Tangible Intangibilities
Perhaps it is my return to a small town format – or perhaps my background in non-profits and volunteers – or a history of having suffered or thrived (sometimes both) at the hands of various communities, or simply wanting to be a genuine part of this new “place†in life but I wonder sometimes, (often to be honest) what makes a community a community? Most of us would claim to know it – but struggle to describe it. There is, as it were, a tangible intangibleness to community. As my mother (unhelpfully but truthfully) said on the prospect of a potential mate “You just knowâ€.
The same seems to hold true for most people’s sense of community. The founders of the WELL didn’t necessarily know how to develop an online community – it was according to all accounts a grand experiment originally based on their values and beliefs – things they had picked up from their generation – and from grand experiments in community building from the Farm (Hafner, 1997; Seabrook, 1997; Rheingold, 1993). There may have been few written rules but as can be extrapolated from the readings there were a lot of unwritten ones that came out during times of change, upheaval, or when under real or perceived attack.
Throughout the readings people use the same words to describe their virtual communities and their “real” communities. The two are still distinguished from each other. Rheingold (1993) said that “The WELL felt like authentic community to [him] from the start because it was grounded in [his] everyday physical world†(1993, Introduction, para 6). He and other describe it using the very words and metaphors that we describe our “real†communities with – it is a “villageâ€, a “homeâ€, a “placeâ€(Hafner, 1997; Seabrook, 1997; Rheingold, 1993). Rheingold (1993) even feels compelled to include a definition for a virtual community implying that the “place†– in this case a series of network connections, hardware, and its accompanying people are in some manner critical to understanding or creating a community. How important is “place†– be it physical or virtual to community? Do you need to have the right place, i.e. are their optimal conditions for community to develop – or is the place incidental – neither necessary or sufficient for the development of community, but rather something that adds color, a particular flavor or personality to the community to be sure. The WELL would be different without the boundaries of its difficult to learn technology keeping out all but the most committed (Seabrook, 1997; Rheingold, 1993).
Whether or not the technology shapes community, our definitions shape our perceptions. In his July 2006 posting at the Many to Many blog , Paul Hartzog talks about how our definitions of community can shape the way we perceive virtual interactions. Hauben (1999) discusses how community has been historically “based on family ties, location, shared religious practices and common work places†but that others such as Thomas Bender have “reconceptualized†it as “overlapping networksâ€. (Hauben, 1999).
Many people wonder (myself included) if the increase in virtual interactions is at the cost of community or is it simply a rejuvenation perhaps even a reincarnation of human community? (Hauben, 1999, Seabrook, 1997; Rheingold, 1993). The prince was always the prince – he just looked liked a frog until he got the right kiss. Do some people need to kiss the virtual frog (an albeit unpleasant experience) to achieve a sense of online community? Are those of us kissing the frog meeting our community prince (or princess) or are we just kissing a lot of reptiles in pursuit of a fairy tale. And even if it is a fairy tale: Is there not the potential for as much truth in good fiction as in the most scientific fact? Do fairy tales give us grand visions of our own potential?
Remember the commercial where the guy goes into the fridge, grabs the milk, and pours it into his mouth, only to discover, too late, that it is more like curdled yogurt than the beverage he envisioned? In approaching Karen Sierra proposes in her blog “Assumptions Have a Sell By Date†that we need to take time to smell the milk. We get so busy with our discourse and activities that we forget to truly challenge our assumptions – to identify them and to figure out if they have expired. This seems to be the starting point for a discussion on a community. What are our – what are my – assumptions about community? The most obvious are the most difficult to assess (Sierra, 2006)
A primary assumption for me – and one that seems evident (see Hafner, 1997; Seabrook, 1997; Rheingold, 1993) is that communities, by definition, have stories, whether formally articulated or not. There needs to be some sense of history. Part of being part of the community or “in group” is knowing the stories. For example, many people in my husband’s high school class think I went to school with them because I know many of the defining stories. In fact they missed me at the reunion on Sunday “Where’s that girl from English class?”. I’ve been to 5 events over almost ten years to build that connection. Rheingold defines virtual community in part by having a “long enough†period of public discussions (1993, Introduction). These discussions are part of what make up the history (or archive) of stories. Oral history has been replaced with written is perhaps being replaced with virtual?
A common thread I see running through the community discussion is that it seems to come back to narrative – to story – even poetry perhaps this is simply a result of a post-modern generation that refuses to be quantified. Or perhaps because story like poetry conveys more – something important when talking about our intangible tangibles – like love, freedom, and community. In a speech he gave based on themes from his book “Blue Like Jazz†(2005), author Donald Miller talks about a boyfriend sitting across from a girl on their first big date. He wants to tell her about the depth of his feeling for her. He takes out a piece of paper and writes a note. I like you because (a) You’re beautiful (b) You have nice hair. (c). You have nice eyes. He slides it over to her to read. Not quite the same as:
She walks in beauty, like the night
Of cloudless climes and starry skies;
And all that’s best of dark and bright
Meet in her aspect and her eyes: (Lord Byron, 1814).
