A virtual community
refers to a social network of people who communicate and interact through the use of computers. Unlike the traditional social interaction, virtual communities interact without the limitations of geographical and political boundaries. The term ‘virtual community’ gained popularity in the 19th century, raising different ideas from scholars. One of the leading proponents of virtual community is Rheingold whose work has played a significant role in the discipline. This study will critically analyze the arguments of scholars who support virtual communities as well as those who do not.
Arguments for Virtual Communities
Howard Rheingold’s work gives significant insights about strong and weak ties in the online world. His book advocates for online relationships, an illustration that makes it clear that even his family appreciate virtual communities. On the first page of, he includes a comment made by his seven years old daughter who said that her dad congregates with virtual people who he talks with but cannot be seen. However, the daughter said that some of them show up physically from the next block or other parts of the world, (Rheingold 2000, p.1). Rheingold also uses other scholars works to add up to his discoveries and come up with conclusions. For instance, he mentioned that if he had come across Barry Wellman’s book before he wrote his own, he would have titled his book “online social networks.”
Rheingold’s definition of virtual community entails both personal relationships and social aggregation. He makes it clear that today’s communities are operating across companies’, space and time boundaries. According to Lee et al. (2001, p.47), traditional communities were characterized with less frequent communications due to time and geographical boundaries, an aspect that has been solved by virtual communities. Business interactions are also thriving through video conferencing and other online operations that have made the world a global.
Virtual communities are as a result of physical communications with the ability to form online human feelings. In most cases, the discussions that take place in virtual communities are similar to the ones that would have taken place if people were to meet physically. The human discussion creates webs of personal relationships online which can last for a very long time. Long-term relationships in the traditional setting require interactivity which is promoted by virtual communities, (Gauntlett and Horsley 2004, p.17).
Rheingold describes the wen on interconnected computer networks that connect people online as “the Net.” He describes it as having the ability to give people a chance to interact in a manner that is similar to face to face discussions. He describes its emergence from emails to global bulletin boards to the current computer conferencing. He also examines virtual communities that have been formed in countries where the internet has been facing resistance, for instance, in France. Through this, he discovered that virtual community exists globally even in such nations, meaning that it’s the new way to go. The circles of cyberspace are widening on a daily service; which Rheingold refers to as “electronic frontiers.”
Virtual communities have exhibited the significant power of electronic democracy. Computers can give new energy to the public sphere and decentralize political communication. It is clear that people have used online communication to raise their political views and also fight for the rights of democracy. Also, most politicians are increasing popularity through virtual communities, since by so doing the reach a vast number of people in a cost-effective manner. Rheingold made it clear that there is a need for people to carefully examine new technologies and find out how they can be used to enhance more humane and stronger communities, and come up with ways of addressing obstacles.
Arguments against Virtual Communities
Some scholars have continuously claimed that online interactions have a negative impact on traditional interactions. The impersonality of virtual communities has taken over the world’s interactions. Virtual communication has led to the creation of different personalities in people, causing confusion between online traits and physical traits of people. In most cases, people exhibit different characteristics online which are not part of them whenever they are interacting physically. Virtual communities, therefore, lead to increased prejudices and attitude polarization.
Some scholars have raised doubts about the use of the term ‘virtual community’ and the validity of Rheingold’s definition of the term. Norris (2002, p.22), a community refers to a group of people who share historical activities, have a shared value system and share a common geographical territory. It is clear that according to the above-mentioned definition, virtual communities do not exist. Some sociologists have made it clear that sharing information does not necessarily mean that a community has been created.
Robins and Webster (1999, P. 33) are some of the major critics of Rheingold’s works, who claim that rather than Rheingold addressing the differences and disorder that is brought about by the internet, he chose to focus on a mythic state of order. Rheingold’s idea has been described as ‘impoverished’ for failing to address the negative impacts of the internet. Also, referring to communications that take place online as a community is seen as an escape from the real world of difference. If the idea of virtual community is to be adopted, then it would mean that the global population is a community, since people interact online at a global level. This would mean that people are shying off from the reality of the differences that continents and countries hold.
The idea of virtual community has also been described as an uncritical utopian celebration of technology. Opponents have consistently overlooked Rheingold’s idea of the ability of computers creating a community for themselves. However, it is worth noting that Rheingold failed to recognize the pre-existing social relations which would mean that some of the users will fail to create virtual communities and maintain their traditional communities. His argument shows that people will inevitably create virtual communities as they embrace the internet. It is clear that a virtual community does not just exist by starting up a chatroom to a webpage. There must be a group of technically literate people who are willing to use the platform for social exchange.
Proponents have also made it clear that Rheingold’s view of a computer-mediated world was an inclusive agora which attracts the wrong imagination. It was a dualistic way of thinking that was against the more mixed reality that has been brought about by technological change. It would have been clearer if Rheingold conceptualized the phenomenon under study in an adequate manner.
According to Norris (2002, p.26), online interactions should not be viewed as a dichotomy, but as a continuum. This is because, in reality, the two mentioned distinctions can be grouped as either serving bonding functions or bridging functions. The use of computer networks can only be described as being more of bridging or bonding function, rather as a distinct service to one. It is clear that most traditional interactions help in building trust and developing community ties. On the other hand, the homogenous interactions that take place online have a greater danger of increasing social cleavages, especially when they take place between parties that have differences in religion or ethnicity. For networks to be referred as a virtual community, they need to be inclusive, through which crosscutting cleavages in divided communities can be fostered, (Turkle 2011, p.56).
Conclusion
The emergence of the internet has led to the development of virtual communities through which people interact and share ideas. The advantage of instant information sharing with the absence of geographical barriers has strengthened virtual communities. Although some scholars have raised arguments against the use of the term ‘virtual communities’, it is clear that the facts presented by the proponents are stronger than those presented by the opponents. Opponents claim that online identities can be kept anonymous and people can show different character traits than the ones that they display physically. They also argue that the definition of a community should include people who share a shared history and a shared geographical location, which a virtual community does not meet. On the other hand, it is important to note that most interactive traits that are found in physical interactions are also found in online interactions. In fact, traditional communities thrive through adequate communication, an aspect that has been enhanced by online communication. The virtual communities share common ideas pertaining their social and political life, just like the traditional communities do. People can engage in other activities such as shopping, searching for advice and pay bills, just like they would have done in real life. In fact, Rheingold made it clear that virtual communities have made socialization better than it was before since it overcomes geographical and time barriers, allowing people to keep in touch all through. The activities that take place through online interactions match those that take place in real life communities, hence qualifying to be described as virtual communities.
References
Gauntlett, D. and Horsley, R., 2004. Web. Studies (Arnold Publication).
Howard, P.E., Rainie, L. and Jones, S., 2001. Days and nights on the Internet: The impact of a diffusing technology. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), pp.383-404.
Lee, F.S., Vogel, D. and Limayem, M., 2003. Virtual community informatics: A review and research agenda. JITTA: Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application, 5(1), p.47.
Norris, P., 2002. The bridging and bonding role of online communities.
Rheingold, H., 2000. The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. MIT press.
Robins, K. and Webster, F., 1999. Times of the Technoculture.
Turkle, S., 2011. Life on the Screen. Simon and Schuster.
