I finally have my pre-proposal written. Over the past year I have changed my emphasis from DIY media and attitude changes regarding mass media, to community and efficacy in media production groups, to social cohesion in online relational communities. They all have something in common, despite the different terminology. Namely they all deal with groups of people making things who are connected not by place, but by interest. In addition, they do not meet in person but choose to connect through mediated networks (at least initially ... some research has shown that relationships that form online and become strong lead to in person relationships--see McKenna et al, 2002, below).
My interest in all of these topics, including the one I’ll finally move forward with, ties into the “Risk of Loss: A Series of Folly” tag in this journal. Increasingly individuals are interacting with people and activities through media-enabled access rather than within their local communities, bringing up questions about whether the differing forms of community engagement are comparable. There is a lot of fear surrounding the transition from face-to-face communities to networked individualism.
Will neighborhoods decline if people interact online instead of locally? I’d guess no, since the level of neighborhood interaction has steadily declined with urbanization and is not the result solely of increasing participatory communities connected through media. In addition, some studies showed that interacting with people in your neighborhood through the Internet increased local activity as well--see Wellman, 2001, below for more details.
Will people lose touch with family and friends because they are addicted to the Internet? In answer to the first part: The Internet is used more to connect people with existing relationships than to create new ones. Family and friends that are already moving about the world are able to keep in touch, so it’s quite the opposite. In response to Internet addiction, I’ll have to refer you to Stuart Fischoff‘s blog. He recently covered Internet addiction rather thoroughly and well.
Is democracy at risk ... or is it in a position to flourish? There are opinions on both sides of this question. Internet as liberator and equalizer versus internet as a diversion and division that keeps people from interacting with civic events. If I had to guess, I’d stick to the middle ground. The internet is after all a tool, and how people use it depends upon their goals, personalities, existing influences ... I can’t believe that the internet alone would either make or break a government system. But then there are those Twittering politicians, who knows what waves they will cause!
But in my research, I’m not suggesting that online communities are a replacement for geographic communities. Instead I see them as an important available option for locating and interacting with like-minded groups. Group members incorporate the elements of identity formed in online groups with their offline self-concept, and this can be especially important when comparable interest groups are not available in the local community. Teams that form around massive multiplayer online role-playing games, interest groups connecting through email lists and forums, or participants in online independent media centers are examples of communities created by mediated connections rather than geography. The social nature of these groups, similar interests and values among members, and drive to meet project goals suggest that members will experience similar connections within these groups as those formed in physical spaces.
Psychological benefits of community have been shown to play a positive role in the lives of individuals, if social cohesion is present in online communities it could be theorized that similar feelings of collective efficacy, individual efficacy, and being a part of the community experience also would be present. This could specifically benefit individuals who live in neighborhoods that lack the elements of social cohesion. If online communities can provide an equivalent link to a community based on values and goals, people in communities with low social capital may be able to overcome some of the challenges presented by their neighborhoods with social support from an online community.
McKenna, Katelyn Y. A., Green, Amie S., & Gleason, Marci E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What’s the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9-31. Retrieved July 8, 2008, from Wiley Interscience.
Wellman, Barry. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(2), 227-252.
]]>
Diverse Communities: The Problem with Social Capital by Barbara Arneil
Everywhere I look in my feeds and alerts there are short pieces about the increase in lawsuits against bloggers popping up. But what does 4 lawsuits in 1997 versus 89 in 2007 really mean?
As a communications design professional, I first discovered open access in the form of software. But in practice, I have been involved with open-access information and publishing since I was in high school cutting and pasting together zines. We went so far as to “merge” with a group from another high school that also had a zine so that we could increase our reach when we handed out the free rags.
We hear about issues of cellphone overuse: poor driving, lack of etiquette, interruption of co-present interactions, cellphone addiction. But what about the low level of service that is available in the United States? Before SMS was even available through my carrier I was using websites to send text messages to friends in Europe. They received the messages without a charge. Yet even now that SMS is popular in the States, we pay for incoming texts. With AT&T I even pay for the minutes used to listen to my own voicemail.
