Critically Examine the Concept of ‘Community’ in Relation to Virtual Community
Critically examine the concept of ‘community’ in relation to virtual community.
It is difficult to examine the concept of ‘community’ as the term ‘community’ is used in a very wide sense to refer to many different figurations of people (Bell & Newby, 1974), thus generating a large number of separate definitions (Stacey, 1969). In order to gain an understanding of what ‘community’ really means it is important to consider the history of its usage. The term originated in the fourteenth century and was used to refer either to an organised body of people, large or small, such as a religious community, or to the common people, the commonalty within such a body (Tyler, 2002). Use of the term ‘community’ shifted in the Renaissance of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when new conceptions of self and other developed, thus shifting use of the term ‘community’ from people to their relationships (Tyler, 2002). It was then used to refer to common ownership (of a community of goods), social communion (with God, for example) or common identity (Tyler, 2002). In the modern era of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the Medieval and Renaissance senses merged, and ‘community’ began referring to the people of a district or neighbourhood. It is this meaning of the term that bears most prominence today. However, more recently the term ‘community’ has been used to refer to other groups of people who are not necessarily concentrated into an identifiable territory (Johnston et al, 2000). For example, as was the case in the Middle Ages we now refer to religious groups as communities. In the UK ethnic groups are also often referred to as communities, the term is also adopted by groups with other shared characteristics, for example deaf communities or working-class communities. Groups of people with a shared interest are also referred to as communities, for example sports communities or music communities. In recent years a new type of community has emerged; virtual
It is difficult to examine the concept of ‘community’ as the term ‘community’ is used in a very wide sense to refer to many different figurations of people (Bell & Newby, 1974), thus generating a large number of separate definitions (Stacey, 1969). In order to gain an understanding of what ‘community’ really means it is important to consider the history of its usage. The term originated in the fourteenth century and was used to refer either to an organised body of people, large or small, such as a religious community, or to the common people, the commonalty within such a body (Tyler, 2002). Use of the term ‘community’ shifted in the Renaissance of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when new conceptions of self and other developed, thus shifting use of the term ‘community’ from people to their relationships (Tyler, 2002). It was then used to refer to common ownership (of a community of goods), social communion (with God, for example) or common identity (Tyler, 2002). In the modern era of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the Medieval and Renaissance senses merged, and ‘community’ began referring to the people of a district or neighbourhood. It is this meaning of the term that bears most prominence today. However, more recently the term ‘community’ has been used to refer to other groups of people who are not necessarily concentrated into an identifiable territory (Johnston et al, 2000). For example, as was the case in the Middle Ages we now refer to religious groups as communities. In the UK ethnic groups are also often referred to as communities, the term is also adopted by groups with other shared characteristics, for example deaf communities or working-class communities. Groups of people with a shared interest are also referred to as communities, for example sports communities or music communities. In recent years a new type of community has emerged; virtual
Bibliography: Allen and Hamnet (eds) (1995) “Introduction”, in A Shrinking World? Global Uneveness and Inequality, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Bell and Newby (1974) The Sociology of Community, Frank Cass: London. Castells, M. (2001)The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society, Oxford University Press: New York. Johnston et al (2000). The Dictionary of Human Geography, Blackwell Publishers Ltd: Oxford. Silk, J. (1999) The dynamics of community, place and identity, Environment and Planning A, 31: 5-17. Stacey, M. (1969) The myth of community studies. British Journal of Sociology 20: 134-47. Valentine, G. (2001) Social Geographies: Space and Society, Pearson Education Ltd: Harlow. Webber (1963) ‘Order in diversity: community without propinquity’, in Wingo, L. (ed.) Cities and Space, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. Wellman (1979) The Community question: the intimate networks of East Yorkers, American Journal of Sociology 84: 1201-31. Wellman (2001) Physical place and cyberplace: the rise of networked individualism, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. Willson (1997) ‘Community in the abstract: a political and ethical dilemma?, in Holmes, D. (ed.) (1997) Virtual Politics, Sage: London. Young and Wilmott (1962) Family and Kinship in East London, Penguin: Harmondsworth.