Communities, in the traditional sense of the word, have been around forever. We can define them as a collective group of people that are bound by one or more common features. Before the advent of telecommunications technology, this common feature was geography. Social relationships revolved around physical location, with a focus on face-to-face communication. Considering the difficulty in maintaining long-distance communication, the costs associated with this and the general physical separation, it made sense to be part of a community that was in your immediate geographical sphere (Preece and Maloney-Krichmar 2003, 3).
Before the internet (and other telecommunication developments) the person who lived next door was your best friend because it was convenient. You bought your clothes from the local shopping centre because it was easy – and probably the only option. However, with the rise of online communities the geographical boundaries that we used to rely on have been broken. No longer are we bound by locality, but by affinity. Terry Flew (2005,62) quotes Howard Rheingold (1994, 5) as defining virtual communities as ‘social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on those public discussions [using the Internet] long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace.’ We can see from this definition how the Internet plays a central role in building new online relationships.
I can honestly say that I know only one person in my age group who does not belong to any form of online community. ONE. How he missed the technological train is beyond me, but this shows the popularity of online communities such as myspace, facebook, youtube, ebay and thousands more. We can now find other individuals that also like to walk around in Yoda costumes whilst doing Rubik’s cube… if that’s what we are into… I’m not. But it’s possible.
Preece (2000, 1) states that online communities are hard to define, mostly due to the room for interpretation that exists for different people. However, we can mostly see that members have shared goals, interests or a basic reason for belonging to the society. They interact with one another, learning and teaching all the while, gaining strong ties between members. However, this raises the issue – are online communities destroying the geographical society? Are we becoming more and more segregated in the real world as we become more united in the virtual one? And if so, is it really a bad thing? It is in my opinion that while it’s important to maintain our relationships in the physical world, we shouldn’t dismiss the importance of relationships within the virtual realm. We should embrace the ability we now have to find a community based purely on interests, and all the benefits that come along with this. However, what will this mean for the traditional ‘community’? Will we become so jaded by the gleam of reality that we will only communicate with friends via online channels? I hope not.
References:
Preece, J. 2000. Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. England: John Wiley & Sons.
Preece, J. and D. Maloney-Krichmar. 2003. Online Communities: Focusing on sociability and usability. Baltimore.
Rheingold, Howard. 1994. “The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World” in Flew, Terry. 2005. New Media: Second Edition. Melbourne: Oxford University Press
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Flew (2005, 63) says that social networks are a convergence of sender and receiver, conversation and information, the means of carriage and its content and public and private identities.
Even with this in mind, the notion that social networks/cultures are destroying society and segregating the world still seems to be an issue. At initial glance you could say that that the 'subcultures' are in fact destroying our societies as they are segregating them even further. Different subcultures allow people to connect on the same level with the same group of people, but this does not mean that they completely shut off from the rest of society.
In saying this, these 'micro cultures' are actually bringing people together. Those who have the same interests can converse in the one online environment from all over the world. Perhaps a more appropriate term that could be used instead ‘fragmenting or segregating,’ is diversifying as these networks are enabling consumers to create even more diverse groups.
Terry Flew (2005, 69) notes a number of reasons as to why people participate in online communities including the opportunity to form friendships and relationships, the ability to play with persons, the capacity to circulate new ideas within a group and the chance to find people who share the same interests.
Thus, I believe social networks are not destroying society, but are enabling consumers to find and explore their niche in a positive and collaborative environment.
Flew, T. 2005. Virtual Cultures in New Media: An Introduction. 2nd ed, 61-82. Victoria: Oxford University Press.
I think the emergence of online communities has both positive and negative effects on society. On the positive side, online communities allow users to create an identity not based on physical attributes and become part of communities of interests similar to their own. This allows people to discuss issues which would not normally be discussed without online communication because of their location, appearance, age and so on. Also online users are more likely to share their thoughts, feelings and beliefs as it is not face to face communication. However, online communication can create barriers between a users online and offline identities disconnecting them from each other.
