Visions of Community AVERWEG, LEANING

Research Report Visions of Community: Community and the Contested Nature of a Polysemic Term for a Progressive Discipline

Udo R. Averweg Abstract1 [email protected] Community Informatics (CI) is an academic ªeld of study that seeks to examine Information Technology Project how information and technologies (ICT) such as Web 2.0 so- Manager eThekwini Municipality and cial media and mobile technologies can be deployed for the beneªt of com- University of KwaZulu-Natal munities. Community is, however, a problematic and polysemic term, meaning 8th Floor Rennie House different things to different people, and it has inherently political overtones. P.O. Box 828 This article aims to bring to the of practitioners in the ªeld of CI the Durban, 4000 contested nature of the term community, and to examine the historical origin South Africa of the term and the multiple ways in which it has been and can be used. In 00 27 31 311-4935 exploring this term, we make use of more literary, historical, and sociological approaches. Such approaches can offer new insights on the topic for audi- Marcus A. Leaning ences from more technical academic disciplines. With such discussion to assist [email protected]. practitioners of CI of the problematic ways in which community has been and uk can be used, we offer the following recommendations: (1) Use of the term Senior Lecturer and Programme Leader for Media community remains largely unproblematized, and we ought to be more - Studies ful of its history; (2) community should be recognized as a locally contingent University of Winchester position; (3) as a term of reference, its use should be carefully considered Sparkford Road within speciªc contexts; (4) a fuller exploration of the term in the CI discipline Winchester, HANTS is needed; and (5) practitioners in the ªeld of CI will require greater reºection SO22 4NR on the term community when addressing ICT practice issues. We hope that UK these recommendations may lead to more reºexive practice in the progressive 44 (0)1962 826470 discipline of CI.

1. Introduction Community Informatics (CI) offers a coherent, persuasive, useful, and interesting model for understanding, analyzing, and facilitating the use of ICT for particular purposes. While it is primarily a practitioner ªeld, atten- tion has been paid to how particular terms of reference are conceptual- ized, with some explored in depth (Goodwin, 2008). However, the core concept of community presents a range of problems. While concepts such as ICT may be regarded as “ªxed” (and to a degree, easily deªnable), community is a more problematic term. How community is understood and conceptualized in CI is of key interest, since, in many other disci- plines, community has been a widely disputed and contested area. The study of community has a long history with an accompanying

1. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 3rd International IDIA Development Informatics Conference, Berg-en-Dal, Kruger National Park, South Africa, October 23–30, 2009.

© 2011 USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism. Published under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. All rights not granted thereunder to the public are reserved to the publisher and may not be exercised without its express written permission. Volume 7, Number 2, Summer 2011, 17–30 17 VISIONS OF COMMUNITY body of literature. Community is possibly one of the with one drawn from a more analytic tradition most used and polysemic terms in popular dis- (wherein there is a greater claim to objectivity from course. Indeed, as Miller, Coleman, Connolly et al. the interests of the subject/s of study). With this sec- (1991, p. 8) note, community has a “high level of ond approach, we explore the ways in which com- use but a low level of meaning.” Inherently nebu- munity has been understood in certain social lous, community is nevertheless one of the key theories and political narratives, and we make use means by which we experience and understand the of a more qualitative literary, historical, and socio- social world. It is a category through which we can logical approach than is usually deployed within interpret events, discerning their meaningfulness to information studies or disciplines. us by their effect upon our community. In short, It is hoped that the ideas raised here may offer new community is a tool, a means by which we can avenues of interest to more positivist and quantita- understand and “live” in the world. However, tive researchers in the progressive CI discipline. despite its importance, community remains a term We commence with a brief discussion of CI and that has suffered widespread misuse—or at least a its history, and speciªcally of its construction as an laxness in speciªcity of use. academic and practitioner ªeld concerning the The term community, like numerous other con- deployment of ICT for the beneªt of communities. cepts taken from commonsense usage, has been We then move to a critical examination of the term used with an abandon reminiscent of poetic license community, looking at its historical origin and a (Wirth, 1964). Community is polysemic; it signiªes number of key interpretations and readings that different things in different contexts and means dif- have been made of the term. We conclude with a ferent things to different people at different times number of cautionary recommendations concerning (Crow & Allan, 1994, pp. 3–7). It is a “contested the use of the term community. concept” (Tovey, 2009), used descriptively to depict, portray, or illustrate a particular set of relations, but 2. Community Informatics also normatively to describe how a set of relations 2.1 The Construction of the Academic should be, or, as will be noted below, to align a and Practitioner Field of Community political or economic project with a positive moral Informatics (CI) value. While, as Williams (1976) notes, it is nearly CI is generally understood as an academic discipline always a positive idea, something to be preserved or or ªeld of study concerned with the application of sought, it has been found in some rather shady lin- ICT for community beneªt. We identify ICT in a guistic company, and it has been used to support broad sense to include the technical infrastructure of very unprogressive and dangerous ideas. Indeed, network communication—the hardware and soft- community has been used by, and has served as a ware that make communication possible, the multi- rallying point for, projects from all parts of the politi- plicity of software applications, and the systems of cal spectrum. Community has been deployed by social appropriation of software for localized use— both overtly progressive and deeply conservative for example, the instances in which Web 2.0 social political missions, and it has been used to bolster media and mobile applications have been used, the interests of a wide variety of factions, political adapted, and woven into complex and often pre- parties, and pressure groups. existing social networks of political activism. Regard- This article is concerned with bringing to the ing ICT in this manner allows us to see it not only as attention of academics and practitioners in the ªeld a “neutral” system with solely technical properties, of CI some of the different and contested ways in but as a value-laden component of human commu- which community has been understood. Our inten- nication. As such, CI is distinguishable in its use of tion is to encourage a more measured understand- ICT from those academic and practitioner ªelds ing of the term, and to recognize the multiple ways where the focus is on the use of ICT for primarily in which it has been and can be used. In exploring commercial and enterprise success (Stillman & Lin- this term, we contrast a model of understanding of ger, 2009). community used in a number of “progressive disci- While CI is a fairly recent or “emergent” aca- plines” (academic ªelds of study that seek to demic ªeld of inquiry (Goodwin, 2007; Stillman & address social problems and improve conditions)

