This week’s readings on networks started off a bit confusing to me, but by the time I ended up at Weingart’s Networks Demystified series, I felt like I had learned the ins and outs of networks, more or less. I had never given much thought to the visualization of networks, nor how historians, humanists, or social scientists have been using them before, which may have explained my bewilderment with some of the week’s articles. I’ve come to understand that networks are basically connections between things, usually people. However, there can be many factors that play a part in these networks that we as historians should try to take into account.

One example, cited by several of this week’s authors, is John Snow’s cholera map showing how the 1854 outbreak began in London. John Theibault writes that Snow’s map presented a narrative, as well as analysis of the epidemic, and leaves it at that. Meanwhile, Johanna Drucker takes Snow’s map a bit further, putting into question just who all those dots were socially and demographically, as well as providing us first with a street map with plotted dots, and an updated version of the map that replaces the dots with actual humans. The human figures on the map help illustrate that each dot from Snow’s map represents a single individual, reminding us that there is more information than meets the eye in all data.

What has helped me understand the purpose of visualizing networks were Klein’s article on archival silence and data visualization in regard to Thomas Jefferson’s communication with James Hemings, who was Jefferson’s slave and chef, and the Mapping the Republic of Letters project, in particular the case study of Benjamin Franklin. Both utilize correspondence data to show patterns of communication. In Jefferson’s case, although he did not directly communicate with Hemings, the digital version of the Papers of Thomas Jefferson contains an editorial note about Hemings, as he was mentioned in his letters to other people. From this, the author was able to chart the frequency Hemings was mentioned and also in which correspondence he was referred to. This visual aid helps to show us how Jefferson communicated about Hemings, which would not be known if only relying on letters written directly to him, which were none.

More general patterns can be seen in Franklin’s letters, such as which country he was receiving letters from most during a particular time frame, what kinds of people he was corresponding with (professionals, artisans, etc), and his top correspondents. This approach helps answer questions about Franklin’s correspondence that might take large chunk of time to extrapolate, which is one of the benefits of visualizing networks.