As you know, the EVE blog has decided to open in 2015 a large thematic file on professional networks (of women, but not only...).
Already enriched by exclusive interviews with leaders of influential networks (PWN, SNCF au féminin...), focus on their initiatives (such as therecent Hackathon organized by "Femmes Mobiles " of Orange or the conference " Does leadership have a gender " proposed by Women in Business – KPMG), reports on their research and prospecting work (such as the recent Financi'Elles survey), this dossier will be enriched throughout the coming weeks with portraits, contradictory debates, stimulating readings...
But it also seemed essential to us, in order to create the conditions for a fruitful discussion, to instruct the very notion of " network ". And that's good, since since 2014, we have had a section expressly designed to take stock of words and expressions that, sometimes seemingly insignificantly, are very seriously subject to discussion: it's " A concept under the magnifying glass ".
The EVE blog is now putting on its encyclopedic glasses to better understand the contours and dimensions of the concept of " network ".
A metaphorical etymology
The word " network " comes from the Latin " retiolus ", a diminutive of " retis " which means net. The following are of the same root:
- " retina " (which immediately evokes the eye, the gaze, the vision)
- " reticule " (which also evokes notions of optics... But also, it is unusual but not without symbolism, the name given to a kind of small handbag used by women in the nineteenth century)
- " reticular " (qualifying a " systemic " thought, a " crystallizing and cohesive " energy or a web address – the URL, not to name it – producing hyperlinks)
- " mesh " (which evokes an openwork mesh, made to contain elements without hiding them)
- "rets" (which designates a fishing or ornithological net and figuratively takes on the meaning of " trap " : " to be caught in the nets " of someone or something, is to be the accountant or even the hostage)...
Promising excavation, already, that of the origins of the word in French...
But let's not stop at the borders of the French-speaking world: the Spanish " red " and the Italian " rete " are from the same root, but the Anglo-Saxons have chosen the portmanteau word " network " (which associates the countless assonances of " net " – canvas, tulle, clarity – with the notion of " work ", which says a lot about the fact that networkingis indeed a real job!).
In other words, at this simple stage of linguistic genealogy, we have an extraordinarily rich and tremendously metaphorical notion that contains as many dynamic avenues of reflection as the articulation between seeing and doing, content and container, the visible and the distracted, belonging and influence, access and restriction, the individual and the community, the spontaneous and the worked... It's promising!
A nuclear nature
The notion of " network " is metaphorical because it is descriptive: the fact precedes the intention, and logically precedes the concept. Because networking is indeed a spontaneous function of the living : it is the organization of blood vessels, the tree that unfolds its roots, nature that develops into ecosystems...
And even before that, at the minimum of the physical existence of things, it is the atom, composed in a constellation of distinct elements in active connection with each other.
Because the lattice is indeed nuclear in nature: it is the functional core and the centre of gravity at the heart of the interactions.
The social network, a spontaneous human bill?
With these notions of " functionality", " gravitation " and " interactions " in mind, let's leave the somewhat steep terrain of pure physics and return to what concerns us more directly: the networks that humans build and animate.
To tell the truth, the network is at the very foundations of society. And it is vital. It is obviously so when the network is made up of pipes (to connect everyone with water or energy, for example), transport (to mesh a territory and make its multiple regions accessible for the purposes of the comings and goings of men and goods) or communication (to allow the exchange of news, attentions, ideas, etc.). points of view...). It is still so when, dematerialized, it produces community: of culture, value, meaning and/or interests, among others.
The network, the architect of relationships, is the very opposite of anarchy. It institutes an orderly collective body, recognizing its members, who accept shared principles for the common good.
The network, restrictive of individual freedom?
But how far does this belonging from which recognition stems and this acceptance of collective principles superior to the purest free will go? To the point of the community's preference for oneself? To the point of sacrificing one's own identity and individual freedom?
It is to the theorists of the social contract that we refer the question: after the ancient philosophers who described humans as political animals (i.e. naturally disposed to enter society), after Hobbes who theorized the need for security of individuals which presides over the acceptance of collective rules and after Locke who defined the role of the State (an instituted functional network if ever there was one), the philosophy of the Enlightenment, and Rousseau in particular, developed the notion of general interest, placed under the responsibility of each individual.
There would therefore be, beyond the mere written rule that sanctions the act that does not conform to the laws of the community, a consciousness of the common good that authorizes and permits popular sovereignty. In other words, to be " belonging " would only be to restrict the vast extent of one's freedom to accepted social rules only in order to acquire one's autonomy.