18 Information Technologies & International Development AVERWEG, LEANING

Linger, 2009), it has a longer history as a ªeld of existing geographical communities—ICTs not only practice. There is some contention as to its origins: offer forms of connection between previously Day (2005, 2006) notes that computers have been unknown people, but they may also facilitate social used to facilitate community activists since at least practices in existing communities that are in physical the early 1980s. Williams and Durrance (2009) proximity (Loader, Hague, & Eagle, 2000). CI exam- argue that certain practical aspects of CI can be ines how communities can use ICT for their own traced back further, at least in the United States, to ends. Second, CI advocates a community-oriented two precursors: various projects in public libraries in approach to the design implementation and use of the 1970s, and the actions of ICT. CI prioritizes the “social requirements” of ICT activists. The early instances of the “civil” appropria- use in communities—the training, social, and cul- tion of ICT through libraries have been documented tural capital aspects of ICT. It acknowledges a bias several times (Childers, 1984; Durrance, 1984; reºected in valuing “public goods” and the poten- Kochen & Donohue, 1976). Similarly, social informa- tial for human growth and development (Bieber, tics also has a considerable body of publications Civille, Gurstein et al., 2002). De Moor (2006) con- (Kling, 2000; Kling, Rosenbaum, & Sawyer, 2005; tends that CI “concerns (among many other things) Sawyer & Rosenbaum, 2000). However, Loader and the building of the sociotechnical infrastructure (in Keeble (2004) see a slightly different origin for CI, terms of enabling technologies as well as organiza- identifying community networking initiatives in the tions) which is a necessary condition for communi- United States and Scandinavian tele-house experi- ties to thrive.” Third, CI has an overt political stance ments as ancestors. It is probably the case that and a desire to understand social change in relation many activities, projects, and initiatives were occur- to ICT. CI undoubtedly has an inherent progressive ring at around the same time, and that they have slant, and ICT is considered a tool that can be fed into the broad initiative of practice-based CI. deployed for social beneªt (Loader, Hague, & Eagle, CI as an academic ªeld of inquiry has drawn 2000). This distinguishes CI from the parallel disci- heavily on these practitioner traditions, but it has pline of business or management informatics, in also developed an academic focus. Goodwin (2007) which the prime goal is the furtherance of proªt proposes that CI has been deªned and articulated in and of the economic success of the organization a number of key texts. These texts have appeared as (Gurstein, 2000b). In CI, the intention is to deploy chapters in edited collections (Day, 2004; Gurstein, ICT for the beneªt of speciªc communities. CI rec- 2000a, 2000b, 2001, 2008; Keeble & Loader 2001; ognizes that the application of ICT in a social or Loader, Hague, & Eagle, 2000; Taylor, 2004), as jour- community sense is different from that which occurs nal articles (Erwin & Taylor, 2004, 2006; Gurstein, in a bureaucratic state or commercial organizational 2003, 2004), a white paper (Bieber, Civille, Gurstein setting (Erwin & Taylor, 2004). As Cooley (2008) et al., 2002), and books (Gurstein, 2008; Loader & notes, technology is viewed as a tool to be Keeble, 2004; Schuler, 1996). A specialized designed, used, and shaped by humans, for human journal—the Journal of Community Informatics— purposes. Within a CI framework, such purposes are was launched in 2004, and a dedicated and active envisaged in a beneªcent, progressive manner to mailing list exists. further generally humanitarian and speciªcally com- A review of the above texts indicates a general munity-oriented intents. Related to this one particu- agreement that CI is the study and practice of the larly strong theme in CI is the use of ICT to use of ICT for community beneªt. In the ªrst issue empower communities that have been marginalized of the Journal of Community Informatics, Gurstein or disenfranchised (Goodwin, 2007) within larger (2004) deªnes CI as a development in the academic social frameworks (Taylor, 2004). Fourth, CI incorpo- world for “enabling communities with Information rates a critical reading of contemporary social life and Technologies.” Beyond this, CI and positions itself as an oppositional discourse to is seen to offer a multi-disciplinary research platform the more harmful aspects of globalization (Castells, for the study of the use of ICT in community devel- 1996). CI draws on a critical interpretation of social opment (Loader & Keeble, 2004). Goodwin (2007) change, development, and transformation. From this contends that CI has four distinct foci: First, CI perspective, globalization has had a negative impact incorporates a recognition that ICTs impact pre- on many social formations, as traditional structures