Interweaving Rheingold’s (1993) and Seabrook’s (1993) retelling of their personal narratives and the share of others – embedded in the Wired piece on “The Epic Saga of the Well†made me believe in this as community and want to be part of it – in spite of the times of hazing, flame wars, and churning. I went to The WELL site and only stopped because I’ve spent so much recently moving here (perhaps the budget will allow it soon).
The stories provide a sense of a wholeness that allows questions – What is community? Can we at any level in any part describe it, detail it, outline it, understand it? Can it be created intentionally and how much intention and how much luck/fate/providence/timing are involved? Is better or worse than “real†community? Is the idea that real is “physical†really true? Can we create community? What values should it be based on? Can we control how a community evolves or in doing so do we kill it? What is community? Why is it important? Why is its presence or demise so important to us? What does the virtual world have to offer?
Wow, this is a lot of interesting stuff that needs sorted out in class. A question still lingers in my mind after reading all this. Are online communities, communities?
It depends. How one defines community and what happens in an online setting may or may not be community. In particular it becomes difficult to sort out the marketing label of “community” from the actual existence of community. Many online and offline locations call themselves “community” because it sounds inherently more appealing than “group”. Communities may be groups but not all groups are community.
The challenge is defining it so that we know what it is. Rheingold implies that there must be enough time, conversation, and substantial emotion – however he does not truly quantify it (1993). He does not link it to a specific “place” although others do as outlined by Hauben: Community has been historically “based on family ties, location, shared religious practices and common work places” (1999). Place is the key variable here – can place or location be something virtual. Or as Rob, in effect said in class today – what makes something real, real? (Bruno, Personal Conversation, August 29, 2006). Our definitions to some extent shape our reality, or at least our perception of reality and/or the value of reality. How we define community – whether overtly or subconciously – will impact whether we consider virtual community to be a reality or a verbal illusion or marketing ploy.
A google search on the word community brings up items as diverse as community colleges, ebay, photos and others. It is a well-used word but perhaps not a well understood concept outside the measurement of personal experience.
The word comes from the Latin commnits, fellowship, from commnis, common:
I’m not sure that “place” really has anything to do with it inherently. “Place” can be a part or feature of a community, but so can uniforms or sexual preference although they do not define the word “community.” I prefer to look to the Latin root for a more accurate definer. The fact that this “group”…wherever it exists…has some commonality makes it a community. Let’s say that these online citizens all enjoy expressing themselves in writing among others who are “virtual” strangers. That makes them a community.
Word origins can be helpful and are interesting. Glad we have someone among us who has studied Latin!
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying defines a community based on your example – is it simply the enjoyment of being together with people who are similar in some way? Is it the enjoyment, the similarity/commonality? And if this is what you’re saying (and I’m quite possibly misunderstanding) how much enjoyment and how much similarity is required? Of what kind? Are they both or either necessary and sufficient components of community? I’m hoping you could expand a little more so that I can understand
Brenda, I don’t think that enjoyment is a prerequisite for a group of people to be considered a community. I believe that it is the commonality alone. In its broadest sense, the people don’t even need to be in contact with each other (e.g., the scientific community, the recovering alcoholics community). Do you remember when we spoke about the active participants of the WELL vs. the lurkers? True, the lurkers “belonged” to the WELL, but they did not particpate. Hence, they really didn’t communicate or “commune” with the participants. They were voyeurs of the process. They “listened” but they didn’t “speak.” However, they were still considered members of the community.
How much similarity is required? That is something that is delineated by the community itself. As you’ve mentioned, if you have the computer equipment and enough money to join, you, too, can become part of the WELL community. I hope I’m making this clearer instead of muddying the waters, but I think that each community lays out its own qualifications for membership and that includes the depth and breadth of commonality.
Consider the community of physicians known as the American Medical Association. Most doctors do not join for the sake of enjoyment, although they may occasionally enjoy each other’s company at conferences or conventions. They make this affiliation for professional and political purposes. They have the practice of medicine in common. They must be licensed physicians and they must be able to afford the price of membership.
Interesting. Brings up more questions for me.
How would you distinguish a group from a community? Simply by the language people use to describe it? What if one member calls it a community and another doesn’t? Is it? Are their levels of “community”? (AKA do some have more “communitiness” than others?)
Wow! Good thinking! Could it be that a community of people should have a goal in common as well as a common interest and other traits stipulated by the group? Something that keeps them united? Can there be a community within a community? You may be on to something when you ask about levels of “community.” Some are close (or close-knit), and some are not. Let’s see…in Lafayette-West Lafayette, there is a Jewish community…very small, but a community nonetheless. It is divided, though, into the Reform Jews, the Conservative Jews, and the unaffiliated/secular. They do NOT share the same goals for their members nor the same house of worship. (Are these groups or are they smaller communities within the larger Jewish community? I am now officially flummoxed.) However, when one looks at the Twin Cities, “Jewish community” is what they are all lumped in as…as though they have one mind. I won’t get into the groupmind topic yet. I’m not sure it exists–or should exist.
I would have to say that the concept of community is fuzzy and fluid. You?