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.

New Media Audiences

The contemporary media environment has shifted dramatically in regards to the production, dissemination and reception of information. In terms of ‘audience’ media consumption, that shift has precipitated a move towards a complex mediascape where individuals now have a huge amount of influence over what media they engage with and when, or how often – in effect rendering them no longer ‘audiences’ but what Axel Bruns calls “prod-users”. Lievrouw and Livingstone address this shift from the perspective of traditional media modes of operation towards one where its focus is on ‘mediation’ – I will look at this in more detail in a future post.

With the arrival of new media technology, specifically the internet and the development of Web 2.0, people are now enabled and encouraged to seek out and furthermore question information in a much less traditional manner than before. This is through offering forums and spaces where public discussions and debates not only take place, but are also recorded in their entirety and displayed for anyone who is interested to see. This transparency is a vital key to the longevity of a system whose goals are to host and publish open discourses on just about every topic as it exemplifies the level of inclusion that applies to all users, not just the creators.

Charles Leadbetter identifies a growing social desire for explicit control over our own media diets. He summarises this social development:
In the we-think economy people don’t just want services and goods delivered to them. They also want tools so that they can take part in places in which to play share, debate with others.
Web 2.0 offers Internet users the facilities through which they are able to participate in a variety of online communities. Different platforms available through the Web 2.0 services vary according to user behaviour and expectations of that platform. For example, blogs are designed around contribution, of both the blog owner and its readership; social networks are designed to do exactly that: to network people, to connect them. Leadbetter states that “for sustained creative collaboration to take off” another tool is needed: at present that tool is the wiki. The power of the wiki lies in the power of the collective. What wiki’s allow, is for people to co-operate with the goal of “summaris[ing] a debate or amass[ing] a body of information and creat[ing] documents with a collective author.” This change in approach has seen massive growth with the arrival of Web 2.0 platforms; blogs, networking sites and, of course, Wikipedia. With Wikipedia, users are automatically placed in a position of authority, asserting this new produser approach for its users and enabling them to participate fully in the activities taking place within it.

The tone of the media is shifting (or has shifted, really) – people don’t like being told anymore, they want to find and then decide for themselves. They want to participate and engage and make sure that they are not being duped as a result of hidden interests. With this shift comes a changing face for ‘audiences’, one where they are respected for their individuality and knowledge and not talked at in ways which are designed to relieve them of their time and money.