Investigating the Emerging Cyber-Crossroads:

The Intersection between

Physical and Virtual Community

Tracy L.M. Kennedy

York University

Master’s Research Paper

2001

Draft Version

Do Not cite without permission of author

Introduction:

In the last five years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of people who are using the Internet. Originally used for military purposes (Fallon, 1998; Spender, 1995; Balka, 1997), the Internet has exploded into a popular medium, integrating people's lives. As people continue to use the Internet as a vehicle for communication and engross themselves within cyberspace, it is necessary to consider the implications of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in cyberspace. The development of social interaction in cyberspace, has indisputably materialized into a cyber-communality which is reflected in the plethora of discussions concerning virtual community (Rheingold 1993, Wellman, 2000). However, many questions need to be addressed. Does CMC transform social interactions and relationships within community as we traditionally know it? It is important to unravel whether social skills and relations within communities are lost (because CMC is not physical), or if they under transformation. If social interaction is being changed by CMC, how, and in what ways?

Many discussions of the virtual community are concerned with questioning the existence and the validity of virtual community; are virtual communities real communities? Contentions within the discussions of existence and validity are exhaustive. Are virtual communities “destroying” traditional notions of community? Looking at the traditional processes used to study the physical community permits a simple way to ascertain whether these approaches are applicable to the study of the virtual community. Utilizing traditional approaches of community as a vehicle to examine the social location of CMC within virtual communities in a theoretical framework yields further analysis; how does the notion of community apply to virtual community and how does it not? Does this form of technological innovation revisit or recreate the notion of community? Of particular significance is in what ways is “community” transformed in virtual spaces? Lyon (1999) offers an effective categorical division - ecological, typological and social interaction - which is beneficial in discussions of physical community. This will also help in understanding and analyzing the virtual community and also in deliberating where the community (both physical and virtual) currently exists.

As people move forward with technology it is necessary to consider CMC within virtual spaces as it becomes a different mode of social interaction with the potential to transform the way people live and work. With the increase in the use of CMC in virtual community there is a heightened fear of social disintegration; are social relations and communities crumbling?

Despite the potential social consequences of the expansion of Internet, relatively little research has been dedicated to how virtual and physical spaces truly intersect each other and what the implications of these intersections are. A detailed and succinct analysis of this relationship is necessary in a way that has not previously been looked at by scholars and researchers of virtual community.

Moreover, it is imperative to contemplate the future repercussions of the intersection between CMC virtual communities and physical spaces. Where does this lead to; where are is social interaction headed? What kind of venues are opened with physical and virtual intersections? CMC allows people from all over the world, or locally, to engage in on-line conversations and formulate communal cyber-spaces. Therefore, looking at the place and power of CMC within society is consequential. What are the implications of enhancing global means of communication? Of consideration is the use of integrated virtual and physical spaces for social change and political action; virtual spaces are being utilized to make social changes in the physical world (Mele, 1999; Mojab, 2000). This is a clear indication of how CMC are transforming social interactions and relationships within the community, as we traditionally know it. Physical and virtual political action reveals how CMC formulates a different mode of social interaction that essentially transforms the way people live and work.

Traditional Studies of Community:

The question of “what is community” has long been a debated topic in sociology. There are multiple ways to study community, arising from various theoretical perspectives. This multiplicity leads to numerous disputes and conflicts within sociology about community Hillery (1955) notes there are approximately ninety-four definitions of community, which makes a study about the integration of physical community and virtual community challenging. How is it possible to study new forms of community when traditional ones are so difficult to operationalize? Is it possible to apply traditional approaches to virtual communities? Utilizing traditional approaches of community as a vehicle to examine the social location of CMC within virtual communities in a theoretical framework yields further analysis; how does the notion of community apply to virtual community and how does it not? Does the technological innovation of CMC revisit or recreate the notion of community?

A historical perspective is helpful in defining the present situation because traditional studies of community give scholars the conceptual tools with which to study new forms of community (Bender, 1978). Looking at traditional approaches to community allows one to inquire whether virtual communities are real communities, what their limitations are and how they are useful to people both within virtual and physical spaces. Indeed, it is theoretically reasonable to employ locale, common ties and social interaction in discussions of the virtual community. Locale could conceivably be the chat room; common ties are the themes of topics of discussion within the chat room; social interaction the communication that transpires between the members of the group. However, a review of the historical approaches to community indicates the deficiencies in the various approaches and, generally, traditional approaches to the community cannot be effectively applied to the virtual community because they are too structured and do not allow for any heterogeneity. As well, traditional community approaches do not allow for integration between physical and virtual spaces, which, I contend, is essentially a new form of community space.

In order to simplify the examination of the numerous strategies to community study, I utilize Lyon’s three-fold method of studying community: ecological, typological and social represent three ways to differentiate traditional communities. Using these categories supplies a clear and simply way of looking at how community is conceptualized and studied. Within the listed categories, there is a concise differentiation between ‘the community’ and ‘community’ as both concepts are quite different (Bernard, 1973). The notion of locale effectively addresses ‘the community’ in a geographical respect whereas common ties and social interaction perspectives formulate ‘community’ and reflect the emotional and intimacy found in relationships (Bernard). Moreover, within this discussion, a definition of community, the focus of study, the means of interaction and the limitations will be illustrated within each approach.

The ecological approach to studying and defining community represents a very narrow and specialized way of looking at the community. There are four primary divisions within this approach; classical, socio-cultural, neo-orthodox and social are analysis-factorial ecology (Lyon: 32). The ecological paradigm examines people within a specific geographic area. Lyon asserts that this “implies focusing on the physical environment of the community, emphasizing the relationship between population and the physical environment and the resultant spatial patterns” (p77). Therefore, space, locale and territory (geographical boundaries) constitute the foundation to the study of community (Lyon). A study utilizing the ecological might involve explaining city placement, population growth, density and so forth (p83). This approach is concerned with physicality, where interaction between members would be face-to-face.

The ecological approach is more problematic in its application to studying virtual community. The question of geographical boundaries, or locale, within the traditional debate of physical communities arises in a different manner in virtual communities. While the Internet transcends geographical boundaries, allowing people from all over the world to communicate with one another, communities that are formed on-line are still subject to certain boundaries. For example, communities may be restricted to the use of the MUD/MOO or chat line and the rules and regulations (“netiquette”) that are created for CMC in the ‘rooms’. However, these boundaries are not physical and therefore it is questionable whether they are in fact “boundaries”. The ecological approach is not particularly useful when studying virtual community because of its reliance on physicality. As there is no physical geographical space in Cyberspace, the virtual community is not perceived as legitimate. The virtual community is not a valid source of inquiry because of the lack of physical space.

The second approach to studying traditional community is the typology approach that focuses on common social ties. According to Lyon, the typology approach to community is the most fundamental (p17), and includes the work of Max Weber, Ferdinand Tonnies and Emile Durkheim. According to Lyon, the typological approach is useful in its ability to account for societal change, lifestyle changes and an analysis of quality of life (p82). Most of these sociological scholars base much of their writings of community upon the economic changes that occurred with industrialization and urbanization. Industrialization brought forth an interest in the self and self-preservation thus indicating a decline away from preserving the interests of families or group of kin. For example, Max Weber asserts that communal social actions formulate communities because within communities there is the sense of people belonging together (Bender). As the process of rationalization transformed society from a collective to a more individualistic character, society became more concerned with rational actions based on efficiency and economic return instead of actions based on whereas emotion and values (Lyon).

Weber’s traditional and rational authority parallel Tonnies’ explanation of Gemeinschaft/Gesellschaft. Perhaps one of the most important contributions to society’s understanding of community is Ferdinand Tonnies’ account of the changes in social relations due to capitalism (Bender). Two types of community that Tonnies presented were Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society). Tonnies characterizes Gemeinschaft as exemplified within family, kinship groups and friendships (Bender). Therefore, Gemeinschaft represents intimate social relationships that work to keep people together. Bell & Newby (1971) explain that in Gemeinschaft there is an intimacy in the relationships based upon a clear understanding of each person’s place within the community. Community engulfed social bonds which included religion, work, family and culture - an emotional cohesion (Bell & Newby:24). Lyon states “Gemeinschaft is characterized by a strong identification with the community, emotionalism, traditionalism, and holistic conceptions of other members of the community” (p7).

