In class on Monday we debated the validity and authenticity of communities formed or maintained online. Many people in class agreed that communities formed online produce “drive-by” relationships that do not foster trust or commitment from members. However, technology can aid in maintaining pre-existing communities. For example, Facebook may help maintain ties that are formed in real life if members of the community become physically distanced. As an example, we discussed how the Parkour community is grounded in corporeal reality, but information is disseminated through an online community, and this community can manifest in physical spaces anywhere in the world because it is not tied to a specific place. This reminds me of Webber, who proposed that accessibility to a group of interest is more important than physical nearness to community members. An increase in transport and availability of information relating to a distant community aids in the ability of people to join these communities of interest. Following from this logic, it seems that online communities are just another form of technology that helps to connect people to whatever group they are interested in. If this is the case, can we really conclude that relationships formed online are not authentic or constitute strong ties? Is there something vital about sharing a physical space that makes a connection more genuine?
To that end, we discussed how technology has changed the way we embody physical space (eg. one might be physically present, but not actually interacting with those around them because they are absorbed in their technology). Is it possible that in the future relationships online will become more important than having some sort of shared physical space? If so, I am wondering what the consequences of that would be, and what the problem with having important online relationships is, if they provide equal sociability and support to what would be gained through face-to-face interactions.
In Driskell & Lyon’s study, they argued that since it is “easier to replace the relationship, change chat rooms, or ‘move’ to another virtual community” (382) online than it is to alter your face-to-face interactions with people, online relationships have limited liability and therefore do not constitute community. Do people find this argument convincing? I can understand it to some extent, but I think technology has also aided people in the ability to identify new physical spaces they could interact with, allowing them more flexibility and mobility in corporeal communities. What’s more, I’m not sure how much liability one feels to their neighbors or co-workers, for example, simply because they embody a shared space.
We also discussed the level of homogeneity that might be necessary for the formation of a community. It seems intuitive that people look for others like themselves to spend time with, and that tension within a group is reduced if everyone in the group shares similar interests and values. That being the case, perhaps communities are inherently homogenous to some extent, particularly if they are not tied to a physical space, and are instead formed by shared interests. In class, we were left wondering if it was possible to balance a desire to be surrounded by like-minded people, but also to experience diversity and exposure to different perspectives. I thought it was particularly enlightening when someone commented that you cannot form a community without having something in common, but having something in common doesn’t necessarily mean it is a homogenous group of members. I think this applies really well to our discussion of online communities, as they might be formed around a common interest, but the group members could come from very different backgrounds. Can this ideology also be applied to some of the other communities we have studied? In those examples, is the common trait that binds people only the physical space they share?
Analyzing the level of homogeneity that exists in a given community, particularly within the Bowdoin context, is something that is very interesting to me. As Meredith mentioned in her post, our class started to recognize that there may be some tension between being part of a community with common interests and also having exposure to individuals with diverse backgrounds. After this discussion, I started to reflect on my Bowdoin experience and the different communities I have joined on this campus. One that stood out to me, particularly when looking at this issue, is the club ski team. This club is centered around a common interest in skiing and, frankly, the outdoors in general (not every members of the club has a lot of ski experience believe it or not). Beyond this passion for skiing (or whatever else it may be), however, the group itself is far from homogeneous. The ski team is definitely one of the most eclectic groups I’ve ever been a part of, and our love of skiing is really all that binds us together. If it wasn’t for the ski club, I don’t even know that I would have come into contact with most of these individuals since our other interests on campus do not intersect at all. This leads me to believe that having something in common does not necessarily mean that a community is formed by a homogenous group of members. I am not trying to assert that this club is the most diverse group on campus, for it definitely lacks representation in various respects; however, it definitely has sparked a lot of thought for me on whether or not a community necessarily has to be homogeneous and if a common interest within a community necessarily indicates that the group is all the same.
Furthermore, to address Meredith’s question that discusses our previous readings about communities and the physical space that may or may not be what binds its members, I wanted to bring up Levittown. In this reading, Gans describes Levittown in a way that insinuates that it can also be viewed as a community of limited liability (much like online communities). It becomes clear throughout the reading that the relationships between the members are transient and do not reflect authentic relationships. This leads me to question Driskell and Lyon’s critique about online communities having limited liability as being something unique to online communities. Clearly, this is an issue that has existed even in communities that involve face-to-face interactions, so I am wondering what it is about online communities specifically that makes them inauthentic that can’t be applied to communities bound by physical space?
I think you raise some really important considerations, especially the implications that technology and online relationships can have on the way in which we interact with each other and inhabit physical spaces. I have yet to come to a definitive conclusion on whether or not I think that authentic communities can be formed or maintained online. I think value can be derived from interactions online, though I am not convinced that it is exclusively enough to create authentic, strong ties.
Additionally, I think the distinction between common interests and homogeneity is an important one. How much similarity or differences are required for successful and/or authentic communities and relationships? This is often considered and discussed in Economics under the name of diversification. Outside of the Economics realm, though, this concept has useful applications too. For example many of us probably have had experiences in which we derive greater value, opportunity, and education when spending time with people who are not exactly the same as us (different views, backgrounds, etc.). In theory, I do think that mutual interest groups should be able to bring together a diverse group of people that happen to share at least one common interest and then promote an authentic and sustainable community. That said, I think this may be quite idealistic, especially given the polarity of our society, in terms of politics, social values, etc.
Even though I understand why spatial closeness has been thought of as an integral part of building community, I think that idea can be retired as the internet becomes more and more of a presence in our daily lives. The argument against virtual communities invalidates their relationship and makes it seem like online connections are not valid enough to be counted as “real”. Online communities can provide members with resources and companionship that they might be struggling with in their physical space. I think that this adds value to online spaces. I also think that the possibility for physical interaction following an online connection should be taken into consideration.
In terms of Bowdoin, technically the only thing we all have in common is that we want a Bachelor’s degree. We like to think that we are all kind hearted liberals with a bevy of similarities but I feel like there are more differences once the Bowdoin bubble pops. I think that connection, not spatial closeness fosters community and a Facebook group of mothers from all over the US bonding over recipes can achieve the same status of community as a college campus where you could potentially sit at a table and not know anyone.