here at last is "virtual community," the second last post in this series, proving that time is irrelevant in the virtual world. (when I've finished I'll edit and make a download doc of all of this). virtual community consists of people who 'connect' primarily in cyberspace.
people
clearly the Internet is not generational. however, like television, the
iPod and the telephone, those who have grown up with it take to the
Internet like digital ducks to a cyber sea (I can't believe that I
just wrote that...). so Gen Y and Gen X are very much at home with electronic communication in all of its varied forms. virtual communities are the most fluid, intimate and anonymous of all. you can have an identity just for shopping, or meet, date and marry. virtual community can be intensely tribal, or consist of a discussion forum for that new software that won't bloody work for you.
because the Internet is fundamentally connective, it's a major gift to people is to allow us to connect with whomever and whatever we need or want - family, friends, interest groups, old classmates, our hopes, desires and even regrets. such connections may be long-lasting (keeping in touch with old friends since you've moved interstate) or casual and transient. baby boomers and their churches profoundly underestimate the importance of electronic communication in fostering and sustaining geographically-dispersed relationships (eg. my church only uses electronic communication with young people to promote its events).
place
place is often ignored in conversations about the Internet. where are people when they access electronic communication? virtual practices often happen in regular geographic places. email becomes part of the psychological and bodily space of my study, my home. mobile people live in zones and corridors, both indoor and outdoor. electronic communicates fosters community with people often in the places that are most meaningful to them. we all know about the personalisation of technology - my ipod or mobile is a fashion accessory, a part of me - so the 'place' aspect of virtual community includes 'body'. not 'i have a phone' but 'i am my phone'... for this reason alone, electronic communication is intimate, not superficial.
space
cyberspace is non-geographic. Local and global are overlaid. Margaret Wertheim suggests that the Internet has allowed us to achieve the historical dream of transcending physical space. virtual communicators often also inhabit tribal communities. they have favourite people and places. the point is that experiences of community and connection are separate from, or rather, float above, physical spaces of community. virtual notions of community must take seriously the fact that cyberspace is multi-dimensional - the screen is not flat, impenetrable - it is a portal to complex, connected, multi-sensory, dynamic worlds, arenas, communities, experiences. cyberspace is interactive and non-linear space. and cyberspaces are inhabited imaginatively. these are profound and largely unexplored questions about how we create, inhabit and sustain virtual communities.
time
Internet time is instant time, no time. We have all experienced the moment of wonder when an email sent across the word results in an almost instantaneous reply. electronic communication has some distinct time patterns - some information (such as website data) can be accessed anytime, anywhere, some communication is spontaneous (a phone call, a 'flashmob' gathering), some is prescheduled and 'one-off' (a webcast), some is cumulative (a discussion list), some is 'download now, play later' (a podcast). more so than other forms of community, virtual community is oriented around the shifting timetables of its participants. I connect with others when, where and how I choose. but rather than indicating that virtual connections are occasional and fleeting, their spontaneity may mean that they are intense and frequent.
purpose
as noted above, virtual connections can have many purposes. when does connection become community? when communication becomes group communication and is sustained and developed over time. electronic promotion (advertising) is not virtual community. Web 2.0 recognises not only interactivity, but shared purpose, authoring and authority as essential to ongoing community. in many ways, virtual community is tribal because the ubiquitous nature of the WWW requires clustering in order to make sense of anything.
leadership
so virtual community is networked, nodal community, not only connected but interconnected, multi-way - not a level playing field, but ever changing nodes of influence and connection. in this environment, leaders may be hosts, networkers or nodes themselves. in other words, they may lead by simply enabling the connective infrastructure, they may actively connect, refer, forward/copy and pass on viral information. they may be a a node around whom others gather, becoming not so much a celebrity as a clearinghouse for ideas, opinions, information, resources. such authority is not simply or necessarily utilitarian, in fact, given the voluntary nature of online communities, nodal leadership may be a sign of strongly shared values, great respect and deep interpersonal connection and friendship. authenticity may be as vital ib the virtual arena as in other forms of community.
so that at last is part 4. once again it is a kind of caricature. the main point of all this comes in the next post where I compare these 4 kinds of communities, highlight some differences, and ask whether and how we are engaged in fostering them.
comments anyone?