Networks and influences
It is therefore a democratic dynamic that we are talking about. But if this is quite easy to understand for the " State " network in a republican context and in a relatively liberal format for the exercise of individual rights, it is not so obvious when it comes to other communities suspected, rightly or wrongly, of contesting, circumventing or exploiting the values of democracy for the benefit of community and/or particular interests.
Because what titillates in the networks is this: at the service of whom and what are they at? How can we guarantee that they pursue noble goals? How can their influence be measured, and who is countering it, if necessary?
Networks, clubs, circles, friendships and other interest groups: from self-interest to lobbying?
The network, whether informal (when it is a simple circle of relations, a group of friends, sometimes unaware of itself...) or instituted (when it is a club, a friendship, a corporation, an interest group, a federation or an association) is not without arousing fantasies: sectarianism, co-optation, exclusivism, underground influence...
But let us prefer detailed criticism to presumptions: that which questions the reasons, whether admitted or not, for " networking " within or beyond the democratic community.
The sociology of the 1960s, on both sides of the Atlantic, from the Chicago School to the Bourdieusian current, was particularly interested in informal networks. Those of the " self-contained ", more or less unconscious for individuals who " form a body " and who, by virtue of their origins and the environment in which they evolve, benefit from all kinds of advantages that promote their social prosperity: access to information, ease in mastering the codes and registers of spaces of valorization, solidarity of assimilated and peers...
Where the informal network, a more or less invisible but powerful social structure, creates and perpetuates inequalities without ever being able to reproach it for having deliberately worked against equal opportunities: after all, isn't it normal (and moreover largely beyond our control) to teach the codes of our environment to our children, is it shameless piston to simply let a friend looking for a job know that such and such a company recruits collaborators, what is wrong with the fact of provoking the meeting between relatives who have common interests?
And therefore, since all this exists in practice, is it not legitimate – and ultimately perhaps more direct – to give the name, status and location of the networks by setting them up in a proactive way with an assumed intention to help those who are members progress?
For an ethical professional network
Because yes, more than ever in the era where " soft skills " are key to social and professional integration, the ability to weave, maintain and animate the network is an invaluable asset for success.
Also, integrating the lessons of contradictory thinking, the question is not so much " should we network or not?" but rather " how can we network as effectively as honestly?"
The first way to meet this challenge is of course conscience : to guard against denial (" me, networking, never, it's not the type!" ) since everyone, as soon as they are in contact with others, makes their own Monsieur Jourdain of networking ; and maintain lucidity as a course of meaning with regard to one's expectations of one's network (valuing one's talents and developing one's potential, gaining visibility and influence to advance one's ideas and projects, seeking constructive friction with others in a secure environment, etc.).
The question of access and the adjoining question of transparency also arises: who can " enter " your address book and who can consult it, who can join your circle of benevolence, who can benefit from your support and that of your friends and friends of friends? And according to what criteria? Assumed and assertive (exclusively female or mixed? Executive-only or open to any level of the organization? Is it a community of professions or extended to all professional worlds? etc.) Or are they subject to approval on a case-by-case basis, with or without an established reason for acceptance?
Positioning in the network is also at stake: a political space in the philosophical sense of the term, it is obviously not exempt from businesses of power, as evidenced by the very fact that we speak of " heads of networks " for those who show a great ability to " play relationships " and influence their environment. This is not a bad thing in itself, but a fine understanding of it will help to find one's right place and to clearly define one's intentions and aspirations.
The network outside the network, for spaces of constructive friction
Finally, it is the network's relationship with other universes that is undoubtedly the most interesting to explore.
Because if it is an invaluable asset for fertile social relations within it, the network will only flourish the individual who is part of it, when it also promotes interaction with what is not the network : when it becomes, for example , a legitimate force of proposal for the management of a company (and many professional networks will have defined one of their missions in this way: to carry the voice of women and equality in the organization), when it offers the results of its work to public discussion and can initiate good practices (the EVE Program, which is also a network of women and men enlightened on leadership, has notably promoted several change support mechanisms in its partner companies), when its framework, outside of traditional legitimities, stimulates innovation and encourages the emergence of unsuspected talents (as the leaders of the PWN network recently mentioned here , citing examples of people who have made a name for themselves by carrying out ambitious projects)...
Jump back, let's network, since this is fundamentally natural for us, as individuals and as a collective, and possibly very beneficial. But let's network in dynamics, in questions and in fruitful confrontations...
