Critically examine the concept of 'community' in relation to virtual community.

Critically examine the concept of ‘community’ in relation to virtual community.

It is difficult to examine the concept of ‘community’ as the term ‘community’ is used in a very wide sense to refer to many different figurations of people (Bell & Newby, 1974), thus generating a large number of separate definitions (Stacey, 1969). In order to gain an understanding of what ‘community’ really means it is important to consider the history of its usage. The term originated in the fourteenth century and was used to refer either to an organised body of people, large or small, such as a religious community, or to the common people, the commonalty within such a body (Tyler, 2002). Use of the term ‘community’ shifted in the Renaissance of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when new conceptions of self and other developed, thus shifting use of the term ‘community’ from people to their relationships (Tyler, 2002). It was then used to refer to common ownership (of a community of goods), social communion (with God, for example) or common identity (Tyler, 2002). In the modern era of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the Medieval and Renaissance senses merged, and ‘community’ began referring to the people of a district or neighbourhood. It is this meaning of the term that bears most prominence today.

However, more recently the term ‘community’ has been used to refer to other groups of people who are not necessarily concentrated into an identifiable territory (Johnston et al, 2000). For example, as was the case in the Middle Ages we now refer to religious groups as communities. In the UK ethnic groups are also often referred to as communities, the term is also adopted by groups with other shared characteristics, for example deaf communities or working-class communities.

Groups of people with a shared interest are also referred to as communities, for example sports communities or music communities. In recent years a new type of community has emerged; virtual community. The World Wide Web allows not only for local social networks, but for global networks.

With the term ‘community’ being used in so many different ways and referring to so many varied groups of people, it raises the question what is it that links these different groups together? What do all of these groups have in common that lead to them being called a community?

This essay aims to examine the concept of ‘community’, looking at how theoretical work concerning community has shifted from a focus on community as being bound by space, to community as being imagined. It will attempt to identify the common association that each figuration of people mentioned above must have in order to be labelled a ‘community’. It will focus in particular on virtual community, using arguments purported by proponents of place based community theories and imagined community theorists to argue whether virtual communities should in fact be labelled as communities.

The problem encountered when attempting to examine the concept of ‘community’ is that the area lacks theory. In attempting to examine the concept of ‘community’ researchers have merely focused their study on their own differentiated community and then applied their findings to other communities, thus making short and narrow range generalizations (Bell & Newby, 1974). Bell and Newby in fact question whether theoretical work in the field could even be labelled theory, purporting that they lack two indispensable qualifications of scientific theories. Firstly, they are untestable, as they cannot be proved or refuted by empirical research, and secondly, they don’t serve as stepping stones to suggest new problems or for the development of further theory (Bell & Newby, 1974). Although theoretical work regarding the study of communities has been heavily criticised, in examining the concept of ‘community’ it is important to consider how academic work so far has contributed to our understanding of ‘community’.

In social geography and sociology interest in communities first stemmed from the work of the Chicago School. The Chicago sociologists carried out in depth studies of the city to see where different types of people lived and to look for any residential groupings (Valentine, 2001). They came to be known as the Chicago School of Human Ecology (CSHE) because they adapted principles of plant ecology to human society (Johnston et al, 2000), to show how natural communities emerge within society, these natural communities are evidential as they reside within a certain area, grouping together.

Robert Park was the Chicago sociologist who initially came up with the idea that an analogy could be drawn between plant and human communities (Valentine, 2001). Influenced by the work of Darwin and other plant ecologists, Park likened society to an organism, “with each constituent part symbiotically related to all others in a web of relations that form around competitive and cooperative behaviour” (Johnston et al, 2000). Competition was one of the key concepts underpinning Parks’ theory. Park proposed that just as plants have to fight for sunlight and nutrients in order to survive, humans have to fight for the best places in which to live and work. Where they live is dependent upon land value and what they can afford. This competition separates people into groups according to their ability to buy or rent property (Valentine, 2001). Thus similar types of people form a segregated unit, or what Park terms a ‘natural community’.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Another key concept underpinning Parks’ theory is ecological dominance. Within the natural environment certain plants dominate, for example within the rainforest certain plants are taller and form a canopy thus affecting how much sunlight and water the plants and shrubbery below receive. This is also the case with humans as certain groups of people are more powerful and dominant. For example, a ‘natural community’ may form of people who are wealthy and can afford to pay high rent or property prices. Wealthy people will dominate the neighbourhood as people on a lower income would be unable to afford to live there (Valentine, 2001). This links to the idea of invasion and succession (Valentine, 2001). Similar to plant ecology, a certain type of neighbourhood may be invaded, for example a low-class neighbourhood may be invaded by middle-class people who will then come to control the land value of the area and will gradually force the original inhabitants out. The concept of invasion and succession is also based on the assumption that the city as an organism will grow, thus creating more jobs and the potential for individuals to achieve upward social mobility (Johnston et al, 2000).

