Whenever a new technology emerges, it is tempting to predict that it will lead to a new and better form of society. The technology for electronic meetings is no exception. The new media invite a look at alternative organizations and alternative societies. Combined with current social concerns, they also encourage utopian visions... In this vision, electronic media create a sense of community and commonalty among all people of the world...
Robert Johansen
In talking about community in the age of postmodernity we are struck with an inherent paradox. Fundamental to the notion of postmodernity is the presence of fragmentation, hyper individualization, atomization and hence the isolation of society at large. In terms of community however there exists an inextricable sense of the common or shared, thus putting it at odds with the postmodern understanding. As we look at society today we encounter a situation in which both of these opposing forces are at work, constantly in a state of juxtaposition, contradicting and manipulating each other to the point where neither one can fully emerge nor take precedence over the other. The question then arises, can the two co-exist, or even can they sustain one another, as equally important aspects in the understanding of our place in modern day society? As long held notions of traditional community disappear, we are forced to reevaluate our understanding of community in the postmodern age. Can real community exist in an age ill-suited to its basic survival? Given the vast numbers of already present technologies, and more importantly the immense significance of their current role; it is to no surprise that as people search for new definitions of community they will likely include this as a potential realm from which to identify. Here again lies a paradox. It was as a result of the role of increased technology that individuals began to experience feelings of alienation within society. However, as we emerge into the postmodern era we see that it is precisely here where they have turned to renew their identification with community, and hence "dealieneate" themselves.
New innovations in the realm of communication technologies have created a previously non-existent arena of discourse that has the potential to reshape what and how we identify with community. As stated in a recent critique on the changing quality of community in the modern day technological era, "In this age of increasing disjunction, new technologies are emerging which ironically may be able to restore a sense of coherence. These on-line technologies rely on the concept of community to attempt to bring people together"(Rose, part 1). Although with regards to a traditionalist point of view such an alternative may be inconceivable (in terms of constituting "real community); the fact is that given societies current postmodern characterization such is quite realistic and even expected As Julia Rose goes on to point out, "On-line communities, born of postmodern fragmentation, individual interest, and the human desire for community and interaction, continue to grow..."(Rose, part 1). Thus it is to no great surprise that according to Information and Interactive Services Report, on-line services grew more than 40 percent from 1993 to 1994 and now have more than 6.3 million subscribers (Fernback & Thompson, p.2) As on-line computer technology becomes an increasingly active means of communication in postmodern society there will inevitably be a decline in the amount of actual face-to-face interaction that occurs daily. As Sherry Turkle states, "Searching for an easy fix, we are eager to believe that the Internet will provide an effective substitute for face-to-face interaction. But the move toward virtuality tends to skew our experience of the real..."(Turkle, p.236).
According to those who adhere to the traditional notion of community, this lack of personal interaction in day-to-day life and distortion of the real will only serve to weaken already lose community ties. The question thus remains as to whether or not such a shift will increase the sense of alienation and fragmentation existing at present, or whether new forms of communication can and will actually act as sound alternatives for the dissolution of traditional community.
Unlike previous frontiers, this one has no end. Should we all go off to cyberspace or should we resist it as a demonic form of symbolic abstraction?
John Barlow
As we know, the definition of community today is much different than supposed 20 years ago. No longer can community be rightfully defined in terms of locality/geography, nor is it safe to say that there exists a strong personal bond between its members. At best we can say that the communities of today usually form around shared common interest. Given this lose definition it is not unreasonable to define on-line communication groups as communities of such, since the majority of those who communicate regularly through the internet do so primarily on the basis of a particular shared interest; whether it be professional, educational, or purely recreational. "Experientially, community within cyberspace emphasizes a community of interests, usually bounded by the topic under discussion, that can lead to a communal spirit and apparent social bonding"(Fernback &Thompson, p.7). However it is the type of interaction within these "communities" (or lack thereof, due to the medium by which it is conducted) that is put into question when discussing their potential to form real communities. As Howard Rheingold, a die-hard advocate of CMC states,
"When a group of people remain in communication with one another for extended periods of time, the question of whether it is a community arises. Virtual communities might be real communities, they might be pseudocommunities, or they might be something entirely new in the realm of social contracts, but I believe they are in part a response to the hunger for community that has followed the disintegration of traditional communities around the world"(Reid, p.23).Thus the question remains whether "virtual communities" can and will form real communities based on the tenets from which the traditional model emerged; or if the virtual community will constitute a completely new model of community, one born out of (and thus based upon) the fragmentation and atomization of postmodern society. (Instead of advocating a particular side of the debate, it would seem more useful to extrapolate information from the basic arguments of each side and then let the reader decide their opinion with regards to the potential of the "virtual community" constituting a "real community").
