Is there a Method to this Madness?

In chapter 4;Virtual Cultures, of his publication New Media: An Introduction, Terry Flew suggests that "[o]ne of the most interesting elements of the development of the Internet as a global communications network has been the rise of virtual communities, or virtual cultures, based around ongoing interactions among those participating in computer-mediated communication (CMC)" (Flew, 2004). When discussing the existence of virtual communities, Flew cites Howard Rheingold as defining virtual communities as “social aggregations that emerge from the Net when enough people carry on … public discussions long enough … to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Rheingold, 1994). My personal interpretation of the term virtual communities or virtual cultures relates to groups of people who gravitate toward each other in an online environment due to similar interests, study areas, or attributes. It is then through these similarities they communicate and collaborate in order to form a community alternative to any they experience physically.

Having defined what exactly it is we’re talking about, we must ask ourselves how these online communities organise themselves. That is, we must consider the motivations behind participation in online communities; consequentially evaluating the impact this participation in online communities has or will have on physical society as we know it. Additionally, a more serious question of whether people stay true to their physical identities when contributing online must be pondered, as well as the notion of exclusivity and the digital divide. That is, whether people in general are becoming more connected through the opportunity to contribute online or whether society is becoming fragmented by the existence of various individual-specific communities, allowing for people to only communicate with others in their 'comfort zone'.

Flew (2004) argues that online and offline communities are no longer separate, and that online communities now form a part of our everyday physical lives. This argument comes with the challenge that online communities are only available to people with access to them; which sparks multifaceted debate concerning the digital divide. Flew (2004) goes on to suggest that offline communities are traditionally restricted by geographical or physical boundries, and are regulated by social norms and practices. However, online communities allow us to break through these, allowing for what is arguably a more integrated, connected society. Further to this side of debate, Bruns (2008) suggests that 'consumers' of online content do not contribute individually to these communities, but are continually collaborating, and thus enhancing and enriching each others content to develop it further. From this, it can be argued that the journey from Data to Wisdom (DIKW) is fostered through this process, thus connecting society in a way which would be restricted by any offline means.

On the other hand, some may argue that online communities, by virtue of their selective nature, fragment society. This argument depicts a valid traditional argument, while also portraying signs of ‘moral panic’; a term coined by Stanley Cohen (1972), which provides a topic for discussion somewhat superfluous to the topic at hand. This argument is fuelled by the notion of the digital divide, which acknowledges the availability or unavailability of technology to varying socio-economic classes, and thus the exclusion of certain societal groups.

For me personally, I feel that the latter of these arguments is representative of a 'you can't please everyone' paradigm. As an aspiring journalist, this phrase is one which I anticipate to become a mantra of mine in the process of building a career. Whether online communities will connect or fragment 'society' in a general sense is a question which will inevitably fuel constant and evolving discussion.

Til Next Time,
Sarah D