Abstract
This paper provides a critical assessment of the conceptions of social networks in systems theory. There are two main solutions to the problem: treating networks as systems, or denying them that status. The last group conceives networks as structural couplings (Kämper and Schmidt) or as forms (Fuhse). Among the first group, Luhmann has used the concept to describe the particularities of the societal structure of underdeveloped regions, but he did not delve into a theoretical characterization of the concept. Teubner’s version also remained associated with a particular episode, providing no general network theory. Bommes and Tacke establish reciprocity as the central mechanism, which relates different addresses (persons or organizations) through a non-specific future promise of a service in return for a favor. The analysis shows that this account provides the most complete version of the concept, remaining fully compatible with systems theory.
Highlights
This paper aims to assess the utilization of the social network concept in systems theory
Centering the focus of analysis on weak ties, Granovetter considers that weak ties, which act as bridges between network segments, increase social cohesion, while strong ties can lead to overall fragmentation (1983)
Someone who has a position in an organization has something to offer to a broker, with whom one can interchange something
Summary
Researcher, CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), University of Buenos Aires, Faculty of Social Sciences, Instituto de Investigaciones Gino Germani (IIGG). Luhmann states that the allocation of those positions falls, to a large extent, in the sphere of influence of political parties, which are directly and indirectly involved in the networks and upholds them From these remarks, it is possible to state that the emergence of networks as systems results from a particular evolutionary way that the functionally-differentiated society took in some regions. They would hold a position in the Ebenendifferenzierung between functional systems and organizations If this interpretation is correct, the maintenance that political parties exert over the networks does not imply any sort of control over the operations of the networks. A cause for this situation could be that Teubner does not provide a general network concept He criticizes traditional interpretations, which conceive networks “as loose forms of co-operation, as decentralized co-ordination of autonomous actors, or as transitional forms between contract and organization” (53). Teubner does not explain here how this network works, and if it is a social system with its operativity, as in the previous case
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