Contrary to Gemeinschaft, Gesellschaft is characterized by a less intimate organization of individuals who are inherently self-serving. Competition and impersonality, as found within urban capitalist cities (Bender), characterize Gesellschaft. In Gemeinschaft, people “remain essentially united in spite of all separating factors, whereas in Gesellschaft they are essentially separated in spite of all uniting factors” (Tonnies,1963: 33). Bell & Newby describe Gesellschaft as large-scale, impersonal and reflective of contractual ties (1971:25). Gesellschaft reflects minimal connection with the community. Tonnies describes Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft as ideal types because neither one exists in totality. Lyon explains that “they are hypothetical, extreme constructs, existing for the purpose of comparison with the real world” (p7). He further indicates that societal groups exist somewhere in between the two ideal types and claims that most theorists believe society to be closer to Gesellschaft.

Durkheim also discusses change in the community resulting from industrialization. In his address of mechanical and organic solidarity, within a discussion of the division of labour, Durkheim explains that with mechanical solidarity, society members are united because there is no specialized division of labour (Ritzer, 1992). People perform the same tasks and this similarity keeps the community together. Organic solidarity is based on the premise that in an industrialized society, there is an acute division of labour. Here, people perform different tasks and jobs, which are all necessary to keep the community together. The diversity of individuals within modern society eliminates the likelihood for competition that is found when people are performing the same functions as in mechanical solidarity. According to Durkheim, organic solidarity is effective because people cooperate more which, in turn, creates a sense of community (Ritzer). When Durkheim addressed notions of anomie, or the state of normlessness in society, he concluded that society was becoming one big community despite the increased transgression to organic solidarity (Bell & Newby).

In each of the typological approaches, common social ties are the defining features of modern communities. However, these social ties are also rooted in physicality and require face-to-face exchanges. Social ties are intrinsic within Gemeinschaft and organic solidarity. Without social ties, Gesellschaft and organic solidarity become prevalent (Lyon). It is evident that much of Tonnies work on Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft has been utilized within the work of Weber, Durkheim and Parsons. Tonnies essentially set the foundation for the typology approach, laying the groundwork for future theorists to rework and recreate his ideas. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the work of these theorists within the typology approach because it contextualizes the existing debates within community study. The typological approach is a useful standpoint when unraveling the growth or decline in identification and interaction between people (Lyon: p78).

Some scholars have utilized the typology approach and applied it to the virtual realm. Hornsby (1998) uses Durkheim’s analysis of community and applies it to virtual communities by proposing that electronic gatherings can be seen as examples of organic societies. She recognizes that discussion groups, fantasy worlds, and civic networks are part of the complex division of labour that Durkheim explores in organic solidarity. Hornsby approaches the ‘Net’ as a social phenomenon, yet proposes that Cyborg societies may be a third type of Durkheimian society because technological advances are contributing to a consolidation of new international division of labour and are changing the collective consciousness by creating new relationships between humans and machines (1998:99).

Hornsby exercises Durkheim’s typologies, but there is room for modification in this application to the virtual world. Indeed, the virtual community is bound together by groups of people who may share common interests or ties but all do very different things in the physical world. This parallels the organic society where individuals all contribute diverse labour vocations in order for the group to exist. However, it is apparent that the typological approach is not sufficient in its application to virtual communities. Clearly, changing society is perceived as problematic for community within the typology approach. This is not necessarily true if we consider where changing society is truly heading. The division of labour continues to develop into an international division of labour because of technological advances (Hornsby). As the collective consciousness grows due to CMC, today’s communities ‘outgrow’ Durkheim’s organic society. Therefore virtual communities cannot be effectively operationalized within the typological approach.

While the sociological study of community is generally rooted within typologies, certainly what one studies determines the approach one takes. It is no longer sufficient to approach community as simply typologies because community study has surpassed the typologies of community and challenged the locale. The third approach focused on the community as a social system. New information technologies have made it necessary to move the emphasis away from the ‘physical’ elements of community that the first and second approach emphasize, to social interaction (Lyon:56). This approach, which falls under the theoretical paradigm of the ‘systems theory’, takes many forms. However, there is an emphasis on people and their individual actions in a physical form (face-to-face). The systems theory approach to community has raised some of the most important issues within sociology such as community power, interpersonal relationships and community development have all been explored utilizing systems theory (Lyon: p86).

Scholars who have looked at interaction as a basis for studying the “community”, such as Scherer (1972), claim that communication is the foundation of social structures. Scherer questions whether community can be conceptualized as verbal interaction? She claims that from a sociological framework it is “communication that is the means by which the shared perspectives of the group, the agreed-upon understandings that permit existence, bind men [sic] to each other, reflect current social behaviour, and actually mold future actions.” (1972:104). Scherer states that all groups possess some forms or methods of communication; “communication is at the heart of any community: we can only share in common what we can communicate with one another.” (p104). The structural process that is associated with community is communication, and without communication, there can be no action to organize social relations (Fernback & Thompson, 1995).

Scherer states “The concept of social network is basically a view of community that begins with individuals, examines the carious components of the person’s social world, and attempts to find patterns of linkage or connection between components” (p 119) Every person develops his/her own social network based upon his/her personal characteristics, experiences and choices. She explains that because of the variances in social factors (age, race, gender, sexuality) there is often overlap among different groups and it is at these intersections that a community structure becomes viable (1972:119). Although Scherer offers several notions of the types of communities available, she concludes with certain ‘essentials’ are required in a community. For example, Scherer advocates for’communality’ in communities, which encompasses agreed upon or shared perspectives, definitions and some agreement about values. Community, she claims provide a context for social integration.

Social interaction as a way to conceptualize community study is helpful for virtual community studies. Of the three approaches, the social system approach is the most applicable. The social system is based upon relationship between two or more people (Lyon:p54). These relationships are formulated and structured around sharing cultural symbols (Parsons, 1951). Therefore, the definition of a social system is extensive; family, football team, university and so forth (Lyon). This is could be particularly useful when looking at virtual communities because this approach has the capacity to validate their existence because there is a broad definition of what constitutes a social system. In relation to the Internet, new methods of communication (CMC) have the potential to create new methods of social interaction and new ways for people to interact socially, therefore creating a social system. McLuhan (1964) notes that electronic communication has created a boundary free ‘global village’ which allows people to transgress space and time. The implications of such technology are that more people will be brought together into cohesive groups of shared interests or common ties (Fernback &Thompson). This conceptualizes virtual community within the common tie approach, and also within social interaction. Looking at virtual community as conceptualized from social interaction, Wellman (1998) concurs that recently sociologists have discovered that kinship and neighbourhood ties are only a small portion of people’s overall community networks because cars, planes and phones can maintain relationships over long distances. Therefore, Wellman concludes that this conceptual change moved from defining community in terms of space (neighbourhoods) to defining it in terms of social networks (1998:169).

While this is productive in examining virtual community, there are limitations. Utilizing the social systems approach limits the analysis to a “micro” level; and individualistic view of the community (Lyon). In examining virtual community, it is necessary to understand the “big picture” (the macro) and how interaction unfolds in the virtual and physical world. From a sociological standpoint, the social system’s approach does not explicitly identify what the significance of these small networks to the larger population. Therefore, it is not convincing that systems theory would be useful in looking at how physical and virtual communities engage with one another.

As new information technologies and CMC surface in the techno-modern world, it is imperative to consider the impact of this on social interaction and whether it changes. Utilizing the social interaction approach can be applied to virtual community that becomes formulated on the basis of CMC - a new form of social interaction. New forms of community are created through new forms of communication. In particular, CMC virtual communities have surfaced as a result of CMC. The emergence of this type of community leads researchers of traditional ‘physical’ community to postulate fresh questions about conceptualizing society. New concerns and debates surface as a result of these New Information Technologies and the study of community continues to transcend the physical with the introduction of new CMC techniques. Communities in cyberspace are rooted in electronic or virtual exchanges not physicality. “Community is not a specific space or mere baseline for historical change; it is a fundamental and enduring form of social interaction” (Bender: p43).

Harold Rheingold (1993) defines virtual communities as “social aggregations that emerge from the [Internet] when enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (1993:5). In this definition, Rheingold emphasizes emotion and feeling rather than a physical face-to-face interaction. While much of Rheingold’s analysis is based upon his work in WELL (Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link), he validates his experiences within the on-line community and notes how this community has affected his life in the physical world, attending weddings, funerals and births. Other on-line communities may be developed such as by using IRC (Internet Relay Chat being one example of the many forms of chat lines), mailing lists, bulletin boards, newsgroups, Usenet and so forth. Rheingold acknowledges the question of community that arises when people communicate for extended periods of time. That is to say that if people are consistently communicating in cyberspace with other people, does this formulate a community? Rheingold suggests that virtual communities might be real, they might be ‘pseudo’, or perhaps something totally different and new. Nevertheless, Rheingold articulates the need and desire that people have for the sense of “community” that is not present in modern traditional societies (1993:4).

