Community and virtual community

Community and virtual community were discussed together. The group were asked ‘what are your views of community?’.

Daz pointed out that ‘we are a community right now’ and Kevin interjected, a ‘community of people talking about communities’. In this context, it appeared that this suggested proximity and an emphasis on communication and similar interests. Kevin asserted that

an online community is very similar to an offline community, it has to be similar, in the sense that, in the real world […] you have people interacting, they can communicate, they can help each other […] they can see each other […] they don’t have to speak if they don’t want to [, they are] very similar.

For Kevin, the word ‘community’ evoked feelings of

communicating unitedly […] about something similar […,] saying something or doing something together [as] one mind […] There are loads of different communities [on the Internet,] where people who have the same view or same interests want to communicate unitedly about one subject.

Again, shared interests or beliefs are central here and there is a feeling that this unites individuals. The metaphor of ‘one mind’, ‘together’, echoes Lévy’s notion of ‘collective intelligence’, a synergy, characterised by ‘a universally distributed intelligence that is enhanced, coordinated, and mobilized in real time’ (Lévy 1999:16). ‘[O]ne subject’ implies extremely specialised divisions of interests.

Elaine thought that when communicating through the Internet

there is still a gap in between people; where one bunch of you can actually hang out together in a place and have a drink […,] chit chat [and] relax [, with a] feeling of enjoying it, instead of facing a computer […] talking to the computer. […] Communicating [online:] the feeling is still different.

There appears a suggestion that the limitations of technology prevent any interaction that is comparable to face-to-face interaction with another individual, almost as if the computer is another person, a gatekeeper, a form of ‘noise’. It was considered that this might relate to the size or nature of the computer equipment, although Elaine was asked if using Skype telephony felt the same as using a mobile telephone and she confirmed that it did. One way to account for these feelings is telepresence. Co-presence offers a ‘multiplicity of symbolic cues’ and this is perhaps why Elaine noticed a ‘gap’, a ‘difference’ (Slevin 2000:79). Although verbal exchange offers limited physical cues, such as intonation, punctuation and volume for example, with written communication, different, less effective cues are used. It can be seen that there is a dramatic contrast between ‘drink’, ‘chit chat’ and ‘relax’, associated with multisensory face-to-face interaction, and the relationally arduous ‘face-to-computer’ interaction. Furthermore, although ‘talking to the computer’ may literally have been the case, this infers that Elaine’s friends are inside the computer, which suggests that psychological barriers prevent a feeling of ‘being there’, even if ‘being there’ could be computer simulated. It seems that ‘non-communicative’ feelings of intimacy illustrate a fundamental difference between physical and online life.

Elaine continued and asserted that

the purpose for getting online […] is to get connected to the people

and she used online communication, ‘for convenience’, because she was unable to see her friends from Malaysia on a face-to-face basis. So, in this context, the reason for using a computer to communicate is not to replace face-to-face interaction, but as a ‘second best’: some inferior contact is seen as better than none.

In a sense, these feelings were echoed by Anthony, but in another context: He raised an issue of surveillance and asserted that

I prefer face-to-face communication [as] the computer feels like a third person, […] I don’t feel settled. […] I don’t believe in network systems, because that’s too much information given out.

In light of this and in the context of unsettling feelings such as paranoia, the group were asked ‘do you think the downsides [to virtual life are] similar to the downsides of real life?’. This was asked in order to ascertain whether these feelings were only associated with online life and to reveal the feelings that participants associated with online life and how these compared to offline life.

Anthony asserted that

In a virtual community you could [characterise participants] as alias people […] but at the same time, I know I am not being myself, […] it’s like I’m acting [,…] acting, just to be in a community, to fit in […] not being myself.

It was put forth to the group that in everyday life, there may be hops from identity to identity depending on context, often subconsciously. But Anthony, by ‘acting’ meant that there was somehow a conscious, intentional and unnatural effort to change identity, as he did not perceive any day-to-day meanderings of identity that there might be, as acting. Perhaps this is why he felt that others were not themselves, if indeed they were and are. Jones refers to Turkle and asserts that ‘one can have multiple identities in cyberspace; moreover, one can shift identities rather easily’ (Jones 1998:28). In Lévy’s terms, ‘the individual becomes a molecular vector of collective intelligence, multiplying his active surfaces, complicating his interfaces’ (Lévy 1997:160). This identity fluidity is not necessarily a cyberspatial function, as this can be viewed as part of ‘the project of the modern self’, where ‘social relations and social contexts […] are reflexively incorporated into the forging of the project of the self’ (Slevin 2000:159). So in this sense, it can be seen that individuals of modernity are ‘alias people’, with multiple, adaptable identities and it may be that the Internet is a medium that is particularly suited to an expression and representation of this. If this were the case, this is one strand of evidence that highlights continuities between online and offline interaction.

