Networking - lessons from the bible
The journal Theory Culture & Society has published its first issue of the New Encyclopedia of Global Knowledge, and in it is an entry on networks written by me. I was asked to cut out what I thought was a nice example of how networking as a moral engagement is not something inately modern, but has a long history which can be traced, for example, to tribal societies such as the Israelites. The following is an abstract from my extended paper on networks.
Reflexive awareness of the trope of network is not an achievement of western (modern) thought. In Chinese cultures, for example, the term guanxi which in essence means the same as network, is an age old metaphor referring to a form of social capital that is embedded in the knowledge of and being known to significant others. Guanxi is partly established through common ancestry and kinship relations, but further extended through friendships, political and strategic alliances and economic exchanges (including gifts and favours). Indeed, even in western societies, networks were already existent well before they became analytical concepts. Relationships between patrons and clients in feudal systems, for example, involved a complex of exchanges, obligations, rights, duties and dependencies that often resembled those of guanxi. Of course, the Christian ethos of ‘love thy neighbour’ also shares a guanxi-type sense of obligation, which in the teachings of Jesus was being extended beyond tribal relationships, as expressed most clearly in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
The first biblical book of Machabees (Chapter
tells the story of how the Machabees, a particular clan of the tribe of the Jews led by Judas Machabeus, entered into an alliance with the Romans. At that time (approximately 188 BC), the Jews were under continuous attacks by neighbouring tribes and they saw an alliance with the Romans as having a strategic advantage. The covenant that was struck between Judas and the Romans contained both matters of military aid as well as economic and logistical support. However, this covenant also entailed a moral obligation, embedded in the duties and responsibilities associated with friendship.
The book displays the rather complex nature of pre-Christian Judaic society through the diversity of names and the dense kinship relations within and between clans. What stands out, however, is the continuous shifting of alliances between various clans and tribes, some of which are not explained and seem to be plainly opportunistic. Others, however, reveal the zeal of the Machabees to re-establish a more radical devotion to God, through a more stringent observance of the Law of Moses and, as a consequence, a more unforgiving approach to those who blasphemed against God or desecrated the holy places of Jerusalem.This articulation between religious devotion and a zeal for a more radical and violent purging of non-believers is perhaps difficult to square with the strategic alliance sought with the Romans. However, the book explains how the moral character of the Roman empire, both in terms of how they waged war and managed the peace, appealed to Machabees. They thus distinguished between various types of ‘pagans’ not simply on opportunistic grounds, but sought to legitimate their differentiation in strategic alliances by implying a sense of ‘Natural Law’, in which moral conduct and principles of justice could be shared between different religious groups.
Indeed, it would be all too easy to see the forging of an alliance as simply a political-military strategic move and the implications of distinctions as nothing but an extension of that. However, a more careful reading of the text raises the question why the Machabees were so keen on developing a moral legitimation of their political-military conduct. It would be too reductionist to see the text as nothing but a deliberate cynical decoy to protect the moral integrity of the clan. After all, the very nature of the alliance ceased to be cynical as soon as it has actual consequences.
Later on in the book (Chapter 12), Judas’ son Jonathan renewed the alliance with the Romans but also renewed their alliance with the Spartans, whom he called ‘their brothers. In the letter to the Spartans, Jonathan wrote:”We … chose rather to send to you to renew the brotherhood and friendship, lest we should become strangers to you altogether: for there is a long time passed since you sent to us. We, therefore at all times without ceasing … remember you in the sacrifices that we offer, and in our observances, as it is meet, and becoming to remember brethren” (1. Machabees, chapter 12, verse 10-12).
It is the claim to shared ancestry (Jonathan referred to the Spartans as being ‘from the stock of Abraham’ (ibid, verse 21), upon which Jonathan is forging the alliance with the Spartans. One could of course interpret this as a strategic use of a moral imperative, however we should not bypass the nature of the obligation so lightly. From where is the force of a moral imperative drawn?
This means that apart from what one might call ‘essential’ parameters that are derived from the trope, the conceptual deployment network is also indebted to its historical, socio-political-cultural lineage. From this diverse and multiplicitous history, one could deduce that there is an intrinsic association between on the one hand network and strategic relationship and on the other hand network and moral codes (or ‘the Law’).