Response to “The Network Community”

It is common practice to look at communities as a variety of separate groups. People are bound together by particular social, cultural and economic circumstances. Closer inspection reveals that communities compliment each other, one ensuring the proliferation of the other. As the models of human interaction change, thanks to corporate, industrial and technological refinement, the communities and bonds formed within evolve accordingly. Perhaps it is this change, which perpetuate the idea that communities are vaporizing into solitary souls amongst crowds. In fact, this perception comes from studying social interaction within the boundaries established by the previous models of community building. As Wellman states in his research, this is more efficient than finding the new links formed. As people bond through the internet, corporate structures or other media, social connections that bypass traditional conceptions of community form. Although Hollywood and popular science fiction will have us believe we are bound to become lost within our individual realities, contemporary humanity is just as connected as its ancestor.

Thanks to the mass of affordable reproductive technologies available to us, it is relatively easy to get one’s point across and make others aware of previously unknown events. Flyers, small newspapers, websites and videos are but a few of the popular ways to share information with the world. The caveat is that the "world" is generally not interested in what any given individual has to say. From this realization, it is possible to conceive that all individuals who share a viewpoint, for instance, are able to flow together, becoming either an at-hoc or long-term community. This is not unlike the popularization of a new YouTube video: Some viewers respond to the clip in comments for all to see, others will follow the uploader’s stream for a few days. While the phenomenon may not last, I believe this interaction is that of a community.

Whether or not communities still exist is completely dependant on personal perception. Those able to define communities as support systems where sharing of information and emotion are central will find them everywhere. Adding levels of physical restraints to this definition leaves many groups below the radar of one in search of community. I believe that some of the public gathering spaces available in the urban landscape are still locations where communities truly come together. A hockey arena, for instance, brings the fan community away from the couch and cheering together. Communities were never limited to gathering in designated spaces, as it was sometimes necessary to rally covertly. The internet is a harbor for both. As quickly as you can remove a friend from your Facebook list, you can change your personal community. This is an interesting change from communities based on neighborhoods or other geographical limits. The control of who can join or who is excluded from communities is shifted to individuals. Though many communities still have leaders and followers, any individual member can manage others in entirety. This is part of the reason why new communities are considered to be more volatile than the seemingly stable communities of the past.

Instead of referring to the community you are part of, it is now more correct to refer to your communities. In some cases, being part of communities fulfills basic human needs, other times; they represent stimuli for hobbies or line of work. It is easy to believe that communities reside within each other in this manner: The world, Canada, Quebec, Montreal, Concordia. Wellman argues that this scenario is quickly becoming unpopular. As I ride the elevators in Montreal’s downtown buildings, I rarely say a word. Despite the fact that I can precisely define my communities, is it a mistake to let my communities define me?

References: