic level.
— Complete network.

The most common applications of personal social networks are those carried out by
electoral sociology21, which has studied the "action series" of candidates in an election. The
social network serves as support through the links of the candidate and those close to him.
Or even in broad elections, where the information available about a given party is mediated
not only by electoral propaganda, but also by the opinions that a subject's personal circle
has about a given party.

Another substantial contribution of network analysis is that which can be made in the
study of the labor market as an operational and efficient instrument to explain the location
and access to a first job.
Or the study of movement patterns in occupational mobility, where it has been shown that
social networks play an important explanatory role. On the other hand, many of the patterns
22 .
generated
within industrial societies can be explained through the notion of grid. Thus, for example,
the behaviors of members of social groups regarding the consumption of goods. Or in the
case of the study of urban subcultures, such as youth; Through network analysis, the
"endogamy" of such subcultures can be studied. In these, another example of application is
the system of loans as generators of groups of equals, where the loans maintain and
guarantee a relationship, depending on the case, more or less stable and

19

twenty
Op. cit.
Op. cit., pp. 16-18.
twenty-one

JA BARNES, «Networks and political process», in JC MITCHELL, Social networks

in urban situations, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1969, pp. 51-76.
22
M. GRIECO, op. cit.

148
Machine Translated by Google

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL NETWORK

long-lasting, since sooner or later what was lent will have to be returned or a new loan
made in the same or opposite direction, etc.23 .
From a macrosocial point of view, one of the major uses of network analysis in
sociology and anthropology has been to discover the social structure of a total system.
Systems can range from the smallest , such as a classroom in a school, to the largest ,
such as a national or multinational industry , or the system of a supranational
organization.
But for the explanation of any system, a very important step in structural analysis is to
identify the significant positions that each of the actors in these systems have in the
network of relationships that link the actors of the system. The observable actors of a
system are not its structure. It is the regular patterns of relationship between the positions
of specific actors that constitute the structure of the system. Therefore , the identification
of positions within a system is necessary, although not sufficient; At the same time, an
assessment of the relationships that connect some positions with others will have to
be carried out .
2A
.
In the same way it has applications in the analysis of power structures within a
social system25 . Or through what channels that power is transmitted from one position
to another. Well, not all channels are conducive to certain types of communication. It
is the communication channels that select the linking processes . Another very interesting
application of network analysis at a macro level is the possibility of relating and
identifying some of these power structures with certain exchange networks , since the
distribution of power in a system can be studied as a function of the position in a
opportunity structure .

Other works 26 have demonstrated the usefulness of the study of inter- networks
personal to draw “bridging structures” between micro-macro levels .
Through these small -scale interaction networks, translations to larger models can
emerge . Thus, studying a limited number of aspects of interaction at a reduced level,
such as interpersonal ties, it is evident how network analysis can show these aspects to
explain macro phenomena such as: social mobility, political organization, social
cohesion. in general, etc. ( A summary of some of the main sociological applications of
network analysis can be found in Table 1. )

23
E. GIL CALVO and E. MENÉNDEZ VERGARA, Leisure and cultural practices of young people.
Madrid, Ministry of Culture (Youth in Spain Report ), 1985.
24
D. KNOKE and JH KUKLINSKI, op. cit., p. 18.
25
J. Charles FOMBRUN, «Attributions of power across a social network», Human Reía
tions, vol. 36, no. 6, 1983, pp. 493-508.
26
M. GRANOVETTER, op. cit.

149
Machine Translated by Google

FÉLIX REQUENA SANTOS

TABLE 1

Some sociological applications of network analysis

Issue Network Drive Content

Sociology Organization The importance of a metropolitan area depends

of the organization headquarters on the characteristics of the area (for example,
(Ross) and work centers population size ) and the characteristics of its
industries, as well as the number of
headquarters of corporations whose industrial
production is carried out elsewhere .

Social integration Personal and Analyzes the diffusion of ideas and information
and organizational networks between individuals and large organizations,
diffusion of as a result of the role that weak ties play in the
scarce resources cohesion of complex social systems.
(Granovetter)

Sociology Personal and Social change within families is studied . The change
of the family family networks of networks in different phases of the life cycle of
(Millardo) family members .

Elite social Networks of The relations of political power to other aspects

Stratification _ senior of social stratification are examined in terms
(Moore and Alba) executives in of the influence of social origin (e.g., class) on
large elite formation , and the prestige and influence
of networks . of the elite.
organizations, public or private

Local integration Personal networks The basic structure of personal networks , the
of urban degree of participation, the intimacy of
neighborhoods relationships , etc., are directly influenced by
(Fischer) residential proximity, ethnic homogeneity , and
participation in local institutions (e.g.,
associations of neighbors).

