The social universe of the inhabitants of small social units, including small islands, is riddled with connections. These include the obvious suspects – immediate family and close friends – but also a myriad of acquaintances, connections, former classmates and workmates. As such, this is common to all social actors. What makes these connections especially relevant in a small scale context is that they may be resorted to in the pursuit of needs and aspirations. The social universe of small scale societies is tightly articulated and inter-connected: it expresses the ‘ABC condition’: ‘articulation by compression’. Additionally, the social actors of a small social field find themselves involved in multiple roles, so that their role sets are likely to overlap and intersect multiple times. Thus, it is not exceptional to find, say, that teachers, lecturers and professors have their own children in their classes (leading to situations of, sometimes inescapable, role conflict). It is also possible to find that former schoolmates and work colleagues maintain links and connections over time: only emigration (exile/ ex-isle) is the best guarantor for cutting one’s links with such former contacts.
With such a tight social field, fuelled and nurtured by “particularistic relations” (Benedict, 1966; 1967) and “multiplex” social roles (Gluckman, 1955) where nearly every social relation serves multiple interests, the road to the fulfilment of needs and wants, including access to public goods or scarce resources, need not pass through formal institutional channels, but (also) through personal connections. This pursuit is not social class specific: only the nature of the connections changes on the basis of social class. The economic elite is more likely to involve politicians and their cadres regularly in advancing their agendas. But those from lower social classes will also build and (seek to) nurture relations with power holders, in order to be able to ‘cash in’ in times of need, or secure ‘spoils’ when they become available (Buker, 2005). Politicians thus accosted do often seek to please and satisfy their constituents, knowing that such actions on their part may secure the voter’s loyalty come election time. Thus is a network deployed: the network not being a technical assembly (e.g. a train network) but in its sociological sense: the sum total of individuals that are either known directly by a person (zero degrees of separation) or via another connection, as a ‘friend of a friend’ (one degree of separation) and known enough to be able to be approached with requests for favours and assistance. (Whether the potential patron accepts to deliver the favour is another story.) The power relationship can be vertical – involving patron-client linkages; but also horizontal, in which case some reciprocity of obligation can be expected. Barnes (1954) demonstrated that living in a small island society – Bremnes, in Norway, in his case – means that, even if inhabitants may not know each other directly, they are fully confident that their social networks overlap generously and therefore that various ‘third parties’ would be known to both.
Individuals in small scale societies build networks instinctively as they progress through life. The people that they ‘know’ well and well enough can be expected to be approached to, for example, provide specific information or expedite requests that would otherwise take longer to process using the normal and official channels. The intensity and frequency of such articulations are likely to increase when dealing with small democratic polities and jurisdictions, since the number of individuals wielding political power increases (Lévêque, 2020) and intense personalisation becomes the norm (Corbett & Veenendaal, 2018).
Social network analysis departs from the understanding that “the patterning of social ties in which actors are embedded has important consequences for those actors” (Freeman, 2004, p. 2). An early recognition of such networks and the role they play is by Bott (1957; also Chambers, 1958), followed by Boissevain (1974) in his research in the small archipelago state of Malta. This branch of social science has developed in a structural and empirical direction, using mathematics, sociometrics, ‘sociographs’ and ‘sociograms’ to explain, illustrate and conceptualise social distance, and the strength and robustness of relations and friendships.
An important and more recent refinement to ‘network theory’ is its representation as ‘actor network theory’: a conceptual revision that sits within social constructivism (Law, 1992). It is meant to remind us that networks are not merely manipulations of individuals – much like spiders managing their intricate web, a common but partial metaphor for networks – but also comprise actions and encounters that influence and mould these same individuals. ‘ANT’ speculates that we – as social beings and personalities – are largely, if not wholly, the sum total of our relationships. No wonder the expression goes: birds of a feather flock together. Thus there is a bidirectional, birelational and multiple flow of influence where and when networks are engaged: that of the request for the desired asset proper, and the addressing of that request; but also the influence of one party to the relationship on the behaviour and understanding of the other. Thus we, as social actors both shape, and are shaped by, our networks.
Barnes, J. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish. Human Relations, 7(1), 39–58.
Benedict, B. (1966). Sociological characteristics of small territories and their implications for economic development. In M. Banton (Ed.), Social anthropology of complex societies (pp. 23-36). London: Routledge.
Benedict, B. (Ed.). (1967). Problems of smaller territories. London: Institute of Commonwealth Studies.
Boissevain, J. (1974). Friends of friends: Networks, manipulators and coalitions. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bott, E. (1957). Family and social networks: Roles, norms and external relationships in ordinary urban families. London: Tavistock.
Buker, P. E. (2005). Buker, P. E. (2005). The executive administrative style in Prince Edward Island: Managerial and spoils politics. In L. Bernier, K. Brownsey, & M. Howlett (Eds.), Executive styles in Canada: Cabinet structures and leadership practices in Canadian government (pp. 111-130). Toronto ON: University of Toronto Press.
Chambers, R. (1958). ‘Family and Social Network’. Book review. British Journal of Sociology, 9(2), 186–187.
Corbett, J., & Veenendaal, W. (2018). Democracy in small states: Persisting against all odds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver BC, Canada: Empirical Press.
Gluckman, M. (1955). The judicial process among the Barotse of Northern Rhodesia. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4), 379-393.
Lévêque, P. (2020). Personalistic politics on Prince Edward Island: Towards a subnational approach to personalism and democracy. Small States & Territories, 3(1), 153-172.