So, in response – firstly, there is of course absolutely nothing wrong with explaining concepts to an audience at a level appropriate to the context. If only more people did try and ‘make sense’ by pitching to their audience! I appreciate that you have a different type of experience that you are applying.

Secondly, with reference to Malcolm Gladwell and perhaps Krebs, there is a different type of ‘theory’ being engaged. I am not claiming a hierarchy, nor do I want to claim superiority for ‘heavyweight’ social theory, that would be pretentious. There are however conceptual ‘debts’ that frequently go unacknowledged – but then it has ever been thus! In some ways Gladwell’s ideas compliment the theoretical articulations of what might be most broadly labelled ‘network’ approaches. Although I think his work probably owes a particular debt to what some label ‘cooperation theory’, for example Robert Axelrod’s work – which I personally think is more pithy and interesting (see: ‘The Evolution of Cooperation’) – also you might like to look at Howard Rheingold’s ‘Cooperation Commons’ website

Finally, Deleuze and Guattari probably weren’t the first philosophers to think in terms of networks, or in their case the ideas of ‘rhizome’ and ‘assemblages’ (for an opening on this see the first chapter of their ‘A Thousand Plateaus’), although I think they provide one of the most complete and exciting expositions of this mode of thought. One of the more influential (and perhaps more accessible) people writing about relationships as networks in ‘communications’ or ‘urban’ studies is Manuel Castells (see: ‘The Information Society’). Of course in theorising social relations we are theorising ‘society’ which is a significant task! I think some of the more interesting ways of thinking about the role of technology in social relations comes through Science & Technology Studies and specifically Bruno Latour, for example his book ‘Pandora’s Hope‘. Also, whilst I don’t particularly agree with his reading of Deleuze, Manuel DeLanda’s book A New Philosophy of Society provides a very accessible means of thinking about ‘assemblages’.

There will always be differences in theoretical position, and ‘vive la difference’! There are also plenty of opportunities now through the internet to access all of these different ideas, which I hope will lead to interesting conversations, like this.

Do you have the same opinion on gladwell’s connectors and the catalysts of starfish and spider? Is there anything wrong with simplifying to introduce people to concepts? I am not being flip – but sincere.

I am trying to ‘make sense’ as you say and am open to learn and be pointed in right directions..so teach me!