The concentric ring model designed by Burgess illustrates the theory of human ecology, showing where different communities, formed through competition, reside in the city. The zonal model shows how the city grows and how this affects residential patterns and the homogenous neighbourhoods within the city.

The work of the Chicago School of Human Ecology has been criticized on both empirical and theoretical grounds. Critics have argued that when applied to other cities the theory does not fit well. Despite much criticism the Chicago sociologists set the precedence for further studies of ‘community’. Having asserted that communities are ‘natural areas’, the Chicago sociologists were not alone in adding a spatial dimension to the meaning of ‘community’. Many other theorists have also argued that community is bound by space, focusing like the Chicago sociologists on social relationships at the scale of the locality. Valentine in fact claims that ‘community’ is often used interchangeably with the term ‘neighbourhood’ (Valentine, 2001).

Four key factors have been identified to explain why communities develop at the local scale of the neighbourhood, these are proximity, territory, social homogeneity and time. Proximity is identified as one of the key factors as it is argued that one develops strong face-to-face social networks with those who live in the same neighbourhood, the strength of such social networks decays with distance. People sharing the same territory form strong social networks, it is claimed, because they share the same vested interests. Valentine(2001) asserts that humans are territorial drawing a sense of security, comfort and identity from their immediate locality. It is often only when their immediate locality appears to be threatened that this shared sense of territory becomes evident. This is certainly the case with villagers of Yoxall, Newchurch and Newborough who have all joined force to apply for an injunction against animal rights extremists “after a vicious campaign of intimidation”. An article published in The Times (page 3) on December 1st 2004 describes how the “entire community” came together to apply for the injunction. (figure 1)

Social homogeneity was claimed to be the third key factor for the formation of neighbourhood communities. It is suggested that people living in the same neighbourhood have the same basic identity and share the same values and norms. They are all of a similar class status and therefore use similar language and behave similarly. Such similarities aid the formation of communities as people bond well.

Time is declared to be another important factor in the formation of neighbourhood communities. Social networks form over time, and take time to grow stronger. A sense of community will not develop overnight merely because people have similar values and are of a similar class status, it takes time to get to know people and to form friendships or associations. This was particularly evident in a study by Young and Wilmott (1962), who found that when people were moved from the neighbourhood of Bethnal Green during the slum clearances of the 1960s, they were unhappy when rehoused on a new immaculate estate. Although their new housing was much better than the terraced housing in which they had lived in Bethnal Green and the facilities in their new neighbourhood were also much better, the residents were happier living in Bethnal Green in poorer housing conditions because there was a stronger sense of community. This strong sense of community had formed over time.

Young and Wilmott are not alone in documenting the decline of neighbourhood community, this has in fact been one of the paramount issues within community studies for some time now, it has also been high among popular concerns, as evidenced by the recent introduction of government initiatives such as ‘Care in the Community’ and ‘Community Support Officers’. Both are aimed at protecting and supporting the neighbourhood community, this is also the case with ‘Antisocial Behaviour Orders’(Asbos). Blunkett argues that the Asbo process is required to protect communities (The Guardian, 01/12/04)(figure 2). Anyone acting “in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household” can be considered to be antisocial, and therefore served with an Asbo. Such initiatives are designed to help in the process of revitalising neighbourhood communities and “recapturing the sense of community and togetherness that was once so innate” in local communities (The Coventry Evening Telegraph, 30/11/04).

The writer of this article, like many others uses a moral overtone when using the term ‘community’ (Cater & Jones, 1989), ‘community’ is often romanticised, taking on a glorified status. It is presented as an ideal, where everybody lives in harmony with one another. The community is presented as one solid union of people, who all cooperate with one another. Cater and Jones (1989) note that “Historically, the stereotype is one of a lost Golden Age of settled working-class communities undisturbed for generations until the post-war onslaught of urban renewal, suburbanisation and mass culture”. This stereotypical view is certainly evident in the work of Tonnies. Tonnies formulated the concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft to illustrate the decline of community. Gemeinschaft means ‘community’ and refers to a formerly predominant manner of life (Bell & Newby, 1974), whereas Gesellschaft can be interpreted as ‘association’ and refers to the present manner of living (Bell & Newby, 1974). Gemeinschaft is typically considered to be embodied in the traditional village community, where people have close personal contact, their communal ties are based on sentiment and loyalty. Gesellschaft however refers to depersonalized associations which are contractual in nature, and are entered into on the basis of calculation. The shift from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft happened following the Industrial Revolution, as communities were torn apart by urbanization and industrialization, combined with the growth of state power, the rise of the large workplace and the spread of mass communication. For Tonnies close-knit, harmonious communities then became a symbol of a better past; something to be longed for.

