In network theory, the focus therefore shifts from counting nodes and edges to describing and explaining the selectivity of connections. In network theory, the network is of interest not as a crystal in which every element is connected to all others, but as a fold in which highly diverse neighborhood relationships arise. The network is of interest as a concept of latent and entangled relations, like an idea of curved spaces with highly improbable lines of gravitational force.
Network theory asks what problem networks pose and solve. This is a sociological question. One needs an idea of who or what moves in networks, for what reasons, and with what results. It is not enough to talk about connections without knowing what these connections do or do not do. And it is not enough to talk about nodes without pointing out that these nodes are to be understood not only substantively, but above all relationally and functionally. They are what they are, but they also do what they do. In Anglo-Saxon, network is not only a noun but also a verb.
The most rigorous attempt at a network theory was presented by sociologist Harrison C. White. In 1992, his book Identity and Control: A Structural Theory of Action was published.

Identity and control are exactly what networks are all about. The basic idea is that the identity of all elements involved in a network is not given in advance, but results from their relationships. Tell me who you are connected to, and I will tell you who you are. This is not to say that substantive questions of an element’s quality do not matter. But on the one hand, they are themselves the result of previous networks in which these elements found their quality, and on the other hand, they are as much a precondition as a restriction of possible connections in new networks.
Identity is the fundamentally fragile outcome of connections as a function of changing network relationships. Control is therefore the crucial activity. Control should mean that each element is interested in maintaining the relationships in which it stands, so that it can remain what it is or become what it wants to become. How does one do this? Of course, one can try to manipulate the relationships in which one stands accordingly. Easier and more promising, however, is to try to work on oneself to become or remain, if possible, so attractive that the relationships one needs are sought by those one desires.
Third, a network theory becomes a theory of network society by testing as open an understanding as possible of what circumstances are suitable to appear as “elements” of a network. In contrast to a network-analytical or even business-management approach, the sociological network theory of Harrison C. White or also Bruno Latour pursues the idea that these elements are not homogeneous but heterogeneous. Not only people or organizations link up to form networks, but also places and histories, practices and conventions, bodies and techniques, values and institutions. The same problem of identity and control applies to all of them, the same uncertainty as to who or what can maintain or even develop which relationship with which other elements and for how long.
This not only broadens the sociologist’s view, but also the understanding of the social. Every person, every machine, every place, every story, every organization participates in a “society”, contributing to the development of identities in this society and maintaining control over one’s own actions and experiences. Sustainable cohesion does not require everyone to be connected to everyone. But there should always be a bridge in reserve that turns an odd number of connections into an even one.