Today, with the profound increase in personally owned computers and hence the rising levels of overall computer literacy; access to the Net is no longer a phenomenon for only computer wizards and space defying scientists. Instead it has emerged as a non-place space (cyberspace that is) commonly frequented by everyone from college students to housewives, to even 5 year old children (yikes!). As Elizabeth Reid describes it (cyberspace),
Cyberspace, in its present condition, has a lot in common with the 19th Century West. It is vast, unmapped, culturally and legally ambiguous, verbally terse (unless you happen to be a court stenographer), hard to get around in, and up for grabs... In this silent world, all conversation is typed. To enter it, one forsakes both body and place and becomes a thing of words alone... It is, of course, a perfect breeding ground for both outlaws and new ideas...(Reid, p.14).In this so-called "breeding ground" there exists vast potential for all kinds of communication, both positive and negative. Even more importantly there emerges the opportunity to conduct such communication in previously untrodden territory; this being both an exciting and potentially frightening prospect for many. "There is a continual search for ways to present the unpresentable, to bring elements technically outside the medium of communication within its realm. Whether this continual play with the limits of expression is positive or negative, it involves users of the system in a game that is essentially postmodern"(Reid, p.21). Essentially this leaves us with a question of the morality of verses the inevitability of such forms of communication/interaction constituting a basis for the formation of community in postmodern society.
the computer emerges as an object that brings postmodernism down to earth. ...it is inanimate yet interactive. It does not think, yet neither is it external to thought. It is an object, ultimately a mechanism, but it behaves, interacts, and seems to in a certain sense know. It confronts us with an uneasy sense of kinship (Turkle, p.22).
The chance for deconstruction of social boundaries that is offered by IRC is essentially postmodern. On its lighter side, computer-mediated communication lends itself to irony, pastiche, playfulness and a celebration of ephemeral and essentially superficial examples of witty bravado. On its more negative side, the disinhibiting effect of computer-mediated communication encourages the expression of dissent, rebellion, hostility, and anti-social chaos. It involves the stripping away of the social coordinates that let the user know where he or she is in the cultural network, indeed it encourages this by allowing the continual invention of new moves to old language games.Postmodernity has necessitated the reconstruction of the definition for community. As new forms of community emerge, as well as new means of identification with those communities, we are posed with the question; does the construction of the "virtual community" work as an acceptable model for community in a postmodern society? For many the answer is no. They see the parameters (or lack of them) as too far reaching to constitute a coherent definition for something so central to ones basic means of identification (traditionally that is). They both fear and loathe the basic notion of creating community by non-human means, much less by way of an electronically programmed medium. It is their belief that, "in the culture of simulation, a word like authenticity can no longer apply"(Turkle, p.254). Thus the virtual community represents precisely the antithesis of community itself; lacking both the authenticity and stability so central to their conception of true community. For them virtual communities present us with, "...the usual problem when we try to build something that can only be grown. [in the end] ...There are no simple technological solutions to social problems" (Barlow, p.3).
Jean-Francois Lyotard
Immersed in this specific, although not `local' in any geographic sense, context, players of the IRC game are involved in turning upside down the taken-for-granted norms of the external culture. Emotions and behaviors are taken out of their usual contexts and transposed into the electronic context of IRC, where they cease to be unproblematic. (Rose, p.11).It is the fact that the communication/interaction that occurs through this medium is without social context that poses the problem. Users may of course engage in meaningful, stimulating conversation on the Net; however this interaction lacks many of the significant factors fundamental to human communication. Although it is true that language/words do constitute a large portion of our ability to communicate with one another, they do not alone express the full extent of our interaction. Much of our ability to fully understand an interaction depends on the nonverbal communication that accompanies it. Gestures, facial expressions, postures and even clothing serve as helpful indicators in deconstructing communication. As Reid states, "The words themselves tell only half the story - it is their presentation that completes the picture"(p. 7). Thus, without the presence of these essential indicators of communication we are left to decipher a Morse code of broken language, often ambiguous and definitely frustrating.