Regardless of the questions that operationalize the virtual community, social interaction found within the social system approach appears to be a key factor in the existence of on-line communities. Rheingold purports that networking, exchanging of information and knowledge and communion found within cyberspace is the foundation, the ‘social glue’, which binds individuals into a community (Fernback & Thompson). Because on-line communication is formulated upon written text, virtual communities have the potential to reach individuals who are not comfortable talking to people face-to-face for whatever reason. People with disabilities who find it difficult or impossible to verbally interact with others are more compelled to engage in a virtual community. In this instance, textually mediated communities may prove beneficial. ‘Freaks and geeks’, who do not fit the status quo, may also find virtual communities a key place for social interaction where as the physical is not. “Community can reinforce either individualism or community; depending on our own vision of the society that shapes their use” (Fernback & Thompson - see website). However, studies of the virtual community also face limitations. Where the traditional approaches of community focus on the “physicality”, virtual communities tend to focus on the “electronic”. This is problematic if we are to consider how the physical and virtual converge and interface.

Having looked at three traditional approaches to community and applied them to the virtual community, the question that needs to be asked is whether the existing theoretical frameworks of ‘community’ are tenable? It might not be expected that traditional approaches be applicable in virtual spaces as most of these traditional approaches are situated within a certain time and context. But what this comparative look has accomplished is permitted a glimpse of what is lacking, and what is needed in the study of community. It is clear that while some approaches may be somewhat relevant to virtual spaces, the framework does not permit the existence of virtual communities. Is there an approach that is more viable or is there a need to expand or alter the existing framework as Hornsby as done? There a need for new theoretical frameworks that contextualizes the on-line experiences of people who consider themselves a part of a ‘virtual community’? For example, Jones (1995) claims that new definitions of ‘meet’ and ‘face’ are necessary when studying virtual communities. As discussed, the ‘where’ in cyberspace does not constitute geographical boundaries as found in physical communities. Therefore, Jones states, “the space of cyberspace is predicated on knowledge and information, on the common beliefs and practices of a society abstracted from physical space” (1995:19). Jones feels that the sharing of information among people in a virtual space is essentially what binds people together creating a socially produced space or community. Traditional approaches do not have room for this in their analysis. There appear to be many gaps in using traditional approaches to community because of the dependency on physicality. Even when applying social interaction approaches, the same arguments of physicality surface. Because there are problems in defining physical community - is it locale, common ties or social interaction? - we are left with similar problems of conceptualization in the virtual world. By utilizing traditional approaches of community as a vehicle to examine the social location of CMC within virtual communities, it is evident that the legitimacy and validity of virtual communities cannot be settled with traditional approaches. The current state of the community, both physical and virtual, continues to be questionably in stasis. Notions of community do not fit neatly into these prescribed approaches and the community continues to be in a flux as physical and virtual spaces converge. Where does that leave these three theoretical strategies? There is no room for growth, change or expansion within these strategies, especially if we consider interfaces between physical and virtual spaces. Another strategy or approach is necessary, one that encompasses elements of the three approaches (as indicated some elements are relevant) and embraces new ones.

In examining three methods to studying traditional community - - ecological, typological and social - - a theoretical and historical approach has revealed the complexity of studying community in various contexts, in particular the virtual space. Looking at community in a multitude of ways allows for a greater understanding of people in a wider framework, and also sets the stage for analyzing emergent forms of community. Scherer states that “the conditions of modern life require a constant appraisal and re-analysis of all our conceptual tools. We cannot face modern reality with old ideas because they no longer apply.” (1972:124).

Debates within the Virtual Community; Cyber-topia versus Cyber-dystopia

The complexity and diversity of modern social life makes community difficult to conceptualize and sociologists continue to find themselves confused and perplexed in their attempts to situate virtual community. As discussed, traditional approaches to community are inapplicable to virtual spaces and those that integrate virtual and physical spaces. Worthy of further discussion is a key issue that is raised in the study of community; the ‘loss of community’. Change within the community is conceptualized as a negative circumstance and essentially detrimental to people in society. Urbanization and modernization are understood as destroying the community; that urbanization, modernity and capitalism threaten traditional patterns of social life (Bender: p3). In particular, it is proposed that there are feelings of alienation that surface when the social interaction between individuals is reduced. This is particularly the case in a mass society (Lyon). This is directly related to Tonnies’ description of the Gesellschaft state, a community that has lost the social cohesion found within the Gemeinschaft. Both Tonnies’ Gesellschaft and Durkheim’s Organic Solidarity are reflective of an individualistic society that is concerned with primarily self-serving indulgences which reduce the quality of life. An increased sense of individualism decreases the amount of social interaction with others. I would argue, however, that this is certainly not the case with virtual communities. I would assert that within the individualistic society there is a decline in particular types of social interaction, such as face-to-face, but that there are new and different forms of social interaction taking place. Importantly, not only are physical or virtual encounters taking place, but rather an integration between the two is occurring. As previously indicated, CMC, communication is formulated upon written text (not face-to-face or verbal) and that some traditional approaches to community are rooted in physical social interaction. Therefore we are left with something new and distinct to unravel about textual social interaction and its implications on the physical and virtual world. For example, social interaction is more than meeting face-to-face or talking on the phone and textual interaction goes beyond physical and verbal discussion. Interaction encompasses textual and physical collaboration, and because the occurrence of such is increasing, it is necessary to explore the implications of convergences on contemporary community.

Nevertheless, there is a continuing concern regarding the virtual community and it effects on the physical community because of the grounding in traditional approaches to the community. With the increase in the use of CMC in virtual community there is a heightened fear of social disintegration; are social relations and communities crumbling? Within discussions regarding the implications of virtual community, two oppositions surface; a ‘negative and positive’ dissent between the implications and effects of CMC on individuals. What are the effects of CMC within virtual community on social connections? What is the effect on the quality of information exchange? Is there a decrease in physical encounters? These questions need to be asked in order to unpack the “new community” and its effects on society.

The optimistic support of virtual space asserts that virtual communities are a positive addition to society. An optimistic perception of virtual space contends that virtual communities have the potential to reach people who would never have “met” before and that CMC can reinforce existing social ties (both weak and strong). The pessimistic perception of virtual space perceives virtual communities as having a negative effect on society. Pessimists contend that textual interactions in virtual spaces have a detrimental effect on physical interactions between people. Effects such as reduced face-to- face exchanges and more textual encounters are perceived as fatalistic. This ‘utopian/dystopian’ debate regarding virtual communities is predominant. Unfortunately, this dichotomy between good and evil leaves little room for diversity and fluidity within the virtual and physical sphere. It also leaves little room to acknowledge the benefits of overlap and integration between physical and virtual spaces.

There are many benefits presented by supporters of virtual communities such as simple and quick access to people and an endless amount of people to reach. . The utopian argument also suggests that virtual communities have replaced the lost (physical) community; that CMC is re- establishing communication with people. “Virtual communities are celebrated as providing a space and form for a new experience of community. This experience is depicted as multiple, liberating, equalizing and thus providing a richer experience of togetherness” (Wilson, 1997:159). This notion is reflected by the supporters of virtual community. Rheingold presents a positive vision of virtual communities as he shares his experience of support and security from his WELL (Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link) community. While posting a request for information regarding a tick his daughter had caught, Rheingold realized that not only was he able to access information quicker on-line than waiting for the pediatrician to call, but he was overwhelmed by the assistance and emotional support from the on-line people. Rheingold insists that CMC creates a valid community in an on-line setting and that it is a positive tool for society.

As well, Rheingold asserts that making physical characteristics identifiable through textual interaction is not a priority. While some people may choose to reveal their physical characteristics, some people prefer to be treated “as thinkers and transmitters of ideas and feelings”(p159). On- line social interaction is initially without face-to-face conversation; there are no preconceptions of another person based upon race, gender, ethnicity and so forth (Fernback & Thompson). There is an ease in ‘coming together’ and relationships are built on the intellect and common interests and surpassing assumptions of race or gender. Turkle (1995) indicates how people can experiment with identity, particularly gender, in cyberspace. The cartoon “On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog” indicates that physicality is not necessary in formulating social cohesion in cyberspace. This disembodiment into virtual embodiment is liberating and can strengthen the virtual community. In cyberspace, you are able to get acquainted with people who share common interests and then choose to meet them, whereas in the physical world, the reverse is true (Rheingold).

Moreover, other supporters of virtual community assert that people can find community on the Internet and develop relationships with people who have never had any physical contact (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). The Internet is not only valuable as a source of information, but as Wellman & Gulia assert, is also a source of companionship, social support, and a sense of belonging. Importantly, virtual communities allow people to connect and interact with each other where they never would have connected before. Because it is so easy to connect, CMC can potentially reverse the trend to lessen contact with people (Wellman & Gulia: p188).

