Online Communities and Global Ideas - Literature review Example

Analyzing Community Topic: Online communities are becoming a very big part of our lives. They connect us to global ideas, as well as directly to people of many cultures all over the world. Explore the notion of community. How (if at all) are these ever expanding networks changing our view of community? (Name) (Course) (Institution) (Instructor’s name) (Date) Introduction Technological advancement has not only connected people to global ideas but also influencing how people work, socialize, learn, live and interact (Timms et al., 2001). Among the effects of advancement in technology is the growth of globalization as people through enhanced forms of communication technologies are able to share information efficiently and quickly with minimal difficulties (Fernback, 2007). Fernback notes that the improved capacity to share information has diffused the physical communication boundaries that have traditionally restricted people, resulting in enhanced interconnectivity that characterizes the concept of community (Fernback, 2007). With the rapid growth and reliance of the internet, online communities have emerged, which have to some degree altered the traditional definition and perception of community. This forms the basis of the report, which seeks to explore the notion of community and how, if at all, online communities are changing people’s view of community. Exploring the notion of Community Various disciplines and researchers have developed different definitions and redefinitions for the term community, making development of a satisfying definition of the concept difficult as noted by Cohen, (1985). Primarily, community can be described as social unit, which shares mutual ideals (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). According to McMillan & Chavis (1986), a community is a place which permits people with mutual needs to exchange ideas, share experiences and learn from each other. Online communities on the other hand, are social units that are formed and exist on virtual spaces (Timms et al., 2001). Members of online communities are brought together through membership. Unlike traditional placed-based communities, communication and interaction in online communities transverse political, physical and geographical boundaries to bring together people with shared goals and interests (Smith et al., 2009). According to Cohen (1985), the representational nature of community is primarily enshrined in the element of boundaries, where boundaries connotes that people within them have various commonalities that characterizes them. Geographical boundaries play, at least in traditional placed based -communities, an important role in the establishment of societal dissimilarities in terms of culture, language and social belonging as noted by Cohen (1985). Commonalities and relationships are the two elements that characterize a community, with traditional understanding of community stressing on the need for place boundaries while online communities breaking down the geographical boundaries and giving greater emphasis on people (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Community plays a fundamental role in human society and it is the core of civilization and society since it offers people the chances to compare their personal views against other people’s ideas, perspectives and perceptions, which is integral for enhancing awareness, knowledge, interconnectedness and overall human growth (Smith et al., 2009). The main functions of a community are to create connection and to facilitate sharing of knowledge. There are factors that must be available for a community (whether online or not) to effectively and efficiently function which includes exchange of information, continuity of collaboration, sharing interest, adequate time to allow participants to self-express and more importantly, having rules as discussed by McMillan & Chavis (1986). Ideally, the traditional understanding of community has been where a community member is able to contribute to a variety of support to others within the same community in terms of sharing information, companionship, emotional support, resources and services (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). This view of community is not necessarily true of what occurs in place based community, where majority of members of one’s community network especially in urban settings do not know each other and they do not interact and more often than not, even those members who are close, they do not provide all the mentioned social support. In most instances, those who contribute emotional support are rarely those who contribute financial support. This means that in a community, different form of social support is offered by different community members (Fernback, 2007). In line with this perspective is that, people are able to access different form of social support and resources such as emotional support, information, companionship and other services online. Therefore, online communities fit the ideal understanding of community and does not change what community means and instead, they enhance the positive perceptions about community. How if at all are the ever expanding networks and online communities changing people’s view of community? The main point of contention that has resulted in the society and various disciplines being torn on whether to embrace technological networks and online communities in order to preserve the traditional understanding of community, is the concept of social capital, with some researchers seeing online communities as threat to social capital while others seeing them as a means of generating high social capital as discussed by Timms et al., (2001). The concept of community has been linked with various concepts such as social capital, social cohesion, social engagement and social integration all of which play a fundamental role in facilitating social order and sustainable social economic development of a society (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). There are types of social capital linked with civic engagement where individuals are linked with their local community through participation in various activities such as sports membership as suggested by Putnam (2000). Social capital stresses on the need for civic virtue that is rooted on compact network of mutual social relations, which Putnam argues does not occur in a globalized world or in online communities. On a personal level, social connectedness has been attributed to fundamental determinants of economic growth and development, positive behavior outcomes, physical health and mental wellbeing (Smith et al., 2009). On the other