Inherent to this medium of communication is a sense of anonymity. This is viewed as both positive and negative by critics. On the positive end this anonymity gives users the opportunity to simply be themselves (or whomever else they choose to be) with no strings attached. Because this interactive medium lacks physical proximity, the user becomes just that; a name or nickname on screen, nothing more, nothing less. The superficialities of everyday life are no longer relevant; physical appearance and/or handicap, gender, race and even sex are potentially nonexistent. The information transmitted is only that which the user chooses to make available; real or false, personal or shallow. In other words, "IRC offers a chance to escape the language of culture and body and return to an idealized `source code' of mind" (Reid, p. 16). Proponents of CMC also believe that this sort of anonymous interaction can heighten ones own personal awareness, and hence become a noninhibiting breeding grounds for individual growth and expansion. As Sherry Turkle states,
We do not have to reject life on the screen, but we don't have to treat it as an alternative life either. We can use it as a space for growth. Having literally written our online personae into existence, we are in a position to be more aware of what we project in everyday life. ...the voyager in virtuality can return to a real world better equipped to understand its artifices (p.263).On the other hand this anonymity is fraught with problems. While allowing the user to detach him/herself from all aspects of their personal identity, it makes room for the establishment of relationships based on false pretenses and hence the manipulation of the user. Of course the user is aware of this potential as he/she embarks on the journey through cyberspace; but the question still remains as to whether or not this inherent anonymity is conducive to the formation of sound communities even in a postmodern world. Essentially what IRC does is, "enable(s) people to deconstruct aspects of their own identity, and of their cultural classification, and to challenge and obscure the boundaries between some of our most deeply felt cultural significances"(Reid, p.8). Although proponents of virtual communities believe such barriers can be overcome through the commitment of its users to the overall sanctity of this new medium of communication (and hence their adherence to a presupposed set of moral guidelines for conduct); there are a host of others who feel that the overall level of intrinsic responsibility held by its users is not strong enough to deter the potentials for manipulation and misuse of this highly populated and powerful "non-place" space.
Thus while statistics report the growing use and participation in this interactive medium, they fail to distinguish just what portion of the population (as defined by race, class and education for example) these numbers represent. So while proponents of CMC say this type of interaction serves to deconstruct old social hierarchies based on class, race and gender; at present the reality shows that it is precisely those who already occupy the upper end of the "old social hierarchies" that have the ability/access to participate in this new medium. As Fernback and Thompson state,
...even though computers are becoming less expensive and more powerful, there always will be members of the society for whom they will remain dreams. In addition, as computers get more powerful, the baseline will rise; that is, the barrier to entry will increase to keep the more capable equipment out of reach for the least well off. The most endowed segments of society will maintain their dominant position (p. 4).Until these barriers dissolve, or more precisely until there exists a basic level of equality throughout society, there will continue to be disproportionate access to new communication technologies such as the internet, invariably favoring those in the mid to upper class.
In the postwar atomization of American social life, the rise of middle- class suburbs created communities of neighbors who often remained strangers. Meanwhile, as the industrial and economic base of urban life declined, downtown social spaces such as the neighborhood theater or diner were replaced by malls and cinema complexes in the outlying suburbs. In the recent past, we left our communities to commute to these distant entertainments; increasingly, we want entertainment (such as video on demand) that commutes right into our homes. In both cases, the neighborhood is bypassed. We seem to be in the process of retreating further into our homes... Technological optimists think that computers will reverse some of this social atomization, touting virtual experience and virtual community as ways for people to widen their horizons. But is it really sensible to suggest that the way to revitalize community is to sit alone in our rooms, typing at our networked computers and filing our lives with virtual friends? (p.235)Essentially what Turkle is trying to do is put into recent historical context the evolution of community so as to better understand its faltering state today. With continual progress in the realm of technological innovation, more specifically communication technologies, our notions of community become increasingly threatened. For although current technologies have the potential to broaden both our mental and physical horizons, they also necessitate a certain degree of seclusion and isolation (in order to use them). Thus another paradox arises; an interactive medium that inherent in its nature is the isolation of its users. In terms of community this raises the question of voluntarism. With this type of meduim there always exists the option to pull the plug. One enters and leaves based on their own will and interest. Can such a losely bound entity constitute community? Is the community of tomarrow destined to be voluntary in nature? At present it is difficult to tell for sure, but given the current rate of CMC proliferation (and hence the emergence of virtual communities) it seems likely that the voluntary based community is near at hand.
