The return of the Community

Several theorists have discussed the complexities around ‘community’ and what changes may be in stall thanks to technological and communications advances, Web 2.0 in particular. At the base of some of the theories is the belief that, thanks to Industrialisation and the subsequent shift from towns to cities, the ways in which communities exist and function has changed dramatically. At the same time – and somewhat as a result of this shift - the ways in which information is passed on and discussed has changed dramatically, in particular in the Media. This kind of ties into my last post in which I discussed the value of knowledge vs the value of intelligence, where I ascertained that using the term ‘knowledge’ as opposed to ‘intelligence’ was preferable as the latter could be considered exclusionary.

Knowledge includes practical information about skills, such as cooking and carpentry, growing food and sewing clothing, and can all be included under the ‘collective knowledge’ umbrella. This ‘umbrella’ is what Charles Leadbetter (2008), the father of ‘We-Think’ theory - refers to as a “common pool of resources”. He likens the activity of collaborating in order to create this common pool of resources to the days of villages and smaller, localised communities. Web 2.0 currently functions in the spirit of sharing, where information and knowledge are not necessarily thought of as commodities.

This naturally harbours questions around free labour and, of course, the common big issue: ownership (which I have talked about and will talk about more). But this brings me to my next point, or more so, Leadbetters next point, in which he claims that the Internet, specifically Web 2.0, has the potential to remind us that “sharing and mutuality can be as effective a base for productive activity as private ownership”. So not only are we seeing a shift towards a unanimous spirit of sharing information for communal rather than monetary gain, but this shift has the potential to highlight the benefits of a focus on “productive activity” rather than private ownership. This has the potential to reinvigorate that sense of community that is said to have been lost during Industrialisation and to take focus off corporate structures’ attempts at defining society.

And the vital element with reinvigorating that sense of community seems to be the Internet and its subsequent development away from those commercial and political interests which have dominated our traditional entertainment media to date. Rheingold continues in this vein: ‘[t]he technology of personal telecommunications and the rich, diverse BBS (computer Bulletin Board System) culture that is growing on every continent today were created by citizens, not doomsday weapon designers or corporate researchers”.

For those of us who are weary of the corporations, who don’t have faith in the politicians, who doubt the media, and who question the actions of the military, the Internet offers a platform for a different type of interaction where I can discuss these ideas with other people who share the same scepticisms as me.

I can now talk to you. And more importantly, you can talk back.

Communities, Networks and Niche Societies

One common area addressed in media studies is that of a move towards a more niche media, or rather one that focuses on many niche markets as opposed to one or a few mass ones. Television channels have branched off to cater for smaller markets with specified interests (the documentary channel, the news channel, the golf channel, etc). The Internet has never really operated in any other way, other than to cater for whatever niche exists, no matter how small the group it is catering to. With these disparate niche groups, networking becomes key in connecting those who are part of that niche but have not yet found it. This networking of niche groups s in turn creating different kinds of communities (which I will discuss further in a future post).

My point here really is to highlight the change not in user behaviour, but moreso in the way the media itself functions as a result of these shifts. Through user power (as gifted to us by the Internet and Web 2.0 in particular) and mass collaboration of interest groups we can start to see a move away from the traditional one-way flow of the media towards a new environment of “mediation” (Lievrouw & Livingstone, 2008), where information can be produced, distributed and consumed by anyone anywhere and the tools are there only to mediate. Taking this further, where television once talked at us from an external point of view, now, through the Internet, we can talk to each other. No longer satisfied with being addressed as one mass society, media users are now demanding, and are getting, new networked (niche) societies. This changes the ebbs and flows of the Internet at the same time as, “mediation […] enables, supports or facilitates communicative action and representation”.

The development of niche networks and niche media, however, does not spell the end for mainstream media, as pointed out by Henry Jenkins, because the niche media, at least for the moment, still needs to be validated by the mainstream media. For example, a blog may raise an issue but it is only when the mainstream media highlight this issue that change occurs. As Jenkins says, “[b]roadcasting provides the common culture, and the Web offers more localized channels for responding to that culture”. This is a very interesting point to me but I would like to hear some of your thoughts about it.