5. Do Community Networks Build Community?

While most proponents of community networking operate according to the assumption that computer communications is vital to establishing stronger relationships, some critics feel that Internet communication may actually contribute to the decline of collaboration and accommodation in American society. In his 1998 paper, (How) Does the Internet Affect Community? William Galston of the J. F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University states,

In a diverse democratic society, politics requires the ability to deliberate, and compromise, with individuals unlike oneself. When we find ourselves living cheek by jowl with neighbors with whom we differ but from whose propinquity we cannot easily escape, we have powerful incentives to develop modes of accommodation. On the other hand, the ready availability of exit tends to produce internally homogeneous groups that may not even talk with one another and that lack incentives to develop shared understandings across their differences. One of the great problems of contemporary American society and politics is the proliferation of narrow groups and the weakening of structures that create incentives for accommodation. It is hard to see how the multiplication of online groups will improve this situation.
(Galston, http://siyaset.bilkent.edu.tr/Harvard/galston.htm)

Other critics, such as Jan Fernback and Brad Thompson in their 1995 essay entitled, Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure? discuss both the positive and negative aspects of "virtual communities. " This paper is a good overview of the debate as it centers on the question whether computer-based Free-Nets are detracting from ‘real-to-life’ communications such as relationships between families, schools, churches, and other groups.

A related, but separate set of issues, has been created by the recent popularity of free Web page services (GeoCities, theglobe) that claim to build community and foster communication while simultaneously creating a huge market space for advertisers. Janelle Brown, writing in the January1999, Salon http://www.salonmagazine.com/
21st/feature/1999/01/cov_19feature.html claims that

community is quite possibly the most over-used word in the Net industry. True community—the ability to connect with people who have similar interests—may well be the key to the digital world, but the term has been diluted and debased to describe even the most tenuous connection, the most minimal interactivity. The presence of a bulletin board with a few posts, or a chat room with some teens swapping age/sex information does not mean that people are forming anything worthy of the name community.

Brown claims that while these companies boast about their active communities, "Most people, it seems, just want a place to slap up a picture of their cat."

The relationship between "sense of place" and CNs is also important to consider. Access to the Internet is often seen as a key service of CNs, but it is local content and character that helps to build a sense of community. Many CNs are really more focused on allowing local groups and individuals an opportunity to talk with each other. This recent (Jan. 1999) posting from a CN director on the Communet listserv illustrates the CN philosophy:

We are moving away from our fairly static menu type pages to something much more dynamic and community controlled. Essentially, we are going to attempt a user driven series of community of interest sections. We are trying to tap into the folksy aspects of a small community newspaper, but joining many of these into a common site. Rather than us saying what the communities of interest will be, we are going to the people to find areas where people are already active, motivated and have a vibrant community. Bringing the tools to the need, rather than trying to find a need for the tool.

Douglas Schuler, author of New Community Networks: Wired for Change (1996), is a strong proponent of computer-based networking. His 1996 book explores the meaning and relationship of both "community" and "technology," and the topics of the first chapter (The Primacy of Community, A Call for a New Community, Actions for the New Community, Building Community Technology, What is a Community Network? and Towards a Marriage of Community and Technology) suggest that he views CNs as a way to community building. In Diminishing Hopes, Schulers’ recent reply to an article in the Boston Review by John McChesney critiquing the American media support of democratic principles, Schular makes the claim that community networks are important to democracy.

In the evolving realm of cyberspace, such networks may be the most viable options for nurturing and sustaining democracy in cyberspace, as they provide not unfettered freedom of speech put forth by a few, but inclusive and free access for entire communities without the usual economic barriers that stifle political communication.

A claim of proponents of CNs is that they build "strong," direct democracy. Frank Odasz, a private consultant has created a "Participatory Democracy Web Tour" (1998) which attempts to summarize best practice, innovative models and excellent resources for effective and powerful community building through electronic networking. http://lone-eagles.com/democracy.htm.

The Center for Civic Networking http://www.civicnet.org/ defines civic networking "interacting with others for mutual support regarding civil affairs; using computer or other electronic networks to interact regarding civil affairs." The Center has continued to take leadership in promoting electronic conferences, forums and other conversations on how community networking is enhanced through the Internet and CN service functions.

There are no decisive answers to the question raised regarding the relationship between computer-based community networking and building a healthy civic society. However, because we are in the midst of profound changes in the way people in our society communicate with one another, the impact of computer networking on social fragmentation and isolation, along with its capacity for community building, should be considered.

A 1994 paper by ACEnet on forming a community network, comments that

The most intriguing quality of the Internet, which is often ignored those planning new information/communication systems, is that it has been designed and developed in the absence of authority and control, through the very process of people’s usage. It has developed not by strategic plan or consensus but by groups identifying possibilities or problems, working out specific solutions, and then sharing the solutions with the whole.

Page 5 of 11