This week really got me thinking about the concept of global networks and the effects that technological inventions have had on the idea of 'community'. From the days of Egypt’s Human messengers and Chinas messenger relay stations it is hard to fathom just how far we have come in the world of communications. Long gone are the days where it was common place to receive a hand written letter complete with the stains and wrinkles of its travels. If you ask me this is a blessing as my handwriting is horrendous, but many disagree. The debates on the quality and quantity of the new communication corridors are wide and heated (see the articles in Wellman and Haythornthwaite 2002)
Personally, I believe that communities started changing from groups to networks well before the advent of the Internet. To begin with i think people feared that industrialization and bureaucratization would dissolve community groups and only isolated, alienated individuals would remain. Then people actually took a step back and discovered that communities continued, but more as sparsely-knit, spatially dispersed social networks rather than as densely-knit, village-like local groups. It is easy to say that the internet just isolates people from face-to-face interactions but the fact is we are just being given new opportunities to discover far-flung communities of shared interest.
After a few joyous hours of reading I have found three key sides to this debate. Some say the internet weakens community (Kraut et al. 1998; Nie and Hillygus 2002), others believe it enhances community (Wellman and Quan-Haase 2002), and others believe the internet transforms community (Barlow, 1995; Wellman 2001), believing that internet is simply changing the way people communicate rather than damaging or improving it. Networked societies are themselves changing in character. As discussed in the lecture it seems each person is now a switchboard, between ties and networks. People remain connected, but as individuals, rather than being stuck in the confines of home or work. Each person operates a separate personal community network and switches rapidly among multiple sub-networks. In effect, the Internet and other new communication technology are helping individuals to personalize their own communities. This is neither a a positive or a negative, but rather a complex, fundamental transformation in the nature of community.
Resources-
Wellman, B. and Haythornthwaite, C. (eds.) 2002. The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., and Scherlis, W. 1998. Internet Paradox: A Social Technology that Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-being? American Psychologist. 53(9), p. 1017-1031.
Nie, N., Hillygus, D. S., and Erbring, L. 2002. Internet Use, Interpersonal Relations and Sociability: A Time-diary Study. In B. Wellman and C.
Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Barlow, J. P., Birkets, S., Kelly, K., and Slouka, M. 1995. What Are We Doing On-Line?, Harper's, 291, p. 35–46.
Wellman, B. 2001. Physical Place and Cyber-Place: Changing Portals and the Rise of Networked Individualism, International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), p. 227-252.
Wellman, B. and Haythornthwaite, C. (eds.) 2002. The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., and Scherlis, W. 1998. Internet Paradox: A Social Technology that Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-being? American Psychologist. 53(9), p. 1017-1031.
Nie, N., Hillygus, D. S., and Erbring, L. 2002. Internet Use, Interpersonal Relations and Sociability: A Time-diary Study. In B. Wellman and C.
Haythornthwaite (eds.), The Internet in Everyday Life. Oxford:Blackwell. In press
Barlow, J. P., Birkets, S., Kelly, K., and Slouka, M. 1995. What Are We Doing On-Line?, Harper's, 291, p. 35–46.
Wellman, B. 2001. Physical Place and Cyber-Place: Changing Portals and the Rise of Networked Individualism, International Journal for Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), p. 227-252.