hand, low rates of social capital has been attributed to social disorder, which is a basis for social challenges such as rising rates of crime, child abuse and poverty. This is because communities are unable to develop a social structure through which mutual ideals are achieved and mutual challenges are resolved (Timms et al., 2001). Primarily, social capital deals with relationships among people and wider groups and although researchers such as Putnam suggests this can only occur using place based communities, they fail to take into account that a person such as those in marginalized communities can be solidly be linked with their local community and still remain isolated from the wider community. It is crucial that when examining the rate of social capital and its impacts, to take into account the social context, since it is possible to be actively engaged with the immediate community but still be excluded from the wider community which can result in disengagement of the individual from the wider community (Putnam, 2000). According to Putman, networks and the related rules of reciprocity and mutual exchanges are good for the people within the network, but the external impact of social capital are not always constructive, which points towards the need for understanding ways in which the positive outcomes such as mutual support, trust and institutional productivity can be increased and the negative consequences such as sectarianism, discrimination, exploitation and ethnocentrism can be reduced (Putnam, 2000). Although increased social capital is a good thing for the community members, it is not always so for people outside the community since it leads to closeness of the community members but exclusion of those outside the community (Timms et al., 2001). In addition, people within close-knit groups are under intense pressure to conform, which limits their autonomy and it may make it challenging for them to access resources and information which is available within other communities (Fernback, 2007). For example, city gangs can be perceived as an effort by the gang members who are members of a group that is excluded from the wider community, to establish high rate of social capital by focusing on the exclusivity. To safeguard against fragmentation, interconnectedness and links among groups are key element in social cohesion, binding groups together, which online systems can efficiently and effectively undertake as echoed by Smith et al. (2009). Through online communities, it becomes easier to eliminate these boundaries such as being a minority, being from a marginalized community or having distinct differences in terms of color, race, social status, education and ethnicity that can restrict and prevent an individual from being included and connected with the wider community (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Elimination of these boundaries within online communities causes greater engagement and interconnectedness regardless of the existing differences, which in place based communities, could be a barrier to interactions and engagements (Smith et al., 2009). This means globalization and the internet allow development of wider and broader communities that could otherwise not exist. Conclusively, based on the significant role social capital plays in ensuring overall wellbeing of individuals, which translates to overall wellbeing of the society, it is understandable when people are weary of anything that risks social capital. Those who critique the social impact of technological systems and networks such as online communities argue that the said networks have the potential to weaken the face to face contact among people and replace it with virtual interactions, which are basis for segregation of individuals and atomization of society as noted by Wellman & Gulia (1999). This is because virtual connections through the internet make people lose their capacity and time to develop spontaneous connections with real people. Just as the media particularly the television has kept people off the streets making them couch potatoes, the internet culture has kept people indoors making them mouse potatoes, who cannot make real connections with real people as supported by Putnam, (2000). Nevertheless, these arguments against internet culture and online communities have little backing in empirical research as supported by Timms et al. (2001). Researchers have found that the internet culture has in real sense complemented face to face contact instead of replacing it and virtual connections have emotional connections that have similarly substantial impact of community and self-identity (Hampton and Wellman, 2003). According to Hampton and Wellman (2003), virtual communities lengthen the potential for community and offer a foundation for developing new types of social capital. Even though, people interacting online may not necessarily have physical contact existent in face to face contact, they are brought together by oneness and connectedness which generate a sense of belonging. For a community to be formed, virtual people or real people must share a mutual purpose (Fernback, 2007). Online communities just like place based communities are established by people sharing a mutual purpose. Therefore, online communities may not be as different from place based communities and may in fact enhance people’s view of community and their awareness about their role, identity and place in the community and cause greater civic, social and political engagement (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Online communities provide its community members with variety of choices compared to members of place based communities owing to the vast number of interactions they can generate online (Smith et al., 2009). But as mentioned before, various sections of the society and researchers have attributed the emergence of online communities with how people view community. Online communities are linked to social costs where members of online communities are at greater risks of losing important links to their local communities as argued by Baym (2010). Putman (2000) advice against the increased acceptance of online communities and globalization arguing that such concepts erodes the essence of community and contributes to deteriorating levels of civic engagement. Smith et al., (2009) suggest that an online community should not only be viewed negatively and as a source of community disintegration and social disorder, but it should be seen and used as a means of people interacting on a global platform to generate and improve engagements both politically, civically and socially on an even larger capacity and scale. Based on a study conducted by Hampton and