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.