152 Participatory Processes
this process of ordering occurs is described here in a general sense: via the indicated
virtual networks. Hence, structure is localized, agency is specified, which explains
why the concept of structure is partly actor dependent and partly not; moreover,
structure – that is, that which appears to be structuring – is the outcome of agency.
At first this seems incomprehensible (and within the accepted Giddensian theories
it cannot be but nonsensical), but it becomes plausible as soon as we integrate the
time dimension and the importance of virtual networks into the analysis.
Networks, routinisation, and institutionalisation
[A] network refers to a set of direct and indirect social relations, centred around given persons,
which are instrumental to the achievements of the goals of these persons, and to the commu-
nication of their expectations, demands, needs and aspirations (Anderson and Carlos, 1976,
p28).In this description, Anderson and Carlos stress, surprisingly, the orientation to the
future – that is, the virtual nature of networks.
The concept of social networks was developed initially by anthropologists such
as Radcliff-Brown and Mitchell (1969). Their direct intention was a better under-
standing of society in terms of ‘fabric’ and ‘web of social life’. What keeps society
together? What gives cohesion to, and connects, the commotion and goings-on?^24
The social relations of which individuals are part can be analysed as a network
(Boussevain, 1974, p25). A social network is more than a communicative struc-
ture, for many messages consist de facto of transactions – transactions that explic-
itly concern the material. In short, it concerns socio-technical networks (Wiskerke,
1997, p1). This applies a fortiori to the above-mentioned virtual networks.
In premodern constellations one would hardly, or even not at all, be aware of
the extent to which the construction of the future occurs via virtual networks. The
goals that those involved aim for, and more importantly ‘the set of direct and indi-
rect social relations’ (the network) supporting the realization of the goals, are all
largely routinized. Today’s goals, and the social relations important for their reali-
zation, are the same as yesterday’s. It is as if thinking is not needed. One can steer
by the compass of the well-tried and proven. The required network does not seem
to be virtual. It is the network that has always been there. ‘That is just the way
things are.’ Having unshakeable faith that things would happen just like they did
before, one could face the challenge of the future.
The most fascinating – and unusual, but no less adequate for that – critique of
traditionalism and its routinization stems, surprisingly, not from science but from
literature. This criticism is from Jean Auel (1980), who sketches the ins and outs
of the ‘clan of the cave bear’. The members of this clan act on the grounds of rou-
tine. The tried and true is the measure of (future-oriented) actions. Because the
members of the clan increasingly, and despite themselves, gain new experiences, how-
ever, they have to remember more and more. Consequently, their heads become
larger, the essential brain size intended for the required memory increases. This
results in more difficult child births. The heads of the newborn babies, brimful of