Some of this discussion revealed that there were concerns with traceability and surveillance:

In a community [(offline)] you can pretend to be somebody else, but online […] it is easier to be tracked to who you really are (Kevin)

because of IP (Internet Protocol) addresses, Internet Service Providers, cameras in Internet cafes and traces through credit card details for example. However, Elaine responded that increasingly, surveillance takes place offline, with cameras. A consensus appeared to emerge that network systems should be regarded with suspicion in terms of revealing information. This seemed to apply to both online and offline life although more concern was expressed about online life, perhaps because there is heightened awareness of direct connection to an electronic network.

The group were asked in what way they thought that offline life related to online life

Kevin asserted that he

could never see online community taking over the real, […] as a substitute. Online community […] it’s just another form of communication.

There is a suggestion here, that online interaction is not viewed as ‘virtual community’ at all, but part of a process of real community, viewed as a communication tool, as part of a process of actualisation. That is to say that online community is a means to an end of real community. However, at the same time, they seem to be viewed as separate.

Elaine asserted that

Some people, they are really, really shy when they meet someone in real life, but when they are on the Internet they can talk however they want.

Kevin explored this idea and asserted that

For some people […] online community is better than the real, because […] if someone’s disabled for instance, they might find it easier to meet people online, than they would in real life.

These assertions seem to highlight that a lack of social cues allows anonymity and development of multiple identities and for some this may even be better than ‘real’ community, as for example there is a perception of equality. This equality does not exist in real community and this reflects a discontinuity with online community. Again, Kevin’s assertion seems to divide ‘real’ and ‘online community’.

Anthony suggested that online community is a place of comfort and refuge:

When [people] are typing away at home […] they are free to express themselves […;] you can say something you wouldn’t normally say [as] you can’t get hurt, no one can hit you online, no one can even cuss you, [as] you can block them. They [(online communicators)] are cowards […] acting, they only have confidence because they are in their own environment [(home)].

This would appear to suggest that there is an escape from physical community, into a protected environment, where behaviour is uninhibited, comfortable, characterised by security and confidence, promoting a ‘false sense of security’. Furthermore, commitment and diversity is limited as participants can be blocked and they can exit with a mouse click.

There was a suggestion to the group that online and offline community are not separate. This was promulgated by way of an example: ‘suppose, for example that you met your girlfriend […] in the real world, […] then you send emails, […] is that a separate part of your life?’

Elaine asserted that

I think they are still together

meaning that communication via email to someone known offline is inseparable from the processes of ‘real’ life.

Anthony could be seen to add that

No, they are not separate actually, [but] it feels fake.

There was a discussion about the syntactic construction vis-à-vis semantic content of messages and an implication that it was relatively easy to falsify true feelings.

Elaine asserted that

You can still type up a fantastic email [with] flowery words […] a meaningful email, […] but it might not be what you are saying [(Elaine)], ‘your heart might not be in it’ (Kevin).

Elaine continued and asserted that

When you are talking, you have expressions, […] you have your high pitch and tone, […] you can feel what the other side actually thinks, but when you are writing, there is no emotion in it.

Kevin asserted that online and real life are

definitely separate, but they are similar in some ways.

Elaine added that digital communication supports real life relationships. Online life and real life are not necessarily separate as

it depends on certain situations, how you use [online communication] […] and the reasons [underlying use.] For me, if I have a chance to go out, I would rather spend my time outside with my friends, rather than […] sitting online to chat with them.

Kevin asserted that online and real life are

very different, but similar. […] For instance, if you are having an argument with someone, you would feel kind of angry, in the same way that if you were on the phone […] you can still feel angry, […] so it can trigger off emotion.

Elaine added

that’s why there are emoticons nowadays on instant messaging […] to show [what] you look like.

These formulations appear to maintain that online and offline community are viewed by some as connected and disconnected by others and the former can support the latter. There seems to be a theme that online communication at present is limited in the physical cues that can be transmitted and therefore it is difficult for a participant to know how to respond emotionally. This is exacerbated by suspicion of messages, because a lack of physical cues prohibits confirmation of the intention of a message, that is, it cannot be definitely contextualised instinctively. However, some messages could have very unambiguous semantic meaning and so provoke definite emotional responses. It seems that interpretation of a message is largely a matter of contextualisation, in that it is not the content of the message, but the circumstances of transmission and reception. So, whereas the circumstances of face-to-face interaction often provide sufficient information, those of online interactions seem not to and this suggests that with current technology, there is a significant difference between virtual and physical community, even when community is viewed in terms of communication alone.