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[