Page - (000037) - in Knowledge and Networks

27 The Nature of Economic Networks in Relation to Social Issues Analyses of economic networks for goods and services commonly cast people as instrumental to the effective functioning of networks. The social capital that accrues to such networks is seen to result in productivity, innovativeness, resilience, and the like. 1 This relation between people and networks, with the former serving the latter, is sensible in the context of neoliberal society, which encompasses researchers as much as their subjects and objects of study. As critical philosopher and historian Michel Foucault (2004/ 2008 ) argued, neoliberal practices transform the social into economic opportunity, refl ected in the academic conceptualization of social rela- tions as instrumental to economic goals. I aim to conceptualize a reversal of the usual relation between the social and the economic to engage specifi cally how economic knowledge networks can enhance social relations. How, then, might economic networks contribute to social change? The question appears to counter neoliberal logic. However, as research on economic networks has pointed out, constructive social relations in the arena of production and innovation depend on effective collaboration, trust, and mutual respect ( Bourdieu , 1986 ; Glückler, 2005 ). Thus, the process of achieving social goals embeds economic goals (Cantener, in this volume). Such nesting is not, however, necessarily implicated when the goal is conceived economically because economic goals often are achieved at the expense of the social, notably labor. 2 The overall strategy I offer aims at subverting the usual logic of instrumentality by rendering economic effectiveness useful for social relations without, however, negating the importance of social relations for economic performance. I advocate a counter-con- duct 3 that works from within the dynamics of the system, consistent with Foucault’s ( 1996 , p. 387) provocative point that effective critique and resistance “relies upon the situation against which it struggles” and is immanent to the system of gover- nance. Per Foucault ( 1996 , p. 386) resistance “is not simply a negation, but a cre- ative process,” which can take shape in an agenda for positive social change. 1 Alternatively, Bourdieu’s ( 1986 ) discussion of social capital casts individuals’ membership in a network as benefi tting individuals, notably regarding their social positioning. This view does not negate the instrumental view of people relative to economic networks, but it offers more in terms of potential benefi ts of social capital. This said, the concern of this chapter is less with the benefi ts of network relations to an individual and more with a specifi cally relational view of social interac- tion, that is, the development of constructive relations among individuals based on the develop- ment of trust, mutual respect, and the like. 2 Achieving economic goals at the expense of social goals can be a matter of exploiting vulnerable workers for the sake of personal or shareholder gain. Other processes include myopic strategic planning (Ettlinger, 2008 ) as well as implicit biases against, and thus exclusion of, talented people who may be outside entrenched power networks (Ettlinger, 2003 ; Faulconbridge, 2007 ; Faulconbridge and Hall, 2009 ). 3 Foucault conceptualized systems of governance in terms of the conduct of conduct (e.g., Foucault, 2004/ 2007 ), with reference to the strategies, tactics, and programs that guide actors to make choices (often unconsciously) in accordance with societal norms. Counter-conduct, then, is the governance of practices that counter those norms (e.g., Foucault, 2004/ 2007 , p. 201). 2 Reversing the Instrumentality of the Social for the Economic