In a constant state of flux, and always searching for new ways to manifest itself, the state of community is one that cannot ultimately be defined. Instead we should seek new ways to appropriate our understanding of it in the context of postmodernity and its current technological trends.
Finally we are confronted with the question whether on-line communication (and hence the formation of virtual communities) is an alienating or integrating force in a world characterized by postmodernity. Can frequent communication between otherwise disconnected and isolated users (based primarily on shared interests) constitute the basis for forming community? Essentially what we have before us is a self contradictory moment in the history of community. According to Hegel, self contradictory tendencies would eventually "sublate", (def. of sublate). At present we find ourselves in a state of unresolved sublation, both paradoxical and liminal. We want to preserve a part of the whole (in this context, particular aspects of the traditional community); yet at the same time feel it necessary to cast it away, knowing that the forces at work here are in blatant opposition to one another and potentially explosive if ever united.
Where does that leave us? For many it goes no further than deeply felt ambivalence. The forces of technology have moved far too quickly for many to adapt, both culturally and socially. In a sense they have paralyzed us. We struggle in a state of liminality as the impact of technology causes profound disjunctures that ultimately remake history before our very eyes. In our search for community in postmodern society we are both hopeful and helpless as we attempt to unite two opposing forces (that of technology and the quest for communal identification).
As we delve deeper into our postmodern surroundings we come to understand that these too are contradictory. Alienated, we search for community; but isn't this exactly what we were originally alienated from? The emergence of the "virtual community" presents us with a new avenue to travel down as we seek to redefine and reconstruct community today. With all its virtues, as well as its many pitfalls, it is nevertheless an unbound space (or non-space) where we can test the waters without too much disruption to the rest of humanity. Postmodernism has already fractured, fragmented, alienated and isolated us. Although 50 years ago the thought of turning to technology as a means to recreate communal identity would have been absurd, today, with technology being such an ever-present part of our lives it seems quite natural that we would turn to it with hope (and desperation for many) as a practical alternative for community building.
As human beings become increasingly intertwined with technology and with each other via technology, old distinctions between what is specifically human and specifically technological become more complex. ...the traditional distance between people and machines becomes harder to maintain (Turkle, p.21).The question then arises, can we resist it? We have reached a point in the evolution of both man and society where we cannot rightfully turn back. We cannot reverse or undo 250 years of technology. Instead we are left with little option but to embrace it, make it work for us.
The emergence of the virtual community is just one more advancement in the realm of communication technologies that has been put out on the table for us to contemplate. Where it will go or to what extent it will penetrate our lives is up to us, as individuals. In a world of continuos social change, and especially now in the context of postmodernity, we are encouraged to be fluid, flexible and multiplicitous. Our ability to adapt and assimilate has become increasingly interdependent with our ability for basic survival; as has the acceptance of modern technology become an integral part of our daily lives. Although we have the right to reject this, many have not; for they see that in doing so they are merely isolating themselves more and ultimately perpetuating the continual fragmentation of postmodern society. Thus, although I do not advocate the replacement of traditional community by the emerging virtual communities; I do see the virtual community as an innovative model for introducing new forms/conceptions of community in the postmodern era.
People use contact with objects and ideas to keep in touch with their times. They use objects to work through powerful cultural images, to help arrange these images into new and clearer patterns. ...the holding power of the Apple Macintosh, of simulation games, and of experiences in virtual communities derives from their ability to help us think through [and understand] postmodernism.Continue to Bibliography?
Sherry Turkle