I agree that society is becoming more segregated in the real world and more united in the online world, which applies to all forms of new media, for example when you see people waiting at a bus stop; most will be either talking on the phone or messaging someone, than actually having a conversation with the people around them. I don’t think it’s a bad thing that online communities are becoming a dominant form of communicating within society, as I believe it allows people to communicate more regularly which could in fact strengthen relationships. However I think we still need to keep our physical world relationships healthy, and develop a balance between the two.
I am also on the side of online communities having both negative and positive sides. Like you have said, the way we lived in our little communities provided the only means of friendship, shopping, etc. My best friend in primary school was my next door neighbour. It was convenient. As I started to use chat rooms and spend more time on the internet with virtually only MSN at the time, I began to make a whole big group of friends online. These people, I would have never met under any other circumstances. I was a 13 year old girl in Brisbane, where they were various ages in different cities of Australia.
I don't think that ebay and online stores will overtake the local stores. I still think that a lot of people do not trust the system and are very uncomfortable in dealing with their banking details over the internet for one. Local business may feel a little bit of heat from the online market, but not alot. Personally, I like to try clothes on before I buy them.
Internet subcultures do exist, the same as ones in 'real life'. It just simply provides a platform for people to reach out to people that are not in their local area. It is just important for people to maintain relationships outside of the internet and not fully disperse themselves into the web... but then what's the harm?
I’m going to have to agree with both 2604ashliegh and sharni, that online communities have both positive and negative effects. However I think we all have to realise that they are becoming more frequent and ultimately changing the way society interacts.
One of the major positive effects of online communities is that people are now able to put forward their ideas and thoughts without the fear of being public judged or discriminated against. In addition users are able to participate in countless communities that they otherwise wouldn’t have been able to in the geographical realm. As Flew notes "the tendency of many Internet users is not to passionately commit themselves to single online communities, but rather to participate in a multitude of such communities, and to move in and out of them, thereby taking maximum advantage of the new forms of human association enabled by the Internet" (Flew, 2005, p.68). A negative effect is obviously that some people might become too engrossed in this virtual world and as a result segregate themselves from real life. However, in the end it is up to the individual.
I still think that our physical relationships are most important but if consumers are now able to find groups who hold the same interests online…then why not?
References:
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New Media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Samara,
I found your blog, “Online Communities – a place to call home”, highly thought provoking and am left wondering the merits of online relationships compared to those in the real world. You highlighted a number of benefits related to online relationships that I had never considered before. Likewise to you, I think it is great that we are able to form relationships with people from all over the globe with similar interests. Furthermore, social networking sites have made it easier and cheaper than ever to keep in touch with family and friends overseas. I also believe that the virtual realm has largely facilitated globalisation and made our community much wider.
Nonetheless, I am a firm believer that nothing beats the real thing. Call me old-fashioned, but I much rather catch up on gossip with friends over lunch than through email or social networking sites. Furthermore, if we only ever communicated with people who have similar goals or like the same stuff as ourselves, life would be very boring. I think it is our differences that keep life interesting and teach us to be tolerant and understanding of each other.
I found your discussion on the changing relationship between online and real world communities to be rather interesting. I think that you raise a valid point with regards to the membership that most of us have to one or another online community. I myself am a consistent user of Facebook, having moved on from Myspace like many of my other online friends. I believe in the value and importance of social networking, and have written a blog on social networking /virtual communities and the positive impact it could have for the music industry that has been plagued by online piracy. Feel free to browse.
Flew (2005, 62) talks of growing importance of online communities stating that through, “the building of social networks and social capital, lead to the sharing of knowledge and information; and the enabling of- new modes of democratic participation in public life.” (FLEW, 62)
When viewed in this light I think one can say that online communities have the potential to be somewhat of a cornerstone in the evolution of the New Media environment.
I have recently read an article in the latest issue of the Rolling Stone magazine, it highlighted the incorporation of social networking and communities in the American presidential nomination race. Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama has been using email address sourced in campaign and door-knocking activities to create online communities and correspondents to keep potential voters up to date with his policies and announcements. Again proving the value and potential that online communities hold for the future of the media environment.
Referencing
Flew, Terry. (2005). Virtual Cultures in Flew, Terry, New media : an introduction, Melbourne: OUP, pp.61-82.
Post a Comment