Social Media History
1
Social relations in Bremnes, Norway, fall into three categories: relatively stable formal orga- nizations serving many different purposes, un- stable associations engaged in fishing, and in- terpersonal links that combine to form a social network and on which perceptions of class are based. In fishing situations, orders are given and obeyed; in the other social settings, consensus decisions are reached obliquely and tentatively. (The SCI® and SSC!® indicate that this paper has been cited in over 160 publications since 19551 p J.A. Barnes Department of Sociology Research School of Social Sciences Australian National University Canberra, ACT 2601 Australia January 9, 1987 I spent 1952 and part of 1953 in west- ern Norway, carrying out what I initial- ly perceived as a “community study.” I soon discovered that although the peo- ple I worked with had the cultural val- ues of a “community,” their social struc- ture was quite unlike the paradigmatic gemeinschaft. Their social world had an abundance of formal organizations, but most individuals appeared to make deci- sions with reference to personal contacts that often cut~ across organizational boundaries. I tried to capture this con- figuration with the label “network” and applied it to the class system, one of the foci of my inquiries. When I returned to Manchester, En- gland, I used the term in the first paper I wrote on my research. Then I moved to the London School of Economics and found that Elizabeth Boll was grappling with somewhat the same pattern of rela- tions in her work on married couples. Neither her findings nor mine attracted much attention at the time. Other inqui- ries with the social network as their cen- tral analytical tool followed, notably those inspired by Clyde Mitchell. 1 These made a great impact on micro-sociology, and Bott’s book2 and my paper came back into currency. There is now a flour- ishing specialty of network analysis that has its own journal, Social Networks; a professional organization, the I nterna- tional Network for Social Network Anal- ysis; and introductory textbooks. 3 ’ 4 My career led me away from Norway and network analysis. I became interest- ed in the sociology of knowledge and, in particular, in the development of special- ties in social science. I’ve tried to keep in touch with network analysts if only as an outsider. I’ve even been rash enough to tell them what they look like from the outside. 5 My paper deals not only with social networks in Norway but also with pro- cesses of decision-making. All the in- stances of citation that I’ve seen invoke only my comments on networks. I still think that what one might call the “Duke of Plaza Toro” mode of leadership I ob- served in some Norwegian contexts merits further analysis, but perhaps I shall have to write another paper to prove my point. - .‘.titcheil .J C. ed. Social networks in urban situations: analyses 01 personal relationships in Central African towns. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 969. 378 P. (Cited 370 times.) 2. Knit E. Family and social network. London: Tavistock. 1971. 252 p. (Cited 5S5 times.( 3. Berkowitz S D. An introduction to structural analysis. Toronto: Buttcrworrh. 982. 234 p. .1. Burt R S. Toward a structural theory of action. 9ew York: Academic Press. 1982. 38t p. 5 Barnes J A. Modelling: for real or for fun? connections 6(I):15-21. t 983. 18 ©1987 by SI® CURRENT CONTENTS® This Week’s Citation Classic® CC/NUMBER 23- Barnes J A. Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish. Hum. Relat. 7:39-58, 1954. [London School of Economics. University of London. England[
-
Upload
q-think-dkk -
Category
Documents
-
view
11 -
download
2
description
Social Media History
Transcript of Social Media History
Social relations in Bremnes, Norway, fall intothree categories: relatively stable formal orga-nizations serving many different purposes, un-stable associations engaged in fishing, and in-terpersonal links that combine to form a socialnetwork and onwhich perceptions of class arebased. In fishing situations, orders are given andobeyed; in the other social settings, consensusdecisions are reached obliquely and tentatively.(The SCI® and SSC!® indicate that this paperhas been cited in over 160 publications since19551
p
J.A. BarnesDepartment of Sociology
Research School of Social SciencesAustralian National University
Canberra, ACT 2601Australia
January 9, 1987
I spent 1952 and part of 1953 inwest-ern Norway, carrying out what I initial-ly perceived as a “community study.” Isoon discovered that although the peo-ple I worked with had the cultural val-ues of a “community,” their social struc-ture was quite unlike the paradigmaticgemeinschaft. Their social world had anabundance of formal organizations, butmost individuals appeared to make deci-sions with reference to personal contactsthat often cut~across organizationalboundaries. I tried to capture this con-figuration with the label “network” andapplied it to the class system, one of thefoci of my inquiries.
When I returned to Manchester, En-gland, I used the term in the first paperI wrote on my research. Then I movedto the London School of Economics andfound that Elizabeth Boll was grapplingwith somewhat the same pattern of rela-tions in her work on married couples.Neither her findings nor mine attractedmuch attention at the time. Other inqui-ries with the social network as their cen-tral analytical tool followed, notablythose inspired by Clyde Mitchell.1 Thesemade a great impact on micro-sociology,and Bott’s book2 and my paper cameback into currency. There is now a flour-ishing specialty of network analysis thathas its own journal, Social Networks; aprofessional organization, the I nterna-tional Network for Social Network Anal-ysis; and introductory textbooks.3’4
My career led me away from Norwayand network analysis. I became interest-ed in thesociology of knowledge and, inparticular, in the development of special-ties in social science. I’ve tried to keepin touch with network analysts if only asan outsider. I’ve even been rash enoughto tell them what they look like from theoutside.5
My paper deals not only with socialnetworks in Norway but also with pro-cesses of decision-making. All the in-stances of citation that I’ve seen invokeonly my comments on networks. I stillthink that what one might call the “Dukeof Plaza Toro” mode of leadership I ob-served in some Norwegian contextsmerits further analysis, but perhaps I shallhave to writeanother paper to prove mypoint.
- .‘.titcheil .J C. ed. Social networks in urban situations: analyses 01 personal relationships in Central African towns.Manchester: Manchester University Press. 969. 378 P. (Cited 370 times.)
2. Knit E. Family and social network. London: Tavistock. 1971. 252 p. (Cited 5S5 times.(3. Berkowitz S D. An introduction to structural analysis. Toronto: Buttcrworrh. 982. 234 p..1. Burt R S. Towarda structural theory of action. 9ew York: Academic Press. 1982. 38t p.5 Barnes J A. Modelling: for real or for fun? connections 6(I):15-21. t983.
18 ©1987 by SI® CURRENT CONTENTS®
This Week’s Citation Classic® CC/NUMBER 23-
Barnes J A. Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish.Hum.Relat. 7:39-58, 1954.[London School of Economics.University of London. England[
![The Importance of a Social Media Policy [case history]](https://static.fdocuments.in/doc/165x107/5404b3358d7f729e768b489a/the-importance-of-a-social-media-policy-case-history.jpg)
