Would you still be friends with people if you didn’t know them? Let me explain this. What I mean here is that you still actually know them, but not in the physical realm, you know only their virtual self (sometimes referred to as an Avatar). Is this person still a friend or acquaintance? Can this relationship even be called that; a relationship? Are virtual links even valid?
These are the questions that have faced those who latched onto the networking and community building aspects of the internet, which is now pervasive in so many of our lives. In the infancy of the internet these aspects were identified as solutions for global problems on many levels (Flew 2005). However this was unrealistic, instead the internet has most certainly provided a new take on community construction, rather than community absolution. Flew (2005) recognised the key drawing principle of the online realm. He states that the reason for members flocking to online forums was; “the decline in opportunities for democratic participation and community formation in contemporary industrial capitalists and mass-media societies”. Flew (2005) further acknowledges that the search for like minded people, a key socialisation act of all humans, have been accelerated and indeed easily facilitated by the internet. He continues to indicate that this online search is in fact an evasion of the human obligation to act on real-world democratic responsibilities; these include dealing with diversity differences, power relationships and inequalities in society (Flew 2005). I can see the validity of the argument, by using the internet to expose ourselves socially; we are really hiding behind the digital projection of ourselves (our Avatar), and can end up shutting out real-world physical relationships. Cuthbert and others (2002) reflect similar reservations as my own acknowledging the restraints that the cyber word is bound by, which at times can limit the ties that may be developed. This in-turn impedes the formation of social hierarchies. They continue to say that online interaction simply, and should only, act as a support function as opposed to giving full a sense of community. However they do note that once an online group seeks a common goal, their ties are fortified indeed mimicking real world community obligations and associations.
Though these outlooks are very pessimistic, the virtual world is indeed capable of exponentially expanding our social circles within the public sphere. I myself have noticed how integrated into my daily routine the internet has become and the social expansion capabilities it has enabled me, parallel to my real-life social capital. The internet acts as a compliment of my social life, not as a substitute. And oxymoronically, or so it seems, to be part of the real-world “in” crowd, we must also be part of an online community such as Facebook or MySpace.
Consequently we must perhaps look further into the possibilities of online communities. Once online and part of a community, as in real life, we find those who are similar to ourselves and have shared interests, a la internet dating. The internet is now a basically ubiquitous medium (at least in westernised society), and therefore the links created can become incredibly strong. Hartley (2002) takes the notion of online communities so far as to say that they are “self-governing” within their own social space, that is, they are cyber-democracies. This, I feel is the key successful aspect of online communities, communication is once again solely a democratic medium.
This re-socialisation of people around media creates new forms of culture, referred to as technocultures (Bruns 2008; Martin 2006). Willingly we find others who have the same interests as ourselves, and the exponential increases offered to our social circles by the internet allow us the ability to be accepted by and operate in fields “neglected by the mainstream” (Bruns 2008). It is this social acceptance which fast creates Netizens, or citizens of the internet (Bruns 2008). But I do wonder if this is in-fact corrupting to people’s lives, is this the best cure for those who are otherwise socially awkward?
Anyway when looking at online communities they do serve a predominant single purpose, and this is the “finding, evaluating and sharing” of information, much the same as the process you are reading right now (Bruns 2008). I have found this information, evaluated its concepts and am now sharing my thoughts to you. Online cultures or communities, whatever you decide to call them, are made up of the produser society. They are a forum for experimentation, where we can explore ourselves and our likes/dislike with the wider global world, and specifically those who fit into our niche. However with the capitalisation occurring with online networking sites, I hold the same reservations as Holmes (1998); are people simply “being sold the illusion of sociality for the price of an ISP?”
Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Online Communities. Week 6 Podcast. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 9, 2008).
Cuthbert, A., D. Clark and M. Lin. 2002. WISE Learning Communities: Design Considerations. In Building Virtual Communities: Learning & Change in Cyberspace, ed. K.A. Renninger and W. Shumar, 215-248. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flew, T. 2005. New Media: An Introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Hartley, J. 2002. Communication, Cultural and Media Studies: The Key Concepts. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.
Holmes, D. 1998. Virtual Identity: Communities of Broadcast, Communities of Interactivity. In Virtual Politics: Identity and Communication in Cyberspace, ed. D. Holmes, 27-78. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Martin, F. 2006. New Media, New Audiences. In The Media and Communications in Australia, ed. S. Cunningham and G. Turner, 323-324. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