Furthermore, Wellman (2001) also explains that Cyberspace has had positive effects on community and the way that people find and maintain them. He states that besides transcending geographical boundaries and increasing people’s connectedness; “Online relationships and online communities have developed their own strength and dynamics. Participants in online groups have strong interpersonal feelings of belonging, being wanted, obtaining important resources, and having a shared identity” (p24).

CMC has also allowed community to manifest itself in the direction of on-line education. Pratt (1999) indicates that on-line learning cannot be created by simply one person. Students must learn to dialogue with one another; sharing ideas, critiquing ideas and offering commentary and analysis. Therefore, it is essential that there is social cohesion and cooperation in the on-line classroom among students. If students do not engage in a reciprocal discussion, the on-line learning community will not flourish. Members of the on-line classroom depend on each other to generate conversion and dialogue. On-line dialogue regarding course content, plus personal anecdotes and stories, are essential to the transmission of content and ideas, and ultimately the success of the on-line course. People ultimately engage and connect in the virtual classroom. This is also reflected in the study conducted by Kazmer & Haythornthwaite (2001) who assert that relationships built in the on-line learning communities often continue to proliferate in both in the virtual and physical world. While this research will be discussed later in relation to integration of physical and virtual spaces, it clearly reflects the importance of textual social interaction in virtual communities.

This understanding of CMC is somewhat idealistic to say the least because it suggests that virtual communities are ‘saviors’ to a society that is lost and astray in individualism. The utopian perspective situates virtual communities as recapturing social interaction and re-establishing community. This is not entire the case. The increased use of CMC in virtual communities indeed challenges the idea that society has decreased its level of social interaction. As indicated (and explored further later), people are interacting with one another with text in virtual spaces and taking these interactions to physical meetings. However, the virtual community has only recaptured a certain element of social interaction and perhaps re established a sense ‘community’. To say that CMC has re-established community suggests a singular definition and understanding of what community is, and as indicated previously, this is particularly difficult. The emergence of the Internet into mainstream culture has clearly allowed people to ‘connect’ with one another globally, or even locally through email, chat lines, listservs, MUD/MOO and so forth. CMC has undoubtedly brought people who share similar interests together in a virtual world - creating a virtual community of people. These utopian notions challenge the negative perspectives of new CMC (Wellman, 1997; Etzioni, 1997; Rheingold, 1993) who perceive new CMCs as positive tools for new social interaction and community. However, this conceptualization of CMC does not address how virtual and physical spaces meet and work together to establish a diverse and exciting new space.

Contrary to the utopian perception of virtual community is the dystopian comprehension of virtual community. A key concern of these on-line social interactions is that face-to-face interaction and physical communities will be replaced by CMC. “Mouse potatoes”, as described by Fernback & Thompson, could potentially contribute to the further decline of community and interaction between people. CMC could conceivably encourage people to remain in their homes and away from other people. Mouse potatoes will replace “couch potatoes” and people will continue to hide from ‘real life’. Not only is there a loss of physicality, but the convenience of the Internet will also discourage people to interact face-to-face. This perception does not validate the legitimacy of communication and social interaction that takes place on-line, and therefore suggests that CMC is not a tenable or viable way to socially interact and connect with people. It is also problematic because it situates social interaction into either physical or virtual. To presume that people will only use virtual spaces to interact is an over generalization of people’s actions. Also, the observation is based on an assumption that people will disengage from others in the physical world. It presupposes that people could do only use virtual space or would want to.

Moreover, arguments made by Nie (2001) also support the notion that CMC is not a legitimate way to socially interact. Nie states that the use of email as a new CMC has certainly changed how people connect in that it has enhanced human connectivity. Nie does not deny that textual social interaction within virtual communities has allowed people to bridge with one another more effortlessly. However, Nie declares that CMC is not representative of a “true” interpersonal communication that explicitly reveals emotion. Nie’s understanding of “true” interpersonal communication is reflected in this statement;

It is not that empathy, tenderness, reassurance, flirtation, sadness or happiness cannot be written into email. Rather, eye contact, body language, facial expressions, vocalization, hugs, pats on the back, cries, embraces, kisses, and giggles are the fundamentals of our evolutionary socio-economical well being (Nie:20).

Here Nie places extreme importance on physicality, which discredits CMC as an effective tool for social interaction. Wilson questions whether “by removing the difficulties and limitations of more traditional communities, we are also stripping away many of the factors that ‘make’ community meaningful for its participants” (1997:154). This notion is problematic because it makes claims to one method of communication as an ideal type. “Who is to say that this preference for one mode of communication - informal written text - is somewhat less authentically human than audible speech?” (Rheingold, 1998:156). Society’s attachment to verbal interaction discredits virtual communities because they are based upon textual interaction. Wilson further postulates whether “community can be sufficiently defined by the machinations of thin/emptied-out selves interacting via text through cyberspace” (p154). However, as indicated by Fernback & Thompson, “CMC have the potential to affect the nature of social life in terms of both interpersonal relationships and the character of the community”. CMC encourages global communication at any time. Essentially, CMC transcends communicative boundaries present by face-to-face interaction. Interaction does not need to be purely physical but rather textual as well. Why is there a need to rely purely on one kind of social interaction?

Furthermore, Nie indicates that the Internet does not increase social connectivity, but rather works to isolate and disengage people from one another. He contends that the longer a person has been using the Internet, the longer s/he spends on-line. This leaves less time for physical interaction. Nie is concerned with the amount of time that people spend on-line and suggests that this warrants careful examination of virtual space. Therefore Nie affirms the Internet does not connect people or enhance communication, but actually decreases the amount of face-to-face time people spend together. As people continue to utilize CMC, more time is spent in the virtual world, leaving less time for physical interaction. People may be talking to more people while on- line, but they are seeing them less and feeling increasingly isolated and ‘alone’ in virtual space. Nie’s claims that CMC reduces face-to-face meetings are troublesome. I would argue that CMC within virtual communities does not necessarily decrease face-to-face social interaction. Understandably, as people’s lives get busier, there is less time for social interaction of any kind. Therefore to attribute CMC to the decrease in face-to-face communication without substantial empirical evidence is faulty. Conceivable, CMC within virtual communities encourages social interaction i a forum where it once may have been lost.

Nie’s sentiments are also reflected by other scholars (Beniger, 1987; Nie and Erbring, 2000; Turkle, 1995) who also assert that the virtual community essentially detracts from physical community. In particular, Putnam (1996) also asserts that people are increasingly becoming disconnected from each other as a result of the reliance on CMC. Putnam contends that there is a lack of “social capital” in the virtual world. Putnam defines social capital as valuable social networks. Specifically, trust, cooperation, collective action and reciprocity are key elements of social capital. Putnam refers to this as a “we” mentality as opposed to the “I” mentality. While some argue that virtual spaces are rich in social capital as defined by Putnam, (Wellman, 2001), Putnam argues that people’s connection with each other are further dissipated with the predominant use of CMC in the virtual world. Research conducted (Wellman; Wellman & Gulia) regarding the loss of social connectedness and loss of physicality because of CMC within virtual comminutes challenge Nie’s argument. CMC in virtual spaces are not reducing face-to-face because essentially people are still meeting physically. Other technological means - such as telephones, cars, planes, trains and so forth (Wellman & Gulia) all enhance face-to-face- interaction. Why is it so difficult to comprehend that CMC within virtual spaces would have the same effect.

As well, Turkle (1995) contends that people continually engage in “social capital” building activities. However, she states that individuals may not be concerned with where they are building these elements. Many people are working to create their social capital in virtual communities, which is conceivably problematic for people who do not perceive virtual community as legitimate space. Building social capital in cyberspace is less significant than the ‘real’ world, even though people may be more satisfied with virtual interaction than face-to-face. Because textual interaction is not as legitimate or genuine as physical social interaction, email exchanges within a support group are not considered true social capital.

This negative perception of virtual communities is pessimistic. There is far is too much emphasis on the virtual community replacing physicality; that in some way, people will not interact via face- to-face meeting because they can simply use electronic means. This conceptualization of CMC and the virtual community also does not address how virtual and physical spaces converge and integrate. Why would people only use electronic communication? As well, why would people only use physical communication? Moreover, the arguments presented by supporters of the dystopian perspective are still rooted in traditional notions and approaches to community. As discussed, these approaches are flawed in their application to virtual spaces and spaces that integrate the physical and virtual. Therefore, I reiterate that there is a need to move beyond these approaches, and develop an effective strategy that will allow a critical lens to understanding the changing community. The Internet is complex and intricate and cannot be examined as a single entity (Anderson & Tracey, 2001). It is important to consider how and in what ways the Internet has affected people, their conceptions of themselves and those around them. By exploring the role of new CMC, such as the virtual community, in people’s every physical day life, it will be possible to study and further theorize the interfacing between physical and virtual spaces.