Conclusion

As a corollary to everything previously stated, it is evident that we are faced with a valid
analytical device to explain a multitude of social situations, whether at micro or macro
levels. At the same time, it is possible to treat these situations mathematically, since they
meet the characteristics of the points related through graph theory. With all the advantages
that this entails: from the possibility of quantifying and valuing certain relationships between
social actors to the simulation of models.

150
Machine Translated by Google

THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL NETWORK

computer network . Without a doubt, with network analysis we find ourselves facing
a path open to new explanations and interpretations of the social reality that
surrounds us .

REFERENCES

ALBA, RD, and MOORE, G.: "Elite and social circles", in RS BURT and MJ MINOR,
Applied network analysis, Beverly Hills (Calif.), Sage, 1983, pp. 245-261.
BARNES, JA: "Class and commitments in a Norwegian Island Parish", in Human Relations, vol. 7,
1954, pp. 39-58.
— "Networks and political process", in J. Clyde MITCHELL, Social networks in urban si
tuations, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1969, pp. 51-76.
BOORMAN, Scott A., and WHITE, Harrison C: «Social structure from multiple networks.
II. Role structures", in American Journal of Sociology, vol. 81, no. 6, 1976.
BOTT, E.: Family and Social Networks, New York, Free Press, 1971 (2nd ed.) (Exists
Spanish translation: Madrid, Taurus, 1990).
BURT, Ronald S.: "Positions in multiple network systems, Part One: A general conception of
stratification and prestige in a system of actors cast as a social topology", in Social Forces, vol.
56, no. 1, September 1977, pp. 106-131.
— «Positions in multiple network systems, Part Two: Stratification and prestige among elite
decision-Makers in the community of Altneustadt», in Social Forces, vol. 56, no. 2, December
1977, pp. 551-575.
BURT, RS, and MINOR, MJ: Applied network analysis, Beverly Hills (Calif.), Sage, 1983.
COOK, KS; EMERSON, RM, et al.: "The distribution of power in exchange networks: Theory
and experimental results", in American Sociological Review, vol. 89, September 1983,
pp. 275-305.
FISCHER, CS: To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city, Chicago,
Chicago University Press, 1982.
FLAMENT, Claude: Communication networks and group structures , Buenos Aires, Nueva Vi
sion, 1977.
FOMBRUN, Charles J.: «Attributions of power across a social network», in Human Relations, vol.
36, no. 6, 1983, pp. 493-508.
FREEMAN, L. C: «Centrality in social networks. I. Conceptual Clarification”, Social Net
works, vol. 1, 1979, pp. 215-239.
GIL CALVO, E., and MENÉNDEZ VERGARA, E.: Leisure and cultural practices of young people,
Madrid , Ministry of Culture (Youth in Spain Report), 1985.
GRANOVETTER, M.: "The strength of weak ties", in American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78
1973, pp. 1360-1380.
GRIEGO, Margaret: Keeping it in the family: Social networks and employment change, London,
Tavistock Publications, 1986.
KNOKE, D., and KUKLINSKI, JH: Network analysis, Beverly Hills (Calif.), Sage, 1982.
MARSDEN, PV, and LIN, N.: Social structure and network analysis, Beverly Hills (Calif.),
Sage, 1982.
MILARDO, Robert M.: Families and social networks, Beverly Hills (Calif.), Sage, 1988.
MITCHELL, J. Clyde: "The concept and use of social networks", in the book, edited by himself,
Social networks in urban situations, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1969, pp. 1-50.

MOORE, G., and ALBA, RD: "Class and prestige origins in the American elite", in P. V.
MARSDEN and N. LIN, Social structure and network analysis, Beverly Hills (Calif.),
Sage, 1982, pp . 39-60.
MORENO, J.: Fundamentals of Sociometry, Mexico, Paidós, 1940.
RADCLIFFE-BROWN, AR: Structure and function in primitive society, Barcelona, Peninsula,
1974 (2nd ed.).

151
Machine Translated by Google

FÉLIX REQUENA SANTOS

Roos, Christopher O.: "Organizational dimensions of metropolitan dominance: Prominence

in the network of corporate control, 1955-1975", in American Sociological Review, vol.
52, 1987, pp. 258-267.
SNYDER, D., and KICK, EL: "Structural position in the world system and economic growth,
1955-1970: a multiple network analysis of transnational interactions", in American
Journal of Sociology, vol. 84, 1979, pp. 1096-1126.
WHITE, Harrison C.; BOORMAN, SA, and BREIGER, RL: «Social structure from multiple
networks. I. Blockmodels of roles and positions”, in American Journal of Sociology, vol.
86, 1976, pp. 730-780.

152
Machine Translated by Google

RESEARCH NOTES