Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Joining the League of Cyber Nerds

Social online communities often appear to be developed without boundaries. They emerge as a coming-together of like-minded individuals, in a forum to share thoughts, interact and play (Flew 2004). However, as can be evident in a number of online communities, there are plenty of boundaries.

Without the typical geographical restraints of most offline communities, online communities can incorporate people from all over the world. This globalisation, while integrating a diverse range of cultural opinions and perspectives, can also become “insular” (Bruns 2008), operating within their own boundaries, vehemently excluding divergent views. While this is narrow-minded and exclusive, the format of the internet can appear to promote this, as it is a forum where individuals are allowed to express their views almost entirely without consequence. This creates a number of problems, in particular where social groups support causes generally considered to be socially disruptive in their views (Bruns 2008).

It is not necessarily only that these opinions exist, more so that the creators of these sites are able to manufacture the illusion of fervent support, deluding the less technologically literate into believing their charade. Possibly an extreme example of manipulation, however there are a number of cases, in particular socially or politically active groups, who manipulate the use of the internet to create false support and isolate communities of opposing beliefs (Bruns 2008).

The importance therefore of social norms is highlighted. Communities develop these norms in order to aid productivity and harmonious interaction (Bruns 2008). These social norms can range from group connectivity and frequency of meetings to acceptable social practices and expression of ideas (Bruns 2008). Flew points out that interaction in these online communities seems to stem from a general “dissatisfaction with the limitations of ‘real’ communities” (Flew 2004, 69). In online communities members can create their own sets of rules and standards, not limited by society’s manufactured social norms.

Benedict Anderson also points out that this notion of virtual communities sharing and creating can be used to describe a much broader concept (2004). He also claims that this idea precedes the Internet, rather it relates directly to the idea of national cultural beliefs that all members of a nation share, sometimes unknowingly (Anderson in Flew 2004, 69).

Some believe that online communities should be an amalgamation of online and offline communities, not separated from each other (Slater in Flew 2004, 66). There is growing studies that support this theory (Dahlgren 2000, 339). As a member of a number of online communities I agree with this concept. I have a Facebook, Myspace, MSN, del.icio.us and now a blogger.com account. I use the functions of these interactive mediums to stay in contact with overseas or interstate friends; arguably this act is a subset of previous offline interactions. However I am also a member of an online gymnastics club, political party and Scrabble tournament via these platforms. Without the ability to find other ex-acrobatics gymnasts, or Scrabble enthusiasts I would lack this important social interaction. I now regularly catch up with an ex-gymnastics partner from 5 years ago, all because I had the ability to find her using these online communities. By combining my online and offline networks I am effectively extending not only my social network but actively contributing to my community.


Bruns, A. 2008. KCB201 Virtual Cultures: Week 6 Podcast, Online Communities. http://blackboard.qut.edu.au/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_29175_1 (accessed April 15, 2008).

Dahlgren, P. 2000. The Internet and the democratization of civic culture. Political Communication 17 (4): 335-340. https://cmd.qut.edu.au/cmd/KCB302/KCB302_AR_82736.pdf (accessed April 24, 2008).

Flew, T. 2004. New Media: An introduction. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

1 comment:

Lucyfdc said...

Online communities do appear to be created without boundaries, however when looking beneath the surface the boundaries appear like invisible force fields. Thanks to new media technologies, the geographical boundaries of offline communities are not encountered and people from all around the world can mobilize and deliberate and debate over the internet. People no longer need to rely on physical proximity to be connected, however as danah boyd (2005, p. 200) puts it, “online, physical place may no longer be the limiting factor, but social space” is.

Much like offline communities, people online tend to form tight knit groups with like-minded people. There are norms attached to these virtual cultures and therefore it is difficult for diverse groups to converge. People may find themselves in an ‘echo chamber’ where they only hear from others confirmation of what they already think (Leadbeater, 2007), and therefore for someone with different views and norms to enter such a group they will find social barriers restricting entry. An extreme example of this is former Prime Minister John Howard trying to reach a young audience through MySpace. While other politicians such as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd successfully used this cultural technology to reach youths, Howard failed in his attempt, having many ‘friends’ who used their friend status to send him abusive messages. This is because MySpace is a social network with social boundaries, and Howard was seen as abusing this place for political gain. Therefore even though he was not restricted entry on a geographical or technological basis, he was socially outcast by many.

References

boyd, d. 2005. Sociable technology and democracy. In Extreme Democracy, ed J Lebkowski and M. Ratcliffe, 198-209. Lulu.

Leadbeater, C. 2007. Social software for social change. http://www.charlesleadbeater.net/cms/xstandard/social_software.pdf (accessed April 6, 2008).