<<this is the first thread I'm starting on FutureCulture. I'm sure you guys
will have lots to say about it.>>
The Space of Community on the Net
The Internet has been heralded as a place where communities can arise and
flourish, independent of geography. People can associate and communicate
based on their interests and commitments, not on where they live.
But most of the 'places' on the Net don't foster any sort of community at
all. Most websites aren't designed to foster communication among a group,
let alone create community. Most of them are as communityless as a freeway:
plenty of visitors, no inhabitants. Which is fine, for their intents and
purposes.
There seems to be a continuum of community on the Net--and everywhere else.
At one end, there's the rich matrix of relationships and commitments
possible in an environment like The Well, or certain mailing lists and
conferencing systems. And at the other, there's the shopping mall site and
the porno site, where the visitors may even have an interest in suppressing
community.
And along that continuum, one can distinguish different levels of community.
At the highest end, the members have diverse and fully-featured
relationships, friendships, romances, and so forth. They identify
themselves as members of the community, and they continue to participate
even when things are happening there they don't like. They are committed
members of the community.
At a somewhat lower level, the community may be based on a common interest.
The relationships among members will tend to be one-dimensional. The members
may relate to the community as an interesting place to play or a useful
resource for information, but they don't identify themselves as members.
When people don't like what's happening there, they may leave.
At the lowest end, there is no community--there may be no mechanism for
group communication. People may have an interest in not being known or
establishing relationships. Anonymity reigns. People relate to the place
as a resource, a place to 'go and get something.' If what's available there
changes to something they aren't interested in, they get what they want
somewhere else.
We could describe this level as the "space of community" in a particular
group. It's the room that people have to associate, relate, and take on
commitments and projects together, supported by the degree of their
committed membership. A 'large space of community' would give people lots
of room to associate. A 'space of no community' would reject association.
There would be no room.
The technology used for communication, the intent or focus of the group, and
the way the members participate all impact how large that space is. Flaming
is both a sign and a cause of a small space of community, even when the
founders have larger plans. Also, different people may participate in
different ways, lurking or being very vocal. But fundamentally, there needs
to be a group of people who consider themselves committed members to have a
large space of community.
I don't mean to say any size space is better than any other. Generating the
largest space of community is the most difficult and the most potentially
rewarding level to take on. But that doesn't mean one should always pursue
that reward. There are many reasons to make information available or to
bring people together besides just having a community. Some of those reasons
might be legitimately extra-communal. And even if we impose moral value on
one level or another, it would be impossible to force community on all the
places in the Net.
But I think it would be useful to invent and develop a language that allows
us to speak about the opportunity for community on the Net in a way that
includes all the possibilities that are there. Creating communities or
extra-communal structures is easier than it's ever been in human history,
and we need a comprehensive way to think about it. The 'space of community'
is a start in that direction.
<<now, for example, FutrureCulture--in my limited observation--seems to have
large space of community. In fact, it seems large enough that people can
have a high degree of conflict, disagreement, and "flaming," and people seem
to remaain freinds. Among the core people, this seemms consistent enough
across the group that I wouuld say it is a characteristic of the space of
community here.
<<one thing I am struggling with a bit is generalizing this: I don't see
this idea as only applying to "virtual communities." In fact I think it
could have important political implications, as an extension of
communitarianism. If any of you have any ideas in this direction, I'd
appreciate them most.>>
--John Stoner
--Internet Explorations
--jstoner@interaccess.com
--http://www.interaccess.com/explore/
--personal page: http://www.interaccess.com/explore/stoner