Tonnies work was well received at the time when he wrote it, as it was a time of great change. Up until the late nineteenth century advances in industry, science and technology were considered to be harbingers of progress and a better life (Bell & Newby, 1974), but as urbanisation and industrialization advanced these feelings changed. Within society people were feeling quite discontented, and were longing for reversal of the trend. They wanted to return to an earlier stage of development where there wasn’t so much upheaval and life seemed so much simpler.

The term ‘community’ has since then remained to some extent as a romantic and imagined concept, associated with hopes of reviving the closer and warmer type of bonds between people, that are “vaguely attributed to past ages” (Bell and Newby, 1974). Cater and Jones (1989) argue “The local urban community is a romantic vision which, if it ever existed at all, is now well down the path towards oblivion”. This remark succinctly illustrates the transformation in the theorization of ‘community’, with ‘community’ being reconceptualised as imagined, rather than connected to space. With debates about the continued existence of neighbourhood communities, academics began to question the real meaning of ‘community’, and debated whether ‘community’ can exist without a territorial base.

Wellman (1979) criticised arguments such as those put forward by Tonnies, arguing that they merely focused on community within the neighbourhood and ignored wider social networks. This approach termed as a ‘community liberated’ approach stresses the importance of looking beyond the neighbourhood for community, as for urban dwellers there are many other possibilities for forging social networks. For example, the home-work divide has increased ones potential to form social networks with those residing outside of their locality. The development of transport and communications has also played a major role in widening ones social networks. Proximity is no longer such a key factor in the formation of community.

Whereas the place free ‘stretched out’ community (Allen and Hamnet, 1995) used to merely merit a passing mention or a footnote (Silk, 1999), this perspective is now imperative in the study of communities. This is in part due to “the variety of media, institutions, and spatialities through which the communicative dimension of community may be constructed and reproduced”. The Internet is just one from a “whole gamut of communications media” (Silk, 1999) that allows for community to take on this ‘stretched out’ form. The World Wide Web allows for global social networks in the form of virtual community. A virtual community is a “social entity” (), it is a number of people who relate to one another by the use of a specific technology. The web provides an “electronic meeting place for disembodied minds or imaginations”. () (Clayton, 2002). This meeting place is attainable to almost all, because with virtual community, as with any other ‘stretched out’ community proximity is not a key factor.

Whilst proponents of place based theories of community would argue that the virtual community is not a community at all, academics such as Webber (1963) would argue against this.

Webber (1963) proposes that community frequently flourishes in the absence of a local residential base. Webber put forward the theory of ‘community without propinquity’, arguing that in the modern ‘urban non-place realm’ personal mobility and ease of communication permit contacts to be forged outside the immediate locality, at the city-wide, national and global levels. He uses the example of religious communities to illustrate how communities with common interests can exist in the absence of common place.

Just as communities without propinquity may exist, propinquity without community is an equally normal state (Cater & Jones, 1989). Cater and Jones (1989) remark how ‘non-community neighbourhoods’ are a striking feature of the modern city, there are certain areas within the city that are recognisable as distinct bounded spaces yet those residing there do not have social ties and there is little or no social cohesion. Valentine (2001) observes that “the very developments in communication and transport which are credited with creating the possibilities for the emergence of communities without propinquity have also been criticised for the prevalence of propinquity without community”. For example, one will use the telephone or Internet to interact with friends now, or one can just jump into a car to go and visit friends or family, this in turn leads to the abandonment of public space, and reduces social ties between local people.

Although these ‘spread out’ forms of communities may be leading to the decline of neighbourhood communities and the demise of public space there are many positive aspects of place free communities, such as virtual communities. Cyberenthusiasts argue that virtual communities are better than real communities because the social relationships formed are a product of choice, rather than spatial proximity. This leads, Willson (1997) argues, to a stronger sense of social cohesion than is experienced in communities based on proximity.

