This chapter describes various points of view regarding online communities.

It begins by looking at the general concept of communities in order to understand online communities.  In an attempt to define “community” Bell and Valentine (1997) are quoted: “It’s [...] about belonging and exclusion, about ‘us’ and ‘them’.” Other definitions go back to Tönnies’ work from 1887 where he defines ‘Gemeinschaft’ as a traditional, close-knitted community and ‘Gesellschaft’ as the impoverished urban society. The idea of ‘Gemeinschaft’ is “tinged with nostalgia” and can be compared to the concept of ‘village life’.

There are also imagined communities (like nations) which “exist because their members believe in them and maintain them through shared cultural practices” (p.95)

Threats to communities are detraditionalization, which is linked to disembedding (no longer rooted in place) and globalization. These in turn inspire heightened reflexivity giving us more choices about our identities, our politics. A negative aspect might be ’schizophrenia’ or loss of depth. On the other hand this might give us a stronger desire for community.

These concepts of imagined community, globalization, disembedding, reflexivity and detraditionalization might all open up the Internet as an ideal site for communities.

Are virtual communities a good thing? Rheingold seems to think so. He describes them as the natural response to the disintegration of traditional communities. He describes shared social codes, reciprocity, longevity, critical mass and sufficient human feeling as the elements of virtual communities

But what makes a community? There need to be some social codes, as described in examples in the text. This can be made more difficult through multiple identities. The rules themselves form a sense of identity.

Are online communities a bad thing? Critics of online communities describe participation in virtual communities as ‘bunkering in’.  The notion of community itself could be seen as very exclusive and uncomfortable places if you don’t fit in.

Other ways of thinking about community: The concept of ‘Bund’ might be an alternative: “an elective grouping, bonded by affective and emotional solidarity, sharing a strong sense of belonging’.

Problems of inclusion and exclusion. There are in fact a lot of requirements to joining an online community. Apart from the aspects of access and skills there are also social and cultural barriers. Virtual communities can be just as problematic as “real” communities in terms of exclusion and bounding out of other communities and individuals.

My thoughts: This text is again very concerned about the topic of inclusion and exclusion which I am also interested in. It would also be interested to find out how many people actually want to belong to totally virtual communities. Often online communication is formed to keep in touch with real life friends and acquaintances. As my 17 year old niece was saying “Why would I want to chat to people online who I don’t know. It would be a waste of time.”

Bell, David (2001) Community and cyberculture, chapter 5 of An introduction to cybercultures. Abingdon: Routledge. pp92-112 [e-book]