Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:30:09.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Performativity of Networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2015

Kieran Healy
Kieran Healy*
Affiliation:
Duke University [[email protected]]
Get access

Abstract

The “performativity thesis” is the claim that parts of contemporary economics and finance, when carried out into the world by professionals and popularizers, reformat and reorganize the phenomena they purport to describe, in ways that bring the world into line with theory. Practical technologies, calculative devices and portable algorithms give actors tools to implement particular models of action. I argue that social network analysis is performative in the same sense as the cases studied in this literature. Social network analysis and finance theory are similar in key aspects of their development and effects. For the case of economics, evidence for weaker versions of the performativity thesis is quite good, and the strong formulation is circumstantially supported. Network theory easily meets the evidential threshold for the weaker versions. I offer empirical examples that support the strong (or “Barnesian”) formulation. Whether these parallels are a mark in favor of the thesis or a strike against it is an open question. I argue that the social network technologies and models now being “performed” build out systems of generalized reciprocity, connectivity, and commons-based production. This is in contrast both to an earlier network imagery that emphasized self-interest and entrepreneurial exploitation of structural opportunities, and to the model of action typically considered to be performed by economic technologies.

Résumé

La « thèse de la performativité » est l’affirmation selon laquelle des éléments de la finance et de l'économie contemporaines, une fois importés dans le monde par des professionnels ou des vulgarisateurs, contribuent à reformater et à réorganiser le phénomène qu'ils cherchent à décrire, de telle manière que le monde se conforme à la théorie. Technologies pratiques, dispositifs calculatoires et algorithmes mobiles donnent aux acteurs des outils pour mettre en œuvre des modèles d'action particuliers. Il est montré ici que l'analyse des réseaux sociaux est performative au sens défini dans cette littérature. L'analyse des réseaux sociaux et la théorie de la finance sont similaires dans des aspects clés de leur développement et de leur effets. Pour le cas de l'économie, les preuves pour les versions faibles de la thèse de la performativité sont bonnes, et certains éléments circonstantiels viennent à l'appui de versions fortes. La théorie des réseaux satisfait non seulement sans difficulté aux critères des versions faibles, mais cet article propose différents exemples empiriques à l'appui d'une version forte, de type Barnesienne. Savoir si ces parallèles renforcent ou affaiblissent la thèse de la performativité demeure une question ouverte. Je soutiens que les technologies et les modèles de réseaux sociaux, considérés comme des entités performatives, construisent des systèmes de réciprocité généralisée, de connectivité et de production partagé. Cela s'oppose à la fois à l'image d'un réseau défini en termes d'intérêt individuel et d'exploitation entrepreneuriale des structures d'opportunités, mais également à un modèle d'action « performé » par les techniques économiques.

Zusammenfassung

Die Performativitätstheorie stellt die Behauptung auf, dass Elemente der heutigen Finanz- und Wirtschaftswelt, einmal von Profis und „Vulgarisatoren“ übernommen, dazu beitragen, das von ihnen beschriebene Phänomen neu zu formatieren und zu organisieren, und zwar derart, dass die Welt sich der Theorie anpasst. Praktische Technologien, Rechengeräte und mobile Algorhythmen geben den Handelnden Mittel, um spezifische Handlungsmodelle umzusetzen. Ich zeige hier, dass die Analyse der sozialen Netzwerke im Sinne dieser Literatur performativ ist. Die Analyse der sozialen Netzwerke und der Finanztheorie sind in wichtigen Bereichen ihrer Entwicklung und Auswirkungen vergleichbar. Im Falle der Wirtschaft gibt es gute Beweise für die schwache Version der Performativitätstheorie, und gewisse Umstände bestätigen die starken Versionen. Die Netzwerktheorie erfüllt nicht nur problemlos die Kriterien der schwächeren Versionen, sondern ich schlage gleichfalls verschiedene empirische Beispiele vor, die die starke Version, so die von Barnes, bekräftigen. Die Frage, ob diese Parallelen die Performativitätstheorie verstärken oder schwächen, bleibt jedoch offen. Ich behaupte, dass die als performativen Einheiten betrachteten Technologien und sozialen Netzwerkmodelle Systeme verallgemeinernder Gegenseitigkeit, Vernetzung und Produktionsteilung schaffen. Dies widerspricht sowohl der Vorstellung eines begrenzten Netzes bezüglich der individuellen Interessen und der geschäftlichen Nutzung von Gelegenheitsstrukturen, als auch einem „performierten“ Aktionsmodell durch wirtschaftliche Techniken.

