TRADITIONAL WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT COMMUNITY

Traditional ways of thinking about 'community'

As has often been outlined, the term 'community' has many meanings . Wilmott (1986) distinguishes three categories of community which he terms 'territorial' or 'place communities', 'communities of interest' and 'communities of attachment'. Each of these typologies is presaged on a commonality, in the first case this is a shared place of residence, in the second it is shared characteristics such as ethnic origin or occupation and in the third it is a shared agreement or compact which brings people together.

 The three types of community can coincide and in such circumstances, it is suggested, any community feeling would prove to be particularly strong. The perfect community is thereby often portrayed as one in which individuals and groups naturally organize themselves to work to actively shape their shared environment, where people act together and '…participate in efforts to address their needs collectively' . 

This commonality and participation is what distinguishes a community from many other social groups. Most groupings which are considered 'communities', however, fall far short of this standard, yet this ideal type of community is accorded an almost mythic status and is seen as the perfect model of social relations and a state to which neighbourhoods and other social groupings should aspire. Community is considered a positive symbiotic state invoking ideas of co-operation, lack of conflict and democratic decision-making , citizenship, inclusion and contentment

In previous times community and place were intimately linked. Lack of mobility meant that people had little choice but to find their community in the places in which they lived and worked. Since the advent of mass communication, however, traditional place-based communities have become less central and communities of interest and attachment grown in importance as our potential circles of acquaintance have become vastly expanded. Alongside these developments there has been an increased tendency to live and shape our lives through individual choices, and not to live by age-old traditions and norms laid down by previous generations, enforced by community sanction.  terms this a move towards 'networked individualism', the building of social relationships which are more fragmented, dispersed, and specialised than in previous social systems but over which their members can assert control and choice.


Building community in cyberspace

It is in this context that we must consider the building of virtual communities. The internet is a relatively new communications medium, yet already there are numerous ways in which people have set out to build community in cyberspace. The internet has been considered an ideal medium for the building and maintaining of community and as uniquely able to separate community and place entirely. Despite its very recent incursion into the fabric of daily life for many in the west, social networks of people who might otherwise have never conversed and shared ideas and opinions have already been formed over the internet. How important these networks are to their members, or will become to them, is yet to be fully and adequately researched as the emergence of these 'virtual communities' is so novel that their potential cannot yet have been realized. Nevertheless, since the possibilities afforded by the internet first began to enter into public consciousness great claims have been made in popular writing, academic and policy discourses as to just this potential. 

 ALPHONCE BHOKE BAPRM 42527