Community Interfacing; Connecting Physical and Virtual Spaces:

At this juncture it is evident that there are serious deficiencies in the study of community. Traditional studies of the community do not necessarily validate virtual community and studies of such are not always considered legitimate. Essentially, we need to move beyond these theoretical debates and look at what is actually transpiring within virtual spaces. It is one thing to theoretically assess the ‘whats’ and ‘hows’ of physical and virtual community, but it is vital to examine what is happening within the communities to truly understand where community currently posits itself and the people who function within it. To date, this is not thoroughly examined. As Turkle (1997) suggests, people are capable of existing in multiple realities, each of which are legitimate and viable.

Whether or not sociologists perceive physical community as “lost” or agree that virtual communities are ‘real’ communities, as previously discussed the question remains of what is the potential for physical and virtual communities? Where can sociologists go from here? While various articles have been published about such topics as the creation of identity on the Internet (Wilson; Jones), cybersexualities, race in cyberspace and so forth, the study of the existence of communities in the virtual world does not appear to have progressed to any great degree. Discussions pertaining to democracy on the Internet, freedom of speech and so forth do not necessarily address future directions for virtual communities. Putting aside the notions that virtual spaces will cause the social disintegration of communities and relations deterioration of physicality as it is presently exists (see previous discussion and Wilson), it is compelling to postulate how virtual communities (and physical communities) can evolve. Relatively little research has been dedicated to how virtual and physical spaces truly intersect each other and what the implications of these intersections are. A detailed and succinct analysis of this relationship is necessary in a way that has not previously been looked at by scholars and researchers of virtual community.

Sociologists need to not only consider that community is not lost but to recognize the validity of virtual communities and acknowledge their existence. Virtual community is not replacing the physical community (and vise-versa), but instead there is an overlap, integration and extension between the virtual and physical community. There is an acute intersection between physical and virtual occurring. Neither community exists on its own without the other in some shape or form. Scherer’s observations are appropriate here; “We seldom discover anything that is genuinely new and different. Rather, creativity is the process or rearranging old idea to develop new perspectives and reveal old problems in different lights” (p127). This is seemingly the case in revisiting the community question within virtual spaces..

It is valid to propose that virtual communities may be a convergence between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft; society and culture. For example, Sennett reiterates that Gemeinschaft in which community is based upon relationships of shared cultural homogeneity have moved towards Gesellschaft in which relationships are more individualistic, impersonal, rational and efficient. Virtual communities are a essentially union the two; a meeting of society and community (materialism and symbolism) because virtual communities encompass both. Not only are virtual communities rooted in common interests but they are also private and individual. Rather than an either/or dichotomy of the two forms of community, there is actually overlap and continuation.

Studies regarding interaction in cyberspace do not go far enough. Given that researchers such as Wellman (1999) suggest that virtual communities add to and are enhanced by face-to-face meetings, the analysis often does not proceed. As indicated previously, some scholars do not even address the notion of virtual and physical spaces meeting at any point. While it is the understanding of some scholars that people are participating both in virtual and physical spaces, there is no clear critique of the interwoven relationship between virtual and physical spaces. For example, there is the assertion that members of on-line communities may meet in the physical world for an event or encounter, or lead to telephone conversations and snail-mail. However, there needs to be more analysis of the inter-relationship between virtual and physical spaces in order to illustrate how social interactions and relationships within communities are being transformed. Community in the age of New Information Technology must be evaluated from the Cyber-crossroads. That is to say that the intersectionality of the physical and virtual need to be understood in terms of overlap, integration and extension. Cyberspace cannot be treated as an isolated social form of communication; that other off-line social interactions that people have must be included in an analysis of community (Wellman). Rheingold expands on this multiplicity by stating “there is no such thing as a single, monolithic, on-line subculture; it’s more like an ecosystem of subcultures, some frivolous, others serious” (see website).

Looking at the Internet as a complex web of networks, physical and virtual community surpasses a monolithic composition, and instead is often blurred by an overlapping. While Anderson & Tracey’s research indicates that the Internet supports and enhances lifestyles, there is no understanding of the complex relationship of intersectionality. Much like other researchers, they do not go far enough in their analysis. Importantly, they do not clearly address that physical and virtual spaces have a tendency to overlap. For example, an overlap would indicate that both the physical and the virtual exist simultaneously but the virtual has in some way organized itself within people’s lives. The commentary presented by Anderson & Tracey simplistically fixates Internet usage of having an ‘impact’ or something that is adopted. This does not factor the complexity of the relationship between physical and virtual, nor does it recognize the development change in social interaction. Anderson & Tracey confer the limitations on research conducted in cyberspace and while they accurately state that there is a need for a deeper understanding of the relationship between the Internet and people, they do not take their own critique to its logical end. On one hand they suggest that people’s range of activities are adjusted or mutli-tasked to enable the use of the Internet (p10), yet they do not adequately ascertain the evolving relationship between technological change and social change.

Moreover, there is further evidence to suggest that the physical and virtual integrate with one another. Again, reiterating that the Internet is complex and emphasizing that the virtual does not exist simply singularly, physical communities and virtual communities are integrated. Physical and virtual spaces do not purely exist on their own, but rather become unified and synchronized. Recent studies from Kazmer & Haythornthwaite (2001) reveal how distance-learning students develop a ‘synergy’ in managing the world of on-line learning and their physical worlds. Aside from negotiating the use of New Information Technology into their daily schedules (banking, word processing and so forth), the connections and networks made within the distance learning courses are essentially integrated into the student’s physical academic community. Participants within this research noted how the on-line community is a support system - emotionally and intellectually - which is then utilized in the physical sense when looking for post-graduate employment. This overtly indicates a juncture between physical and virtual community and is not explored to its fullest capacity by Kazmer & Haythornthwaite. The authors need to further assess the developmental relationship between physical and virtual spaces. While the scope of their paper addresses the management of multiple worlds, it does not fully reveal the scope of virtual and physical integration and the significance of it in terms of transformations in social interactions.

Kazmer & Haythornthwaite utilize a ‘Social World’ perspective that allows the researchers “to consider all of an individual’s world, not just on-line ones, and the way in which on and off-line life intersect and interact with each other “ (p4). A social world as explained by Kazmer & Haythornthwaite, is comprised of individuals “who share activities, space, and technology, and who communicate with one another” (p3). They assert that this is as an adequate replacement for the term ‘community,’ which is laden with conceptual baggage. The approach used by Kazmer & Haythornthwaite is useful to consider when looking at the integration between physical and virtual communities. The authors conceptualize the Internet as a tool to maintain local and distant ties between people who share common interests; the Internet is “ a medium through which we have the opportunity to maintain multiple social worlds” (p5). Conceptualizing the Internet as a tool is significant to understanding the integration between physical and virtual communities because there is the understanding that the Internet is not a simple social world in itself. While its true complexity is not fully revealed in this paper, to their credit, the authors have proposed an acceptable starting point to looking at relationships of integration between virtual and physical spaces.

Kavanaugh & Patterson’s (2001) research utilizes the case study of the Blacksburg Electronic Village that allowed Internet access to over eighty- percent of its residents. Kavanaugh & Patterson pose questions regarding the role of the Internet in building and maintaining local communities. The authors argue that CMC needs to be examined within the context of existing physical communities as a way to encourage local networks. Importantly, the authors state that “the goal of community computer network designers is not to ‘replace’ existing channels of social capital, but rather facilitate these channels” (p9). The study reveals that higher levels of physical community involvement are associated with CMC via the Internet.

However, there are some significant discussion elements missing in this research. What is not addressed is how their research supports the notion that physical and virtual spaces do not exist on their own, but rather are integrated within people’s lives. Within this study, the use of the Internet contributed to feelings of involvement within the physical community. People felt connected, both virtually and physically, to their neighbors. Exploring this avenue may go beyond the means of the study, yet it is essential to consider these components because it reveals the transformation in social interaction that is currently transpiring. This research clearly does not reveal the complexity between physical and virtual interactive spaces. Results of this research indicate that virtual community has been integrated within the physical community, with some modifications made to the physical community. The amalgamation of the two communities reflects Turkle’s notion of people existing in multiple realties. A choice between equally valid realities need not be made, as both can simultaneously exist together.