Keywords

PerformativityEconomicsSocial Network AnalysisInternetAlgorithmsPerformativitéEconomieRéseaux sociauxInternetAlgorithmesPerformativitätEconomicsSoziale NetzwerkanalyseInternetAlgorithmen
Type
Research Article
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , August 2015 , pp. 175 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbate, Janet, 2000. Inventing the Internet (Cambridge, MIT Press).Google Scholar
Aplin-Brownlee, Vivian, 1984. “Ethical Questions Arise from Computers Biting into Privacy: Computer Explosion Unearths New Questions of Ethics, Privacy”, 23 May, The Washington Post, 23 May.Google Scholar
Baker, Wayne, 1984. “The Social Structure of a National Securities Market”, American Journal of Sociology, 89: 775-811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baber, Ann and Waymon, Lynne, 1992. Great Connections: Small Talk and Networking for Businesspeople (Impact Publications).Google Scholar
Bakshy, Eytan, Messing, Solomon and Adamic, Lada, 2015. “Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook”, Science, 7 May. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa1160CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakshy, Eytan, Rosenn, Itamar, Marlow, Cameron and Adamic, Lada, 2012. The Role of Social Networks in Information Diffusion. ACM WWW.Google Scholar
Barnes, Barry, 1983. “Social Life as Bootstrapped Induction”, Sociology, 17: 524-545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Barry, 1988. The Nature of Power (Cambridge, Polity Press).Google Scholar
Bell, Daniel, 1973. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting (New York, Basic Books).Google Scholar
Bell, Daniel, 1980. “Teletext and Technology: New Networks of Knowledge and Information in Industrial Society”, in The Winding Passage: Essays and Sociological Journeys, 1960-1980 (New York, Basic Books: 34-65).Google Scholar
Blau, Peter M., 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity (Free Press).Google Scholar
Bonacich, Philip, 1972. “Factoring and Weighting Approaches to Status Scores and Clique Identification”, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 2: 113-120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonacich, Philip, 1987. “Power and Centrality: A Family of Measures”, American Journal of Sociology, 92: 1170-1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boorman, Scott A. and White, Harrison C., 1976. “Social Structure from Multiple Networks II: Role Structures”, American Journal of Sociology, 81: 1384-1446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgatti, Stephen P., 2005. “Centrality and Network Flow”, Social Networks, 27: 55-71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiger, Ronald L., 1974. “The Duality of Persons and Groups”, Social Forces, 53: 181-190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiger, Ronald L., 1981. “The Social Class Structure of Occupational Mobility”, American Journal of Sociology, 87: 578-611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiger, Ronald L., 2000. “A Tool-Kit for Practice Theory”, Poetics, 27: 91-115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, Ronald S., 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition, (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith, 1990. Gender Trouble (New York, Routledge).Google Scholar
Callon, Michel, 1998. “The Embeddedness of Economic Markets in Economics”, in Callon, M., ed., The Laws of the Market (Oxford, Blackwell: 1-57).Google Scholar
Callon, Michel, 2007. “What Does it Mean to Say Economics is Performative?”, in MacKenzie D., F. Muniesa and L. Siu, eds., Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics (Princeton, Princeton University Press: 311-357).Google Scholar
Carrier, James G. and Miller, Daniel, eds. 1998. Virtualism: A New Political Economy (Oxford, Berg).Google Scholar
Carruthers, Bruce G. and Espeland, Wendy, 1991. “Accounting for Rationality: Double-Entry Bookkeeping and the Rhetoric of Economic Rationality”, American Journal of Sociology, 97: 31-69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Convert, Bernard and Heilbron, Johan, 2005. “La Réinvention américaine de la sociologie économique”, L’Année Sociologique 55: 329-364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Karen S., 1982. “Network Structures from an Exchange Perspective”, in Marsden P.V. and N. Lin, eds, Social Structure and Network Analysis (Beverly Hills, Sage, 177-199).Google Scholar
Coviello, Lorenzo, Sohn, Yunkyu, Kramer, Adam D. I., Marlow, Cameron, Franceschetti, Massimo, Christakis, Nicholas A., Fowler, James H., 2014. “Detecting Emotional Contagion in Massive Social Networks”, PLOS ONE, 9 (3) 1-6. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0090315CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davidson, M. L., 1983. Multidimensional Scaling (New York, Wiley).Google Scholar
Davis, Mark and Etheridge, Alison, eds., 2006. Louis Bachelier’s Theory of Speculation: The Origins of Modern Finance (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Dertouzos, Michael, 1997. What Will Be: How the New World of Information Will Change Our Lives (New York, Harper Business).Google Scholar
Doreian, Patrick, Batagelj, Vladimir and Ferligoj, Anuška, 1994. “Partitioning Networks on Generalized Concepts of Equivalence”, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 19 :1-27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, Esther, 1997. Release 2.0: A design for living in the digital age (New York, Broadway Books).Google Scholar
