Driskell, Goodspeed and Kidder’s pieces all discuss the effect of online communities on modern society. My expert question focused on Driskell’s discussion of cyberspace and its influence on community. More specifically, my question addressed Driskell’s “lost community thesis,” which argues the necessity of identification with place for community (376). Driskell claims that relationships that operate only online lack an identification with place, and therefore lack the same, true intimacy that one experiences from face-to-face interactions. However, all three readings note that online communities are spaces that allow individuals with similar interests to connect with each other. This observation leads scholars to question whether or not these relationships can be considered real. I wanted to know what my classmates thought about authenticity in relation to these arguments. Does authenticity matter when determining if a community is real or not? Because members get to choose their online groups, can it be argued that these communities are actually more authentic? Is there something to be said about groups that are thrust upon us by history, family, or cultural experiences? Is authenticity necessary as a condition of community?

A few classmates expressed their difficulty in seeing how an online community could be considered more authentic than a community one is linked to by history, family, or cultural experiences. While they agreed with the authors that the bonds and relationships that one forms in an online community are real, several people stated their belief that sharing interests does not necessarily create an authentic bond. However, other classmates said they think authenticity depends on what the online community is about. For example, if someone needed a support group that perhaps they are unable to find in person or within their home community, this outside support group could be considered authentic (Class Discussion, October 23^rd). So, while on the whole it appeared that authenticity is necessary as a condition of community, this authenticity may or may not originate from history, family, or cultural experiences.

My expert question also asked the class to think about these readings in relation to Karyn Lacy’s discussion of strategic assimilation and authentic blackness. Lacy argues,
“the construction of an authentic black racial identity is incomplete in the absence of meaningful interactions with other blacks” (183). In this sense, it appears Lacy highly values history, family and cultural expectations in regards to authenticity, repeatedly stating that “they can’t forget they are black” (153) and therefore must maintain strong ties to the black community. Though the class did not really discuss this part of the question, I feel as though these two discussions can be brought together. I think Lacy would argue that in no way can an online community be considered authentic. Lacy would argue that one’s upbringing and one’s identification with place is too important in developing a sense of community that anything less should not be considered authentic. Sure, online communities are an extension-of-reach of the same desire to find and connect with people—but no incorporation into another community can outweigh a “local place where one was born, raised, and died” (Driskell, 376). I think Lacy would argue that the “inherently intimate, holistic relationships” (Driskell, 376) that are a result of meaningful interactions cannot and should not surrender to online relationships.

In chapter five of Wounded City: Violent Turf Wars in a Chicago Barrio, Robert Vargas discusses the concept of the “code of silence.” He explains that, “the code drives a wedge between police and residents” (121), such that residents refrain from calling the police in return for gang protection. My expert question focused on the role of social programs in relation to gang protection. More specifically, I wanted to hear what the class thought about the role of the basketball league in strengthening community values within the Latin Kings community. My question generated a lot of discussion about the concept of legitimacy. Certainly, social programs such as the basketball league compel eastside residents of Chicago to associate with the Latin Kings as a means for maintaining safety. In the case of the burning of Israel Palacios’ house, once it was discovered that he was the director of the program that runs a Latin King’s son’s basketball league, gang members were told not to mess with him again. This raised the question of legitimacy amongst my classmates. Would this man still be protected even if his kids left the basketball league? How long can Israel’s role within the basketball league keep him safe? If Israel were to quit his job, would he be back on, per say, the Latin King’s “bad side?” Or is his involvement in the basketball league, and therefore his connection to one of the Latin Kings’ sons, for any period of time enough to garner their trust for a lifetime? Indeed, the class agreed that trust is one of the most important values that is cultivated through these social programs. But can that trust be maintained when things start to change? It might not be the best option for eastside residents to associate themselves with the Latin Kings, but is it the safest? Clearly my question raised a lot of lingering questions. It seemed that the class agreed that eastside residents of Chicago do not have control over their own physical safety, even if they are connected to the Latin King’s community through social programs such as the basketball league.

During class I also elaborated on the last part of my question regarding if this approach (exploiting relationship-building efforts for the control of crime) could be counterproductive. I connected my question to the discussion we had in a previous class about social integration and social control. We discussed how too much or too little integration can shape our everyday decisions. Though we did not discuss it much, I am interested in hearing more about whether people think that strong, interpersonal ties that individuals might develop through being a part of a social program can actually impede efforts to establish social control in a society that has this code of silence? I am wondering if by strengthening relationships and values among community members, this would actually increase the tolerance for violence because more relationships between groups will be formed, and if this could potentially escalate levels of crime in the long run? I think this idea merits further consideration, especially in a place like eastside Chicago where residents feel as though they cannot cooperate with the police.