Wellman (2003), online communities formed due to internet use generates larger community networks, increased rates of on and offline communication, greater engagement in private and public spheres and increased recognition of community members. All these enhances the true essence and sense of a community that entails engagement, membership, mutual connection, influence and incorporation and meeting certain needs as discussed by McMillan & Chavis, (1986). This means that online communities has in fact helped people to be more active and engaged on their civic duties and more importantly, improving the view people have about what a community is and the significant role it plays in the society as indicated by Smith et al. (2009). This awareness is crucial for facilitating social capital, civic and political engagement, which is important in the development and implementation of better social systems. Therefore arguments that globalization and the establishment of online communities contributes to deteriorating social capital and the loss of meaningful links with local communities by Putman and others holds little or no basis in light of the varied forms of social capital generated by various types of online communities and internet as argued by Fernback (2007). What has changed in the view about community? The notion that the expanding networks riding on technological advancement and globalization influences the view and the perceptions people have about community is informed by questions on the ability for individuals to develop cohesive and fully functioning relationships without being able to have physical contact, which means they cannot see, smell, hear and touch each other (Hampton and Wellman, 2003). The ability to smell, hear, touch and see are essential in developing intimacy and connection required to influence individual and social identity. The potential that internet culture has in developing broader and larger fully functioning communities is enormous especially since people are able to overcome the boundaries of place of birth, race, gender, ethnicity and geography to make communicate, interact and make connections (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Other than the fact that through information and communication technologies, communities established online are defined by people and not place, online communities and place based communities are similar and they both are keen on responding to mutual needs of community members, generating social support, offering companionship, generating a sense of belonging and advancing interconnectedness and knowledge sharing that characterize a community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). One cannot dispute that technology has transformed the way people perceive and think of community. Traditionally, a community entailed people with commonalities in terms of place and ethnicity but through technologies, communities are more intricately splintered as a culture (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Communities are no longer categorized by physical places, socio-economic status, or race, but presently, millions of people across the globe have the capacity and the ability to group themselves into many and varied subcultures (Fernback, 2007). As earlier indicated, communication among community members is no longer restricted to face to face communication, which adopted a top-down and linear approach, it is now broad and encompasses along and across structures. Previously, a community was seen and understood as a group of people from one location where a person within a designated area was thought as part of the community. Communication and engagement among members of a community was previously in a social setting using face to face mode of communication (Smith et al., 2009). These perceptions and descriptions of community have over time changed since social interactions are no longer dependent on place and proximity and instead, they can be done by any one and at any place. According to Gergen (1997), things such as physical location of a person and birth influenced their membership into a community with face to face communication being the main medium of communication. This meant that social interactions and engagement were carried out with stable and with limited number of people (Jones, 1997). According to Jones, this outlook about community has shifted significantly with advancement in modern transport and communication systems, which has enhanced mobility of people and has minimized the costs of communicating and interacting over vast distances (Jones, 1997). This has seen the element of relationship taking prominence compared with physical proximity, as a fundamental basis in describing community as noted by Wellman & Gulia (1999). Although neighborhoods and family bonds are important in establishing and defining a community, they are a small section of the whole community networks (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Wellman & Gulia (1999) argues that community does not necessarily need to be closely-knit solidary group of neighbors, but it can be in form of social networks comprising of old and new friends, colleagues, family and relatives who do not have to live in the same vicinities or neighborhoods. This perspective of community shifts the definition and understanding of community from one that views it in relation to place and space, to viewing and understanding the notion of community in relation to social networks. People based or better yet technology-based notion of community generate certain benefits and it is more advantageous for a number of reasons. The fact that everyone is literate enough to read and write, people have equal platforms and voice and can therefore engage actively in shaping their culture (Hampton and Wellman, 2003). In addition, online communities rapidly enhances the ability of people to generate social capital by permitting them to more adequately and effectively sustain their secondary and tertiary relationships such as old friends, former colleagues, former classmates, family relatives and friends across the globe (Fernback, 2007). Globalization and the expanding internet networks have been able to do what systems established to facilitate connections such as roads have failed to do, which is connecting and linking people and not detaching them from the wider community. They have not contributed to atomization of people from society as supported by Hampton and Wellman (2003). Conclusively, online communities are an extension of place based communities and they are crucial in not only generating new forms of social capital but also are critical in provision of variety of social support