Emirbayer, Mustafa, 1997. “Manifesto for a Relational Sociology”, American Journal of Sociology, 103: 281-317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emirbayer, Mustafa and Goodwin, Jeff, 1994. “Network Analysis, Culture, and the Problem of Agency”, American Journal of Sociology, 99: 1411-1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espeland, Wendy N. and Stevens, Mitchell, 1998. “Commensuration as a Social Process”, Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 313-344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fields, Daisy B., 1983. A Woman’s Guide to Moving Up in Business and Government (New York, Prentice Hall).Google Scholar
Finch, John H., 2007. “Economic Sociology as a Strange other to both Sociology and Economics”, History of the Human Sciences, 20: 123-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Donna and Vilas, Sandy, 1992. Power Networking: 55 Secrets for Personal and Professional Success (Florida, Mountain Harbor Publications).Google Scholar
Foley, Duncan K, 2004. “The Strange History of the Economic Agent”, New School Economic Review, 1: 82-94http://www.newschooljournal.com/files/NSER01/82-94.pdfGoogle Scholar
Fourcade, Marion, 2007. “Theories of Markets and Theories of Society”, American Behavioral Scientist, 50: 1015-1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fourcade, Marion, 2009. Economists and Societies: Discipline and Profession in the United States, Britain and France, 1890s to 1990s (Princeton, Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Linton C., 2004. The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science (Vancouver, Empirical Press).Google Scholar
Freeman, Linton C., White, Douglas R. and Romney, A. Kimball, eds., 1989. Research Methods in Social Network Analysis (Fairfax, George Mason University Press).Google Scholar
Graham, Paul, 2005. “Web 2.0.” http://www.paulgraham.com/web20.htmlGoogle Scholar
Graham, Paul, 2006. “Interview about Web 2.0” http://www.paulgraham.com/web20interview .htmlGoogle Scholar
Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness”, American Journal of Sociology, 91: 485-510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, Kieran, 2006. “The Scottish Verdict”, Working Paper, Sociology Department, University of Arizona, November.Google Scholar
Holland, Paul W. and Leinhardt, Samuel, eds., 1979. Perspectives on Social Network Research (New York, Academic Press).Google Scholar
Homans, George C., 1984. Coming to my Senses: The Autobiography of a Sociologist (Edison, Transaction).Google Scholar
Kaplan, Philip J., 2002. F’d Companies: Spectacular Dot-Com Flameouts (New York, Simon & Schuster).Google Scholar
Katz, L., 1953. “A New Status Index Derived from Sociometric Analysis”, Psychometrika, 18: 249-256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Adam D. I., Guillory, Jamie E. and Hancock, Jeffrey T., 2014. Experimental Evidence of Massivescale Emotional Contagion through Social Networks. PNAS 111 (24), 8788-8790. DOI: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1320040111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krannich, Ronald L. and Krannich, Caryl Rae, 1989. Network Your Way to Job and Career Success: The Complete Guide to Creating New Opportunities Career (Impact Publications).Google Scholar
Lamont, Michèle, 2004. “The Theory Section and Theory Satellites”, Perspectives, 27 (1) : 1, 10, 14, 16.Google Scholar
Langville, Amy N. and Meyer, Carl D., 2005. “A Survey of Eigenvector Methods for Web Information Retrieval”, SIAM Review, 47 (1): 135-161. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S0036144503424786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S0036144503424786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laumann, Edward O., Marsden, Peter V. and Galaskiewicz, Joseph, 1977. “Community-Elite Influence Structures: Extension of a Network Approach”, American Journal of Sociology, 83: 594-631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laumann, Edward O. and Pappi, Franz U., 1973. “New Directions in the Study of Community Elites”, American Sociological Review, 38: 212-230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laumann, Edward O. and Pappi, Franz U., 1976. Networks of Collective Action: A Perspective on Community Influence, (New York, Academic Press).Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F. and Merton, Robert K., 1954. “Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis”, in Berger M., T. Abel and C.H. Page, eds., Freedom and Control in Modern Society (New York, Van Norstrand: 18-66).Google Scholar
Leinhardt, Samuel, ed., 1977. Social Networks: A Developing Paradigm (New York, Academic Press).Google Scholar
Lewis, Kevin, Kaufman, Jason and Christakis, Nocholas, 2008. “The Taste for Privacy: An Analysis of College Student Privacy Settings in an Online Social Network”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14: 79-100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Kevin, Kaufman, Jason, Gonzalez, Marco, Wimmer, Andreas and Christakis, Nicholas, 2008. “Taste, Ties and Time: A new Dataset Using Facebook.com”, Social Networks, 30, 330-342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald, 2006. An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial Models Shape Markets (Cambridge, MIT Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, Donald and Millo, Yuval, 2003. “Constructing a Market, Performing Theory: The Historical Sociology of a Financial Derivatives Exchange”, American Journal of Sociology, 109: 107-145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, Peter V. and Lin, Nan, eds. 1982. Social Structure and Network Analysis (Beverly Hills, Sage).Google Scholar
