RAND_MR1382

Social Underpinnings
The full functioning of a network also depends on how well, and in what ways, the
members are personally known and connected to each other. This is the classic level of
social network analysis, where strong personal ties, often ones that rest on friendship
and bonding experiences, ensure high degrees of trust and loyalty. To function well,
networks may require higher degrees of interpersonal trust than do other approaches to
organization, like hierarchies. This traditional level of theory and practice remains
important in the information age.
In this book, the chapters on terrorist, criminal, and gang organizations referred to the
importance of kinship, be that of blood or brotherhood. Meanwhile, news about Osama
bin Laden and his network, al-Qaeda (The Base), continue to reveal his, and its,
dependence on personal relationships he formed over the years with “Afghan Arabs”
from Egypt and elsewhere who were committed to anti-U.S. terrorism and Islamic
fundamentalism. In what is tantamount to a classic pattern of clan-like behavior, his son
married the daughter of his longtime aide and likely successor, Abu Hoffs al-Masri, in
January 2001. 42
The chapters on activist netwars also noted that personal friendships and bonding
experiences often lie behind the successful formation and functioning of solidarity and
affinity groups. And once again, the case of the ICBL speaks to the significance of this
level, when organizer Jody Williams treats trust as the social bedrock of the campaign:
It’s making sure, even though everybody was independent to do it their own way, they cared enough to keep us all
informed so that we all had the power of the smoke-and-mirrors illusion of this huge machinery…. And it was,
again, the follow up, the constant communication, the building of trust. Trust, trust, trust. The most important
element in political work. Once you blow trust, you’ve blown it all. It’s hard to rebuild. 43
The tendency in some circles to view networks as amounting to configurations of social
capital and trust is helpful for analyzing this level. But there are other important
concepts as well, notably about people forming “communities of practice” (Brown and
Duguid, 2000), “communities of knowing,” and “epistemic communities” (Haas, 1992).
In a sense, all these concepts reflect the ancient, vital necessity of belonging to a family,
clan, or tribe and associating one’s identity with it.
Meanwhile, the traditions of social network analysis and economic transaction analysis
warn against the risks of having participants who are “free riders” or lack a personal
commitment to teamwork. Indeed, compared to tribal/clan and hierarchical forms of
organization, networks have more difficulty instilling, and enforcing, a sense of
personal identity with and loyalty to the network. This is one of the key weaknesses of
the network form—one that may affect counternetwar designs as well. It extends partly
from the fact that networks are often thought to lack a “center of gravity” as an
organization.