Community 3: virtual contexts -- utopian and critical perspectives

A much more positive view of computer mediated communication--what some would call a "utopian" perspective--maintains that the web fosters high degrees of interaction, encourages collaboration and teamwork, and aids mutual understanding (see Boshier and Onn, 2000, for a full critique of this and other "discursive constructions" of the web). Among the most well-known proponents of a utopian view is Howard Rheingold, a pioneer of online community building, who believes that electronic technology can help us form new kinds of communities.  In his book The Virtual Community, Rheingold semi-jokingly refers to his online community as a “family of invisible friends … people around the world [who] carry on public conversations” (1993, p. 1).  He assumes “virtual” communities or “computer-mediated social groups” (p. 1) are not only real and viable but may even play a fundamental role in redressing “America’s loss of a sense of a social commons” (p. 12). It follows that Rheingold challenges the notion that community depends on physical locale and believes interactivity can flourish in communities “not of common location, but of common interest” (Ch. 2, p. 24; emphasis mine).

From this utopian perspective, web-based discussion forums enable a high degree of interaction, promoting social and cultural connection and inclusivity.  For example, the Katrina Community Portal exists to help Hurricane Katrina evacuees re-connect, find resources, and tell their stories. Some web utopians also see free wireless access as a social leveler: making online discussion accessible to marginalized members of society. Rheingold cites examples of homeless people gaining access via public terminals to online conferences to discuss their plight, and links between citizens in different countries to discuss such social issues (Blake et. al, 2005).

Some cultural critics also see the web as socially and politically catalytic.  Citing "The Battle for Seattle" in 1999 as a turning-point in the history of the internet as a force for change, media and cultural theorists Richard Kahn and Douglas Kellner (2004) argue that "[t]he global internet … is creating the base and the basis for an unparalleled worldwide anti-war/pro-peace and social justice movement" (p. 88).  Such networking, they suggest, links diverse communities and interest groups in ways that provide the basis "for a new politics of alliance and solidarity to overcome the limitations of postmodern identity politics" (Kahn and Kellner, 2004, p. 89).

If physical locale grounds traditional communities, then perhaps alliance, commonality, and common interest can form the foundation of web communities. But just as Franklin (1999) asks us to examine technology's effects on social structures, Boshier and Onn (2000) urge us to critique even the most benign discourses constructing the web--including, by implication, rhetorics defining the web as an equal-opportunity global community:

Terms like paradigm shift, information highway, and empowerment are not innocent. Language is the building block of discourse. When people claim to endorse empowerment, what story lies behind their assertion? And is the Web “World-Wide?” In other words, who is doing what to whom and why? (Boshier and Onn, 2000)

Back to GlamorousGrammar ...