Marwell, Gerald and Ames, Ruth, 1981. “Economists Free-Ride: Does Anyone Else?”, Journal of Public Economics, 13: 295-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller, 1983. “An Ecology of Affiliation”, American Sociological Review, 48: 519-532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, Robert K. and Barber, Elinor, 2004. Travels and Adventures in Serendipity: A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Meyer, John W. and Rowan, Brian, 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony”, American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340-363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgram, Stanley, 1967. “The Small World Problem”, Psychology Today, 2: 60-67.Google Scholar
Miller, Daniel, 2002. “Turning Callon the Right Way Up”, Economy and Society, 31: 218-233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip, 1989. More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature’s Economics (New York, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip, 2001. Machine Dreams: Economics Becomes a Cyborg Science (New York: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mizruchi, M. S., Mariolis, P., Schwartz, M. and Mintz, B., 1986. “Techniques for Disaggregating Centrality Scores in Social Networks”, Sociological Methodology 16: 26-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullins, Nicolas C., 1973. Theories and Theory Groups in American Sociology. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Muniesa, Fabien and Callon, Michel, 2007. “Economic Experiments and the Construction of Markets”, in MacKenzie D., F. Muniesa and L. Siu, eds., Do Economists Make Markets? On the Performativity of Economics (Princeton, Princeton University Press: 163-189).Google Scholar
O’Reilly, Tim, 2005. “What is Web 2.0?” http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html, September.Google Scholar
Page, Lawrence, 2001. “Method for Node Ranking in a Linked Database”, US Patent”, No. 6,285,999. http://www.google.com/patents/US6285999Google Scholar
Page, Lawrence, Brin, Sergey, Motwani, Rajeev and Winograd, Terry, 1998. “The PageRank Citation Ranking: Bringing Order to the Web”, http://dbpubs.stanford.edu:8090/pub/showDoc.Fulltext?lang=en&doc=1999-66&format=pdf, January.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott, 1991. “The Integration of Economic and Sociological Theory: The Marshall Lectures”, Sociological Inquiry, 61: 10-59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, Anatol, 1953a. “Spread of Information through a Population with Sociostructural Bias. I. Assumption of Transitivity”, Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 15: 523-533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapoport, Anatol, 1953b. “Spread Of Information through a Population with Sociostructural Bias. II. Various Models with Partial Transitivity”, Bulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 15: 535-546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raye-Johnson, Venda, 1989. Effective Networking (Los Altos, Crisp Publications).Google Scholar
Schweber, Libby, 2007. Disciplining Statistics: Demography and Vital Statistics in France and England, 1830-1885 (Durham, Duke University Press).Google Scholar
Shirky, Clay, 2004. “Folksonomy”. http://many.corante.com/archives/2004/08/25/folksonomy.php.Google Scholar
Sola Pool, Ithiel de and Kochen, Manfred, 1978. “Contacts and Influence”, Social Networks, 1: 1-48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, Lawrence, 1985. “On Economics and Finance”, Journal of Finance Papers and Proceedings, 40 (3): 633-635.Google Scholar
Torkington, Nat, 2006. “Homophily in Social Software”. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/10/homophily-in-so.html.Google Scholar
Wal, Thomas Vander, 2007. “Folksonomy Coinage and Definition.” http://vanderwal.net/folksonomy.html, February.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Stanley and Faust, Katherine, 1994. Social Network Analysis: Concepts and Applications (New York, Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, Mary Scott, 1980. Networking: The Great New Way for Women to Get Ahead (New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich).Google Scholar
White, Harrison, 1981. “Where do Markets Come from?”, American Journal of Sociology, 87: 517-547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Harrison, 1992. Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Social Action (Princeton, Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
White, Harrison C., 1965. Notes on the Constituents of Social Structure (Harvard Department of Social Relations, Mimeo). http://www.isnae.org/Resources/DepartmentOfSocialRelations/Catnets.pdf.Google Scholar
White, Harrison C., Boorman, Scott A. and Breiger, Ronald L., 1976. “Social Structure from Multiple Networks I: Blockmodels of Roles and Positions”, American Journal of Sociology, 81: 730-779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Robert E., Gosling, Samuel D. and Graham, Lindsay T., 2012. “A Review of Facebook Research in the Social Sciences”, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7 (3): 203-220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Youngs, Bettie B. and Boe, Anne, 1989. Is Your “Net” Working?: A Complete Guide to Building Contacts and Career Visibility (New York, Wiley).Google Scholar