Similar to the results illustrated by the Kavanaugh & Patterson research, Netville studies conducted by Hampton & Wellman (2000) demonstrate a physical community that has embarked the Internet. The study reveals that rather than replace face-to-face social interaction, the Internet tended to “strengthen local links within neighborhoods and households” (Wellman & Hampton, 1999:6). This is of particular relevance to discussions of integration between physical and virtual community. While Hampton & Wellman illustrate that the use of the Internet occurs within daily social interaction; “asking spouses to bring milk home, work colleagues arranging a meeting, and neighbours organizing around local issues” (p5), there is discussion of this only in a certain context. There is a much more complex integrative relationship occurring between physical and virtual communities. As described by Wellman & Hampton, informal and formal discussion lists were created to address issues within the local community. As well, the study reveals how this virtual on-line community organized barbeques, babysitting services, and essentially built neighboring relationships in the physical world (p7). Wellman and Hampton further state:

Email allows neighbours to keep informed and in touch on their own time without having to overcome the social and physical barriers necessary to knock on a door do more than wave a hello from across the street. The availability of this extra communication medium may be particularly important for couples without children, or a dog to walk in the neighbourhood, who lacked any ties to the community and needed an extra channel to initiate or respond to neighbourly sociability (p7).

Clearly the discussion raised by Wellman and Hampton is an indication of the transformations of social interactions occurring within people’s communities. In this example, technological innovation has re-created notions of community by utilizing physical and virtual spaces. Although these transformations are not explored entirely in the research, Netville is a good indicator of things to come; that the virtual community is initialized via discussion lists in Netville enhances and encourages face-to-face as well as virtual exchanges thus signifying integration.

Further research suggests that the virtual does not exist on its own, but is in fact an extension of the physical community. Where the overlap in virtual and physical recognizes the reorganization of time and space; the integration of virtual recognizes the unification between two types of community, it should be recognized that the virtual community also acts as an extension or magnification of the physical community. Research conducted by Matei & Ball-Rokeach (2001) observes the relationship between on and off-line social ties in seven Los Angeles ethnic groups. Importantly, their research confirms the idea that the presence of strong social physical ties extends itself to the virtual world, which is not surprising considering other telecommunication devices such as the telephone also work to extend physical ties. While the tangibility of a tele-community is questionable, what is evident from this parallel is how CMC and the virtual community needs to be researched as a part of the everyday world; as an extension of the physical. Cyberspace acts as a link to rather than a separation from people’s local community (p18). Matei & Ball-Rokeach hypothesize that the Internet is incorporated into the lives of their ethnic participants, acknowledging that on-line and off-line ties are connected. However, these authors must consider that the virtual represents more than just another place to meet but rather represents how people can surpass the limitations of physical social interactions. This essentially causes a rethinking of existing perceptions of interactive relationships.

Additionally, Howard, Rainie & Jones (2001) argue “that use of email helps people build their social networks by extending and maintaining friend and family relationships” (p1). The authors claim that the ‘netizens’, people who have been on-line for more than three years and access the Internet from home daily, are the most enthusiastic participants of on-line social interaction in the virtual world. From the netizens, who embody 16 percent of the adult Internet population, it is possible to articulate how prevalent CMC is in extending the physical community. The authors demonstrate that the Internet is utilized to extend social networks and allow people to stay in touch with family and friends. Results of the survey conducted by Howard, Rainie & Jones illustrate;

Some 59 percent of those who use email to communicate with their family say they communicate more often now with their primary family contact, and 60 percent of those who email friends say the same thing about increased communication with their primary friend contact. About 31 percent of family emailers say they have started communicating with a family member that they had not contacted much before” (p18).

The authors unsuspectingly lend support to the notion that virtual ties are an extension of the physical. Given that Howard, Rainie & Jones address the usefulness of email as a way to sustain relationships, much like other researchers in this area, the authors do not fully unravel the intricacies of the development of personal interactional relationships between physical and virtual spaces. It appears that Howard, Rainie & Jones situate the Internet as a social world in itself. That is to say that the Internet does not exist in a “bubble”, that it is ultimately shaped and formed by surrounding social forces. Therefore, it is must be studied in relation to the spaces that surround it, specifically the physical spaces that work to enrich and transform social interaction within the community. Understanding this permits the a reconceptualization of community in the modern age.

Each of these explorations of the virtual and physical community reveals that the Internet is a complex social mechanism. It is not simply a tool for communication, but rather reflects the processes of the wider social world. By observing the overlapping, integration and extension of the physical into the virtual community, it is apparent that most studies of virtual and physical spaces have been lacking. To say that the Internet contributes to ‘community lost’^[1] because of the faceless interaction (Nie) that takes place negates the value of interaction by other means, such as through CMC. It also ignores the increased amount of social interaction present and the establishment of virtual solidarity through the Internet.

As well, this perspective situates technology from a deterministic perspective that proposes that technology shapes and affects society. This opposes the notion of the social shaping of technology. Understanding that technology is a cultural product or socially constructed, we would look at cyberspace as a space that has been molded and created by society. Society shapes the creation of technology and how technology is used. Initially the Internet was created for military purposed; a secure means of communication. As Internet use grew, cyberspace evolved, and people began to change how the Internet is used and for what reason. Discerning this perspective allows an understanding of the virtual community as a cultural production, an elaboration of the physical world. The virtual does not exist in exclusivity.

But what are the implications of this notion? While this paper clearly proposes that virtual communities strengthen social ties, the danger lies in creating and reinforcing the utopian vision of the Internet as the saviour of ‘community lost’. What is necessary is expanding our understanding of the community and ‘community’. As Bender appropriately states; “What we need is a perspective that will enable us to take an overview of the simultaneous polarity and reciprocity of these two patterns of human interaction” (43) Revisiting Bender’s question presented earlier; “what form or forms would community take when the town no longer provides the primary context for community?”, provides the framework for discussion. Bender’s use of ‘forms’ indicates that the community itself may in fact take on more than one shape, and manifest itself in various ways. In this paper, we have examined how the virtual community is still ‘embodied’ within the physical world, demonstrating the transformation of social interaction and the re-creating of community.

Conclusion:

It is undeniable what effect CMC has had on social interaction. Within cyberspace, a quick search of virtual communities on google.com reveals 626,000 websites that address this concept. Virtual communities are a hot topic of discussion both within academia and the everyday world. Millions of people now utilize computer-mediated communication; email, MUD/MOOS, Usenet, chat lines and so forth all encompass social interaction in the virtual world. Notably, the implications of CMC in virtual communities are revealed by examining the current condition of community in a society that essentially employs physical and virtual spaces. CMC has undoubtedly reconstructed social interactions and relationships within community as we currently and traditionally know it. The existence of the physical and virtual spaces parallel traditional social processes and historical social changes.

To ignore that the virtual exists without the physical is to ignore the historical process within traditional theories of the community. What the unification of the virtual and the physical represents is in fact a unification between traditional and modern - rather than a dichotomous split. Within Bender=s own analysis of traditional community, he questions Awhy cannot Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft simultaneously shape social life?@ (p31). Bender effectively challenges the either/or, single direction of social change. This also signifies an understanding of the complexity of social life and the unidirectional disposition of community. If Tonnies himself recognized that there were two ways that humans could interact, then it is tenable that physical and virtual spaces could certainly integrate and overlap. Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft themselves were not places, but rather forms of human interaction, which certainly parallels the physical and virtual sites as locations of social integration (Bender: p33). Durkheim himself supports this convergence with his two societies, mechanical and organic, which he perceives as two aspects of the same reality with distinct patterns of social interaction (Bender). Tonnies and Durkheim=s notions of community spoke to a specific time and a place, moving from agricultural society to industrial society. However, as more recent transitions have developed into to post industrial society, new forms of society, solidarity, and notions of community have also evolved with new communication technology.

What this paper has also accomplished is to bring some understanding and organization to our interpretation of community in the techno-modern age; Ato provide manageable conceptual handles that bring enough order to the chaos of social experience to enable us to grasp the actual structure of society@ (Bender: p25). Bender expresses a definition of a community that accommodates historical change, but will not conceptualize social change to mean the destruction of a community. Within traditional models, virtual communities generally fall short of legitimacy and validity. What is evident within these virtual spaces is that social interaction has changed, evolved and unfolded. However, further questions must be articulated; what are the implications of the synthesis between physical and virtual community? How does this benefit society? How is this useful sociologically?

Evident in discussions of virtual community is the heightened fear of social disintegration. Utopian and dystopian perceptions of the effects of virtual worlds reveals a significant concern for the loss of community, that in some way social relations are failing and communities are crumbling. The increased distress of potential social anomie reflects the growing concern of the loss of shared goals and perceptions. Utopians challenge the alienation as a result of the virtual world and suggest instead that virtual space has reconceptualized and reformed community and social interaction. However, acknowledgment is required of the new spaces of social interaction that are developing and cultivating between and within the world of physical and virtual. Neither exist in exclusivity of one another.