Within virtual communities geographical boundaries become meaningless and hierarchy becomes irrelevant. With the lack of face-to-face interaction individuals are free from the limits of their body and can associate with whomever they wish, social networks are formed irrespective of gender, age, ethnicity, religion, class or appearance. Such visual markers of difference and hierarchy can limit interaction in ‘real’ communities. Whereas disembodiment may be considered to be one of the greatest advantages of virtual community, this may also be considered to be one of the greatest dangers of virtual communities, as users can construct false identities. One never really knows who they are interacting with online.

Another great advantage of virtual communities is that those who are physically confined or politically oppressed can freely communicate with others. For example, networks such as SeniorNet bring elderly people into contact for the instrumental exchange of information and emotional and personal support (Castells, 2001). The Ethnic Minority Foundation is another great example of how those who may be politically oppressed can freely communicate with others. This web based organisation is dedicated to extending the opportunities of ethnic minorities in the UK, it has resulted in a network of over 9,000 bodies, giving the opportunity for exchanging valuable information and support (The Guardian, 01/12/04)(figure 3). The Internet may also prove to be a really valuable resource to groups, such as ethnic minorities because it allows them to come together and have contact, when they may be geographically dispersed. Furthermore, many people from ethnic minority groups will have social ties with family and friends in their country of origin, the Internet allows them to maintain contact through the use of e-mail for example.

Although many cyberenthusiasts argue that the Internet provides social ties for people who may feel lonely and isolated, it has been argued that use of the Internet in fact isolates people from society, as individuals withdraw from social interaction in the ‘real’ world (). This point is illustrated by a study of 169 families conducted by Kraut et al. The study found that greater use of the Internet was associated with a decline in the participants’ communication with family members in the household, a decline in the size of their social circle, and an increase in their depression and loneliness (Castells, 2001).

Virtual communities have also been criticised because they lack stability (). Individuals can leave at any time, they have no social responsibility. For example, if you upset your neighbours you still have to face them following the incident, however, if you upset somebody online you can choose not to return to that site ever again. This erodes an individual’s sense of moral and social responsibility.

This essay has examined the concept of ‘community’, looking at how theoretical work exploring ‘community’ has undergone a complete transformation. This essay follows this shift from theories of ‘community’ as bounded by space, to theories of ‘community’ as imagined; focusing in particular on virtual communities. The essay has attempted to find a common link between the different theories examined in order to understand how the term ‘community’ can be used in such a wide and versatile way. Wellman (2001) has found this common link, insofar as his definition of ‘community’ sums up all of the variables that are inherent in the different types of social networks that are referred to as communities:

“Communities are networks of interpersonal ties that provide sociability, support, information, a sense of belonging and social identity”. (Wellman, 2001)

Bibliography:

Allen and Hamnet (eds) (1995) “Introduction”, in A Shrinking World? Global Uneveness and Inequality, Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Bell and Newby (1974) The Sociology of Community, Frank Cass: London.

Castells, M. (2001)The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society, Oxford University Press: New York.

Johnston et al (2000). The Dictionary of Human Geography, Blackwell Publishers Ltd: Oxford.

Silk, J. (1999) The dynamics of community, place and identity, Environment and Planning A, 31: 5-17.

Stacey, M. (1969) The myth of community studies. British Journal of Sociology 20: 134-47.

Valentine, G. (2001) Social Geographies: Space and Society, Pearson Education Ltd: Harlow.

Webber (1963) ‘Order in diversity: community without propinquity’, in Wingo, L. (ed.) Cities and Space, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.

Wellman (1979) The Community question: the intimate networks of East Yorkers, American Journal of Sociology 84: 1201-31.

Wellman (2001) Physical place and cyberplace: the rise of networked individualism, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research.

Willson (1997) ‘Community in the abstract: a political and ethical dilemma?, in Holmes, D. (ed.) (1997) Virtual Politics, Sage: London.

Young and Wilmott (1962) Family and Kinship in East London, Penguin: Harmondsworth.

Other Resources:

Websites: Date Accessed:

21/11/2004

Newspapers: Date Published:

The Coventry Evening Telegraph 30/11/2004

The Guardian 01/12/2004

The Times 01/12/2004

Appendix

Critically examine the concept of 'community' in relation to virtual community.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

Community and the Police.

With reference to sociological theory and concepts covered in lectures to d...

In this essay I am going to look at the term 'community', through sociologi...

To critically discuss the claim that citizenship is a contested and fluid c...