to community members in real world and generation of extensive and broader interconnectedness of people, which ensures greater civic, social and political engagement at a global scale (Smith et al., 2009). Online communities should not be perceived as a hindrance to civic virtue linked with the notion of community, but it must be seen as avenues for facilitating effective communication and interaction among people without the limitation of space and places, which does not atomizer people from society but connects them with a wider community, making the world a global community/ global village (Timms et al., 2001). Online communities therefore are similar to place based communities if not better. This is because online communities allows people to share information, connect, relate, flirt, love, hate, support, play, work, transact businesses, learn and socialize with other people who they have mutual interests with, which is illustrative of what an ideal community should be (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). Online communities have additional benefits in comparison with place based communities which includes the ability for people to share and receive information over vast places that could otherwise be impossible to do in place based communities (Hampton and Wellman, 2003). For example, an individual who lives in South Africa and has never been out of South Africa, they can form strong and reliable connections with an individual on the other side of the world in Alaska using social networking sites by simply being community members of a social networking site such as Facebook or My space, whom they can share instant information with, despite the many miles that separates them. If it were in place based communities, the two people could not only be unable to interact and connect owing to dynamics of place, their differences culturally could hinder their effective interaction and communication. According to Smith et al. (2009), members of online communities are able to access and participate in hundreds of definite discussion groups, where they can actively develop specialized relationships and actively engage in discussing issues such as politics and in so doing, generating positive changes. In addition, online communities offer an effective and efficient medium for developing a web of solid relationships since exchange of information is not only quick but also, the response times are as quick (Fernback, 2007). As noted earlier, place based communities are not necessarily as they are viewed where an individual is linked to both their immediate and wider communities and members are able to receive all the social support and services from the community members, which leads to feelings of detachment and isolation. Online communities in contrast, extends over and beyond physical boundaries and eliminates obstacles such as race, ethnicity and color to allow any person, wherever they are to become members of certain communities of their choice and achieve a sense of belonging (Timms et al., 2001). Conclusion The notion of community is one where people are able to relate, interact, support each other and actively engage in generating positive social changes in the society. The traditional understanding and definition of community has changed from viewing it in relation to family ties and neighborhoods to understanding it in relation to social networks of colleagues, old and new friends and family. Community is no longer limited by space and place, but it transverses distances to include people from different cultural backgrounds. Despite the change in how community is perceived and viewed, the essence of community has remained the same even in the internet culture. Instead of weakening the essence of community and reducing social capital, online communities have contributed to development of new forms of social capital and have broken the barriers of place, cultures and time existent in place based communities to generate wider and broader interconnectedness of people causing greater civic, political and social engagements. Globalization and the expanding internet networks such as online communities have been able to do what systems established to facilitate connections such as roads have failed to do, which is connecting and linking people and not detaching them from the wider community. Online communities and technological networks may have changed how the notion of community is defined, but it has not changed what a community entails which is having mutual needs and interests, developing relationships and engagements, forming interactions, sharing information and ensuring everyone access social support wherever and whenever they are. References Baym, N. K. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA: Polity. Cohen, A. P. (1985). The symbolic construction of community. Chichester, London: Tavistock Publications. Fernback, J. (2007). Beyond the diluted community concept: A symbolic interactionist perspective on online social relations. New Media & society, 9 (1), 49-69. doi: DOI: 10.1177/1461444807072417 Gergen, K. (1997). Social saturation and the populated self. In G. E. Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.). Literacy, technology and society: Confronting the issues. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2003). Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet supports community and social capital in a wired suburb. City & Community, 2 (4), 277-311. Jones, Q. (1997). Virtual-communities, virtual-settlements and cyber-archaeology: A theoretical outline. Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, 3 (3). Accessed on 12th Sept 2012 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue3/jones.html McMillan, D.W., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). "Sense of community: A definition and theory." American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 6-23. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Smith, A., Scholzman, K. L., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (2009). The Internet and civic engagement Pew Internet and American Life Project (pp. 1-66). Washington DC: PewInternet. Timms, D., Ferlander, S., Timms, L. (2001). Building communities: Online Education and social Capital. Accessed on 12th Sept 2012 from http://www.odeluce.stir.ac.uk/docs/buildingcommunities.pdf Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net Surfers don't ride alone: Virtual communities as communities. Toronto: University Of Toronto. Accessed on 12th Sept 2012 from http://groups.chass.utoronto.ca/netlab/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Net-Surfers-Dont-Ride-Alone-Virtual-Community-as-Community.pdf Read More