Community is fluid, diverse and ever changing, therefore it is necessary to conceptualize community in an unconventional way. Scherer suggests that when examining communities, it is compelling to not evaluate the community as simple a >thing=; Awe require words that combine a noun and verb to refer to a moving, changing, doing thing in process@ (p2). As illustrated in this paper, the physical and virtual communities continue to change and are in a continual state of restructuring and reorganization. Bernard also distinguishes the difference between >the community=, which is rooted in locale; and >community=, which emphasizes common-ties and social interaction (p4). Research indicates that >the community= and >community= are able to amalgamate. Within the techno-modern world, physical and virtual space, time and distance are unified. ACommunity, then, can be defined better as an experience than as a place. As simply as possible, community is where community happens@ (Bender, p6). It is vital then to conceptualize that the community is >in action=, but what can this mean to society as a whole? What are the ramifications of the interfacing between virtual and physical spaces?

Where is social interaction headed from this apex; what venues are available when considering the cultural impact of CMC on a social life and interaction? What will be lost and /or gained? One context that may be worth considering is the potential for social and political action via CMC. The women=s movement, civil rights movement and gay/lesbian rights movement exemplify activism and implicate social change which are illustrative of challenges to the status quo. Is it comprehensible to consider the use of the Internet as a vehicle for social change and activism? Can the synthesis indicated earlier between physical and virtual communities be utilized for social action? Mele (1999) supports the Internet as a tool for collective action. In this particular example, Mele purports that Acomputer-mediated communication and networking is a useful mechanism for disadvantaged groups in their efforts at collective action and empowerment@ (1999:292). Residents of a housing development utilized the Internet to learn more about the housing authority that was threatening to demolish their houses. Not only was the Internet a useful resource to gain information, but the Internet also enabled members of this physical >community= to contact people via e-mail and gain support. Residents were also able to voice their discontent by creating a Website that revealed their stance on the position of the housing authority. Mele recognizes that the access to the Internet is limited by cultural capital. Who has access to information world? Residents utilized computer facilities available at libraries but were faced by limitations of time, traveling to the library, information storage and so forth. Mele concludes that Athe flexibility of the Internet proved useful in developing a surrogate electronic community and network and breaking down the isolation of Jervay and its residents@ (p305). Mele=s account of the residents at Jervay Araises the question of the potential capacity and limitations of the Internet as a tool for the collective action of small players against institutional power@ (p304). The Internet has the potential to embrace people who are often hard to reach, yet it is critical to realize that Athe technological gap exists along lines of social and economic inequalities of class, race, gender and location@ (p306).

This example offers a clear intersection between physical and virtual community and what can become of it if used for political and social action. However, it is also a valuable lesson in the appropriation of cultural resources. While in this instance, the convergence of virtual and physical spaces proved beneficial, where would the residents of Jervay be if no access to the Internet had been available? This significantly becomes a question of power; who has the power of information, the power of contact information and connection. Ultimately it is the power to move within and between physical worlds that separates the have and have nots. Some call this the Digital Divide (website digitaldivide.gov ) which is characteristic of gender, race and ethnic subversions. The have nots ultimately become further marginalized and subjugated within a cultural ideology.

Another example of this intersection being utilized for activism in cyberspace is Mojab (2000) who which indicates that the Internet is an effective way for people to network. Specifically, Mojab Aargues that cyberspace enhances the ability of individuals to organize in social movements, and create and disseminate knowledge@ (p106). She refers to Kurdish women who are oppressed by the patriarchal constructs of their country. Women do not have the freedom to organize or access knowledge of their own about feminist issues, their own lives both culturally and historically, and the Internet permits this research about Kurdish women. In 1996 a network was established uniting women - both Kurdish and globally - who were interested in helping the dissemination of information for Kurdish women. The network is involved in things such as;

...promoting theories and practices of feminism among the women of Kurdistan and in the diaspora; and promoting

women=s rights and gender equality in Kurdistan; contributing to the production of feminist knowledge on topics such as

women and nationalism, violence, war, ethnicity, global market economy, and state (2000:114).

Mojab=s article reinforces how women are joining together, both physically and virtually, to form communities. Here, the relationship between the physical and virtual world is apparent as the Internet is and actively utilized to engage in advocacy. The notion that women across the world are unifying on-line to form networks to assist Kurdish women is overwhelming and the implications of this type of on-line feminist activism is astounding. Several meetings have been set to meet physically at conferences in Europe in addition to the on-line network. Again this clearly indicates the intersection of physical and virtual and what meeting at the cyber-crossroads can mean in terms of physical and social action. Certainly this intersection between physical and virtual political action is vital to our understanding of community as diverse, fluid and Ain action@. Explicitly, what has been illustrated is how new technology, such as CMC has revolutionized social interactions within community.

However, at the risk of falling into the utopian pit, it is imperative that a critical lens is developed in order to understand the social implications of this technology within society.Conceivably, the implications of enhancing global community for social change and political action through CMC could be an acceptable resources for mobilization. Yet, more questions surface; what effects do globalizing western ideologies - such as patriarchy - have on other non-western countries (I hesitate to use the term third world)? Ironically, Western women are helping Kurdish women from the plight of patriarchy. Yet, western women - of any race, ethnicity, age or sexuality - continue to be encumbered within patriarchy as well. Given that the situation of the Kurdish is more severe, it appears that cyberspace has the potential to become a cultural melting pot. In valiant efforts to achieve new forms of community solidarity by transgressing virtual and physical barriers, there is undeniably the risk of positioning Kurdish women (for example) as in distress and in need of rescue. These are the kinds of questions that need to be presented when critically examining these convergences. Is the digital divide widened further in some instances of physical and virtual convergences?

Challenging this pessimistic perspective on the evolving relationships of social interaction within physical and virtual spaces is obligatory. Bastani (2000) reveals that the relationship between physical and virtual spaces is evident within her research of the Muslim Women=s Network (MWN). Bastani=s observations of the global participants in the network reveal that when geographical locations permit, many members positively interplayed between online and offline social interaction. What she also reveals in her research is that many women in this network seek to challenge and change the existing stereotypes of Muslim women. By speaking to other Muslim women, participants are able to discover commonalities and similarities with other women which is empowering for them. This virtual connection is navigated into the physical world and ultimately strengthens and reinforces this social group. Bastani=s research is pivotal in illustrating the social development of interaction and community through technology and what its effects are.

The power of CMC is evident in the actions of Afghanistan women who are also utilizing cyberspace for social change. Afghanistan women are seeking human rights and equality and this is succinctly illustrated in media coverage;

The Internet has become instrumental in drawing attention to the cause, and an independent political

organization called the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, is using

cyberspace as the key tool in spreading the word. It really was the only tool that enabled us to be in

contact with other people in other countries and we think it is the only tool that can tell people around the world about the suffering of our people, of our women and children and the way that they can help us. (http://www10.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/central/07/13/afghan.women/index.html).

Unquestionably, this personal account symbolizes how useful cyberspace is for physical social change. The use of virtual spaces as a way to strengthen physical spaces for women in particular is evident. Here, technology - CMC - significantly alters the social fabric of a community in a positive and constructive manner. There is no crumbling community here, but rather a strengthening and solitary of women=s social interaction and virtual/physical spaces.

What becomes an issue, however, is who controls the use of technology and the circulation of information. In another media article (Nando Media, 2001), reports surface regarding the banning of the Internet in Afghanistan. Only government officials are able to access the Internet in any fashion. This exemplifies the power that the state has in exercising the access to communication and information; the access to power. Women are now without information, contact or connection, once again left to orchestrate new ways of social action against the Taliban. Technology is undoubtedly a resource for mobilization, but only for a select few in many areas of the world. Therefore while it is has been indubitably illustrated that CMC have transformed the means of social interaction within community. The Internet ban reveal issues of power and privilege that are pervasive in the technological sphere - both physically and virtually.

It is evident with these examples of social and political action that technological innovation – specifically CMC – have encouraged a reassessment of cultural notions of community. The drive for political and social action when physical and virtual spaces intersect and essentially recreate notions of community. The social movements in cyberspace and the acute community solidarity that is revealed truly exemplifies the ideas purported in this paper. For example, these illustrations of social and political action are reflective of Scherer’s comments where she states that communication is the foundation to community. As further clarified by Fernback & Thompson, without social relations there is no action to organize. These examples reflect how communication challenges the notion of a lost community, but in fact work to reestablish it and reformulate social interaction.

