The Meaning Structure of Social Networks * JAN A. FUHSE Universit¨ at Stuttgart This essay proposes to view networks as sociocultural structures. Following authors from Leopold von Wiese and Norbert Elias to Gary Alan Fine and Harrison White, networks are configurations of social relationships interwoven with meaning. Social relationships as the basic building blocks of networks are conceived of as dynamic structures of reciprocal (but not necessarily symmetric) expectations between al- ter and ego. Through their transactions, alter and ego construct an idiosyncratic “relationship culture” comprising symbols, narratives, and relational identities. The coupling of social relationships to networks, too, is heavily laden with meaning. The symbolic construction of persons is one instance of this coupling. Another instance is the application of social categories (like race or gender), which both map and struc- ture social networks. The conclusion offers an agenda for research on this “meaning structure of social networks.” In research on social networks, the structure of relationships is depicted as the decisive variable leading to diverse phenomena like status attainment, intellectual creativity, or collective action. Network research thereby usually pays little attention to the expectations, symbols, schemata, and cultural practices embodied in interper- sonal structures: the meaning structure of social networks. This essay argues for the importance of this cultural level in sociological analysis, and it offers a theoretical sketch for the interplay of structure and meaning in networks and of its method- ological implications. Its focus lies on mechanisms of this interplay in networks, systematizing theoretical arguments, and empirical evidence. This sketch draws heav- ily on the relational sociology of Harrison White and others, while relating it to the categories and methods of empirical research. It incorporates insights from di- verse research traditions such as systems theory, social psychological research on relationships, symbolic interactionism, and social anthropology. The main argument runs against a purely structural understanding of networks. But I also argue against individualist accounts, which depict social structure as the aggregate of actors’ in- dependent actions, and against views of culture as independent of its grounding in social structure. The first section discusses the role of meaning in network analysis on a theoreti- cal and methodological level. It is argued that social structure is substantively com- posed of cultural constructs such as expectations, identities, and categories. Therefore, ∗ Address correspondence to: Jan A. Fuhse, Institute for Cultural and Technological Research, Univer- sit¨ at Stuttgart, Geschwister-Scholl-Straße 24, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany. Tel.: +49-711-685-82955; Fax: +49-711-685-82813; E-mail: jan@fuhse.net. This paper was presented at the 2007 Sunbelt Conference on Corfu. Research on the topic was facilitated by a Feodor-Lynen fellowship of the Alexander von Humboldt foundation at the Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy at Columbia University. I am indebted to Ron Breiger, Frederic Godart, Joscha Legewie, Dean Lusher, John Levi Martin, Sophie M¨ utzel, Matthias Thiemann, Harrison White, Anna Zamora, and the late Chuck Tilly (who even in bad medical times never failed to give good advice to his students and colleagues) for helpful comments and suggestions. Sociological Theory 27:1 March 2009 C  American Sociological Association. 1430 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20005