Community Online

Slack slack slack I have been. But really, when all you do all day is a variation on surfing the web, trying to find a job, cleaning, cooking (watching too much masterchef) and watching TV/DVDs, what is there to blog about?

I guess with my increased viewing of the News I could comment on the big stories, like the Iranian elections, the Air France disaster, and the horrible things happening in many parts of the world, but really, I don't think what I have to offer could contribute very much since my understanding of the situation is based mostly on snippets seen on biased news stations.

However, I have made a decision. I will blog at least once a week. I will even try to blog about something interesting. I know... bold move.

So for the first attempt at something interesting, here is my take on:

Community Online

This is a topic I could talk your ear off about. It is a major point in studying the Internet from an Anthropological perspective, as well as generally interesting for any one who regularly uses the web.

For me I find the concept of community online at once both attractive and confusing. When you are part of an online community, there is no doubt that there really is a sense of community. However when you are not part of an online community there is a sense of disbelief that such a sense could occur.

For example, I was part of an online community of viewers/participants in the LonelyGirl15 phenomenon. I actually came to it fairly late, but was around for the last 2 seasons. In watching regularly, and being an active part of the forums, it was easy to identify myself as part of the community. We solved problems together, we knew eachother's names. We knew eachother's quirks and biases. However it took intensive involvement to feel like a real part of this community of fans.

On the other hand, nowadays twitter is becoming massive. A lot of people talk about the ways that twitter is interactive and social, but for me, as someone who follows many people, but only has advertisers following me (I guess they think that I will be so grateful that someone cares that I'll buy their product...), twitter is more like television, or news headlines. I am updated constantly on what people are doing. I can reply to what people are doing, but I never hear anything back. It is entirely one way for me. It isn't that way for everyone though... for example several of the people I follow are friends (online and off) who tweet, retweet and reply to eachother. They sometimes have entire conversations via twitter. But for someone who is really only following because I am a fan of these people and the creative work, I am not really a part of the community.

The begs the question - what is community?

Oh and what a question. Anthropology has tried to answer this question so many times, and before the internet community usually suggested vague links to do with common interest, and common geography. For example I live in the Barossa Valley and people talk frequently about the community here.

With those vague guidelines I guess community online makes sense. Common interest is obvious - you can be part of a community on YouTube that vlogs about certain things, or a group online in favour of something, part of a fandom etc. Common geography in a less traditional sense makes sense as well. While we are definately not all in the same physical location, we generally converge on particular sites. For example there are You Tube communities, LonelyGirl15.com, Harry Potter fans at leaky-cauldron.org, or mugglenet.com. Groups of people with common interests often form their own sites with forums that they can interact on and discuss the topic or topics that bind them.

But with online communities, more so (I think) than offline communities, there is a heavier emphasis on participation. While I am part of the Barossa community, I don't really do anything. I shop in the Barossa and I live here, but I don't participate in community events really. Whereas online I would not count myself as part of a community unless I was involved. I would have to at least join the site, at least read some forums or articles etc., in order to feel that I was part of a community, and in order for others to feel that I was too.

I guess with online communities that emphasis on participation is needed because unless you participate, no one actually knows you exist. In the Barossa community I am counted in because I live in the Barossa. I have an address in the Barossa and people (if they look hard enough) know where I am. Online if I just lurk, so to speak, no one knows I exist, and I can't be a part of a community if I effectively don't exist to the other members.

So I guess that is the sticking point... Interaction. Involvement. Interest. Ooooh. Three I's... isn't that convenient?

More analysis would be easier if I actually made an effort to research the specific ways that people define community in anthropological texts and elsewhere, but I feel that most people don't go on definitions that theorists have made over the last 100 years. Most people do what I do, and define them based on their experiences. "When is the word community most used in the context of my life?" is a more useful question than "What does the Oxford Student's Dictionary (now with colour!) say about community?" or "What did that man 40 years ago say about community?".


Aaaanyway. That went on for a lot longer than I planned. But at least I can say I've done something this morning. ^.^

xo