As well, what is also evident within these examples of social and political action is power. As discussed, information and access to information and connections is vital in relation to the cyber world. However, we see a ‘slippery slope’ in relation to physicality and virtuality interfacing for social action. Mele, Mojab & Bastini illustrate that the interfacing between physical and virtual spaces can indeed be useful and powerful. The power of the written word in cyberspace can motivate social change. However, what it is also evident is that this same power can be used by others or taken away. This is revealed when the Taliban ban the Internet in their country when clearly individuals are using cyberspace for political activism. This action does reflect the limitations of social interaction in virtual spaces and is an indication of boundaries of virtual spaces. However, shutting down Internet use in Afghanistan is much like the shutting down or terrorizing of physical communities. What becomes interesting is the need for the Taliban to restrict Internet usage. It appears that this could legitimate the Internet as a communicative tool used to establish community both in physical and virtual spaces. The benefits of cyberspace are obvious. As indicated by McLulan earlier – social activism is an example of the boundary free global village that brings people together into cohesive groups which is why shutting down the Internet in Afghanistan is so important to the Taliban. Cyber-physical community is a threat because of its cohesiveness

The examples of cyber-activism are an intimation that the changing community that Durkheim, Weber and Tonnies were so concerned about in their analysis is not necessarily a negative phenomena. While CMC has clearly taken social interaction to a new level, one that makes contact much easier and quicker and one that integrates face-to-face interaction, it is demonstrated that social bonds (not only interaction) unify members of the Virtual Community. Conceivably, the Gemeinschaft that Tonnies talked about is initiated in the Muslim Women’s Network. Therefore while the community has changed and evolved, there is an innate social relationship that is bringing people together online and offline. Changes in the community - how they look and act - do not have to be a negative events. How could the examples of social activism in cyber/physical spaces be rendered negative? Here is the ‘social glue’ that Rheingold talks about - what binds people into a community.

Early in the paper, the question “what form would community take if the town no longer provided the primary context for community?” (p19) was postulated. Comprehensibly the Mele, Mojab and Bastani’s examples of cyber-activism situate and contextualize the virtual community. It is possible for people to exist in multiple realities and function lucidly within them. While it is indicated that cyberspace has a ‘dual-edged sword’ with plainly utopian and dystopian sides, it is undeniable how useful the transformation of social interaction within relationships of community can be – and is for social change and political activism.

References

Anderson, B. & Tracey, K. (2001). “Digital Living: The Impact (or otherwise) of the Internet on Everyday Life” in The Internet in Everyday Life (eds) Barry Wellman. Forthcoming Publication.

Balka, Ellen (1997) Computer Networking: Spinsters on the Web. Ottawa: CRIAW Publications.

Bastani, Susan (2000) "Muslim Women On‑Line" in Arab World Geographer 3 (1), 2000: 40‑59.

Bell, C, Newby, H. (1971) Community Studies: An Introduction to the
Sociology of the Local Community. London: George Allen and Unwin ltd.

Bender, Thomas (1978) Community and Social Change in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Beniger, J. 1987. Personalization of mass media and the growth of pseudo‑community. Communication Research, 14: 352‑371.

Bernard, Jessie (1973) The Sociology of Community. Glenview: Scott, Foresman & Company.

CNN (2001) “Afghan women unite in cyberspace against Taliban repression” available at

http://www10.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/central/07/13/afghan.women/index.html).

Fallon, Helen (1998) WOW - Women on the Web: A guide to Gender Related Resources on the Internet. Second Edition. Dublin: Women’s Education Research and Resource Centre University College.

Etzioni, (1997) Adaptive Web Sites: an AI challenge. http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/etzioni/papers/ijcai97.pdf

Fernback J., Thompson, B. (1995) Virtual Communities: Abort, Retry, Failure?

Http://www.well.com/user/hlr/texts/VCcivil.html

Hampton & Wellman (2000)"Examining Community in the Digital Neighbourhood: Early Results from Canada's Wired Suburb" By Keith Hampton with Barry Wellman. in Digital Cities: Technologies, Experiences, and Future Perspectives, (ed) by Toru Ishida and Katherine Isbister. Berlin: Springer‑Verlag, pp 475‑92.

Hillery, G. (1955) “Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement” in Rural Sociology 20, pp 1111-122.

Hornsby, A. (1998) “Surfing the Net for Community: A Durkheimian Analysis of Electronic Gatherings” in Illuminating Social Life: Classical and Contemporary Theory Revisited (ed) Peter Kivisto. London: Pine Forge Press, pp 63-106.

Howard P., Rainie, L. & Jones, S. (2001) “Days and Nights on the Internet: The Impact of a Diffusing Technology” in The Internet in Everyday Life (eds) Barry Wellman. Forthcoming Publication.

Jones, Steven G. (1995) “Understanding Community in the Information Age” in CyberSociety: Computer - Mediated Communication and Community (eds) Steven G. Jones. Sage: Thousand Island, pp 10-35.

Kavanaugh, A. & Patterson, S. (2001).”The Impact of Community Computer Networks on Social Capital and Community Involvement” in The Internet in Everyday Life (eds) Barry Wellman. Forthcoming Publication.

Kazmer & Haythornthwaite (2000). in The Internet in Everyday Life (eds) Barry Wellman. Forthcoming Publication.

Kollock, P., Smith, M. (1999) “Communities in Cyberspace” in Communities in Cyberspace (eds) Peter Kollock & Marc A. Smith. London: Routledge, pp 3-25.

Lyon, Larry (1999) The Community in Urban Society. Illinois: Waveland Press.

Matei, S. & Ball-Rokeach, S. (2001)” Real and Virtual Social Ties: Connections in the Everyday Lives of Seven Ethnic Neighborhoods” in The Internet in Everyday Life (eds) Barry Wellman. Forthcoming Publication.

McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. New York: Penguin.

Mele, Christopher (1999) “Cyberspace and disadvantaged communities: the Internet as a tool for collective action” in Communities in Cyberspace (eds) Peter Kollock & Marc A. Smith. London: Routledge, pp 290-310.

Mojab, S. (2000). “The Feminist Project in Cyberspace and Civil Society” in Convergence, Volume XXXIII, Numbers 1-2, pp 106-119.

The Nando Times (2001) “Technology: Internet banned in Afghanistan” available at

http://www.nando.com/technology/story/67756p‑962641c.html

Nie, N.H. & and Erbring, L. (2000). Internet and society: A preliminary report. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for the Quantitative Study of Study.

Nie, N. (2001). “Sociability, Interpersonal Relations, and the Internet: Reconciling Conflicting Findings” in The Internet in Everyday Life (eds) Barry Wellman. Forthcoming Publication.

Parsons, T. (1951) The Social System. England: RKP.

Poplin, Dennis E. ( 1972) Communities: A Survey of Theories and Methods of
Research. New York: Macmillan.

Putnam, Robert D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Reingold, Howard. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier.

Rheingold, Howard (1998). “The Heart of the Well” in Composing Cyberspace: Identity, community and Knowledge in the Electronic Age. Ed Richard Holeton.Toronto: McGraw Hill, pp 151-163.

Ritzer, G. (1992) Metatheorizing. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Scherer, Jacqueline (1972) Contemporary Community: Sociological Illusion or
Reality? Tavis Stock: London.

Spender, D. (1995). Nattering on the Net: Women, Power and Cyberspace.

Toronto:Garmond Press.

Tonnies, F. (1963) Community and Society. New York: Harper.

Turkle, Sherry (1995). Life on The Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Shuster.

Turkle, Sherry. (1997, March‑April). Seeing through computers: Education in a culture of simulation. The American Prospect, 31, 76‑82. [Online]. Available at http://epn.org/prospect/31/31turkf.html [1999, Oct. 10].

Wellman, Barry (1979) "The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yorkers" American Journal of Sociology 84, March, 1979: 1201‑31.

Wellman, Barry (1997). "An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network" in Culture of the Internet, (ed) by Sara Kiesler. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 179‑205.

Wellman, Barry (1998)."Work, Friendship and Media Use for Information Exchange in a Networked Organization" (with Caroline Haythornthwaite). Journal of the American Society for Information Science 49, 12, October, 1101‑14.

Wellman, B., Guila, M. (1999) “Virtual Communities as Communties: Net surfers don’t ride alone” in Communities in Cyberspace (eds) Peter Kollock & Marc A. Smith. London: Routledge, pp 167-194.

Wellman, Barry (1999) "Living Networked in a Wired World" IEEE Intelligent Systems 14 (1), Jan‑Feb, 1999: 15‑17.

Wellman, Barry (2001). “Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalized Networking” to appear in The International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 - Networks, Class and Place, (eds) Talja Blokland and Mike Savage.

Wilson, Michele. (1997) “Community in the Abstract: A Political and Ethical Dilemma” in Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace (eds) David Holmes. Sage: London, pp 145-162.

---

^[1]This term was first used by Barry Wellman, 1979.