Strathern- WHARTON

The concept of "networks" presented by Strathern seems slightly confusing. Strathern includes a quote from Latour stating, "the networking activity of interpretations that 'link in one continuous chain' representations, politics and the world of the scientific discovery creates mixed narratives. The theorist's interpretations are as much networks as any other combination of elements," (521). This quote makes me question how the concept of "network" is actually able to detail the true relationships and influences revolving around a certain event, cultural development, or family lineage. To me, it seems that Strathern is just clarifying how subjective the description of a network can be. Strathern claims "a network is an apt image for describing the way one can link or enumerate disparate entities without making assumptions about level or hierarchy," (522), but how can this be the case? When describing an extended relationship between many people and things, things and things, etc., how is it possible to give a valid interpretation of the relationships without questioning what came first, or who was the influential player at the time?
When describing a network, how can one be sure that his/her research and interpretation of the network is actually presenting a truthful description of said-network? Can a network ever be correctly defined, or is its definition dependent upon the subjective telling of the people involved and the subjective interpretation of anthropologists? Would two anthropologists describing or outlining a network ever come to the same conclusion or outline of the network? The whole concept of "network" seems more subjective than it is helpful to me.