How does one define the term “network”?

I ask this question because I have started to work through a review copy of Niall Ferguson’s The Square and the Tower. So far, it is an attempt to reinterpret history as a contest between networks and hierarchies. So naturally, I want to see the two terms defined. And they are not. It is amazing how often that happens. Somebody writes a book about culture and does not bother to carefully define culture. Am I the only one who finds that deeply annoying?

Ferguson defines a hierarchy as a network with particular characteristics. A hierarchy is heavy on top-down connections and light on horizontal or bottom-up connections. I am being terse. He is more explicit. But since he never defines the term network, calling a hierarchy a particular type of network still leaves hierarchy undefined.

When I type “network” into Google, it gives me the movie with the famous line “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.” Maybe Google knows how peeved I am when a book never defines the terms that are its main focus.

One challenge is that we use the term network very promiscuously. We speak of road networks, computer networks, social networks, and so on. Maybe a definition is elusive because the term means different things in these different contexts.

Anyway, let me try to give a definition of a network, and see how you like it:

A network is a set of channels (or conduits) through which resources can flow according to particular protocols between nodes (or endpoints).

With a network of roads, the resources that flow are vehicles and their contents. The protocols usually allow for bidirectional flow.

With the Internet, the resources that flow are digital messages. The protocols include the Internet Protocols.

With real-life social networks, the “resources” are knowledge about someone based on personal acquaintanceship. The “protocols” are customs about how much we know about friends, family, and co-workers in our immediate circle. Yes, I’m stretching here.

When we talk about a political or economic contest between a network and a hierarchy, what are the resources that flow? Maybe the resources are “instructions” and “information.” They flow vertically in a hierarchy, and more horizontally in a non-hierarchy.

I have one more quibble about Ferguson. That is, the metaphor of a tower (managed centrally) and a square (emergent) strikes me as similar to the metaphor of the Cathedral and the Bazaar, found in a famous essay by Eric Raymond. I looked in the index, and there is a citation of Raymond’s essay, but Ferguson never remarks on the similarity of the metaphor!

By the way, I am probably going to like Ferguson’s book very much by the time I finish it.

3 thoughts on “How does one define the term “network”?

  1. How about this:

    A network is a system of nodes that permits transfers or exchanges between nodes (or endpoints) only through defined channels or conduits that link pairs of nodes/endpoints. Channels can be either symmetrical or asymmetrical.

    Networks are hierarchical on a certain type of channel if: (a) most channels of that type are asymmetrical, (b) some nodes have lots of “incoming” connections and a small number of “outgoing” connections, and (c) many nodes are sparsely connected, mostly through “outgoing” connections.

  2. Next link after reading this was at Offsetting Behavior where a post on Critical Studies quotes an essay on having to review a dozen ‘critical studies’ books:

    “The result was entire books aimed at bolstering resistance to things like “neoliberalism,” none of which ever stated explicitly what “neoliberalism” is, much less what is wrong with it.”

    https://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com/2018/02/critical-studies-and-neoliberalism.html

    To avoid being lumped in with ‘critical studies’ authors is reason enough to avoid this failure to define.

  3. “With real-life social networks, the “resources” are knowledge about someone based on personal acquaintanceship. The “protocols” are customs about how much we know about friends, family, and co-workers in our immediate circle. Yes, I’m stretching here.”

    Here i would say the “protocols” are the culturally inherited customs and manners that prescribe and proscribe how we transmit information, labor, and capital resources. These protocols have been historically defined differently depending on the relationship between the nodes of the network (i.e. Family, friend, co-worker, acquaintance, stranger, compatriot) as to what is appropriate, and evolve with the culture. The roads between family & friend nodes are naturally inclined to flow more freely, with cultural feedback pushing against that natural inclination (anti-nepotism, anti-insider trading, etc…)

Comments are closed.