Community

Words have meanings: some words, however, also have a ‘feel’. The word ‘community’ is one of them (Bauman 2001:1).

Preece discusses the difficulty of defining community, asserting that ‘for years, sociologists have defined and redefined the concept’ (Preece 2000:14). She refers to Abercrombie who asserts that the term ‘is one of the most illusive in sociology’ (ibid. 2000:175). Baym agrees and refers to Fernback who asserts that

Community is a term which seems readily definable to the general public but is infinitely complex and amorphous in academic discourse (Baym 1998:35).

Preece asserts that prior to the industrial revolution, space determined communities, which were highly integrated and self-sustaining (Preece 2000:175). Wellman and Gulia assert that with technological development, in the first instance relating to the telephone, aeroplane and automobile, contemporary sociologists have reconceptualised ‘community’, emphasising dispersed social networks rather than geographical proximity (Wellman & Gulia 1999:169), highlighting that individuals satisfy their needs by membership of ‘multiple communities’ (Preece 2000:15).

Network analysis is one way to unfold the notion of community. Here, sociologists study networks of relationships (Preece 2000:173). In this discourse, a ‘group’ is viewed as a network, characterised by a high intensity of interconnection and according to Preece, a group can only be described as a community if its elements ‘share important resources, provide social support, and show reciprocity’. Preece refers to Granovetter and distinguishes between the ‘strong ties’ that weave these meaningful relationships together and ‘weak ties’, characterised by less shared resources and limited interdependence, particularly in emotional terms. She asserts that an individual may have hundreds of weak ties and a few strong ties (ibid. 2000:174).

Baym’s analysis underlines the problematic nature of defining ‘community’ and hence its controversial status in academia, as it is ‘loaded’ with ‘normative and ideological connotations’ (Baym 1998:35-36). Although there appears to be a trend in the literature emphasising strengths of relationships (Preece 2000:18), Baym refers to Doheny-Farina who contradicts this and in doing so illustrates the complexity of definition. He asserts that

A community is bound by place, which always includes complex social and environmental necessities. It is not something you can easily join. You can’t subscribe to a community as you subscribe to a discussion group on the net. It must be lived. It is entwined, contradictory, and involves all our senses (Baym 1998:37).

Rheingold refers to Oldenburg and asserts that there are three essential places in an individual’s life: home, work and places to ‘gather for conviviality’. He asserts that many of the ‘third places’ in contemporary society, such as cafes, pubs and town squares, have been superseded by shopping malls and fast food outlets for example and with this the ‘social fabric of existing communities’ has eroded (Rheingold 1994:25).

Another perspective concentrates on ‘imagined community’. Feenberg and Bakardjieva refer to Andersen, discuss the imaginary and assert that the virtual is a normal feature of community, ‘regardless of the nature of the medium on which it relies’. They assert that the ‘great sacred communities of the past’ were mediated by and imagined through text and language and they trace the emergence of imagined communities of ‘nations’ to the newspaper and novel (Feenberg & Bakardjieva 2004:37-38). Poster agrees and asserts that ‘old media’ such as newspapers, united a nation by weaving a common thread through it and in asserting this, indicates that the ‘imaginary’ is fundamental to any community (Poster 1995:7). Feenberg and Bakardjieva refer to Mcluhan and Maffesoli respectively and assert that broadcasting reconfigured the imaginary and a trend towards customisation and demassification has promoted a diversity of subcultures or ‘neo-tribes’. The latest development is imagined communities underpinned by hypertext exchange (Feenberg & Bakardjieva 2004:37-38). Poster contends that discussion of ‘virtual communities’ often interpret their success as a signal of the demise of ‘real’ communities and although this may be the case, in considering ‘virtual’ or online communities, ‘the opposition “virtual” and “real” community contains serious difficulties’ (Poster 1995:7).