Volume 7, Number 2, Summer 2011 19 VISIONS OF COMMUNITY have been damaged, existing social practices have taged groups, and we are both active members of been transformed, and communities have been the CI academic network. Instead, our intention is “hollowed out” by new economic forces (Gurstein, to assist in the development of a more critical and 2001). CI advocates a re-empowerment of these self-reºective approach by CI practitioners and communities that makes use of or appropriates ICT, researchers relating to the ways in which community a key component of the very phenomena that have can be understood. endangered and damaged the communities in question. 3. Community: An Evolving and 2.2 Deªnition of Community in CI Evasive Concept As noted above, CI has an explicit focus on the use 3.1 The Study of Community of ICT by geographically based communities Community has long been a topic of mainstream (Gurstein, 2000b, 2004; Keeble & Loader, 2001; political interest, and there has been a large amount Loader, Hague, & Eagle, 2000; Loader & Keeble, of popular comment on the issue. Furthermore, the 2004; Schackman, 2010; Taylor, 2004). In line with study of community has a long history, and it has the general ambiguity surrounding the term and been a major topic for many academic disciplines— similar to texts from other academic disciplines, indeed, there is a veritable cottage industry in pro- community is often deªned in a limited manner in ducing books, articles, and conference papers on CI texts. Indeed, the problem of arriving at an issues of community. In brief, it is a ªeld with con- agreed meaning of the term within CI is an siderable history and a signiªcant body of publica- accepted research problem in the discipline (de tions. Moor, 2009; Loader, Hague, & Eagle, 2000; As with other terms and concepts, interest in Schackman, 2010). However, many case studies and community is by no means constant, and there are CI initiatives explicitly identify geographically based discernable periods in which interest is high. Cur- communities as the subject of their study. For exam- rently, community is undoubtedly a key political ple, articles in the Journal of Community Informatics value, and the term is widely used in a range of have focused on communities in Ontario, Canada popular and academic debates. While we could not (Budka, Bell, & Fiser, 2009); rural Australia (Eley & possibly begin to do justice to the wide variety of Hossain, 2010); and Abraka, Nigeria (Adomi, 2007). perspectives used to study community (or those that Goodwin (2008) notes that this focus on geo- have made use of the concept in the study of other graphic locality distinguishes CI from accounts that areas), we can discern a broad schema in how the examine how ICTs weaken the importance of place term is understood. Little (2002) argues that much in community. Instead, CI considers how ICT can be current interest stems from a debate between liber- used to support “territorial” communities (Goodwin, als and communitarians following the emergence of 2008) and integrate online communication with Rawls’ (1999) theory of justice. Crudely put, this local community needs (Loader, Hague, & Eagle, debate concerned the way in which communitarians 2000). However, this focus on the process of facilita- such as Etzioni (1995, 1997) rejected the Rawlsian tion of community interests through ICT does mask abstracted, individualized, or atomized concept of a need within CI to better understand the nature of the self (Sandel, 1998), and instead, argued for an “local community” (Goodwin, 2008), and even the account wherein “human association” is privileged category of community. As Tambini (1999) and as the focus of understanding. It is important to Goodwin (2008) note, there is an inclination in CI to note, however, that Rawls’ notion was distinct from consider communities in a singularly positive light, the neoliberalism of Friedman (1962) and Nozick as well as to overlook some of the problems of com- (1974). While initially losing out to neoliberal mod- munities, including their internal power struggles els, the Rawlsian concept eventually achieved wide- and other problematic areas. spread acceptance. It has become signiªcantly As with Goodwin (2008), it is not our intention inºuential in many spheres, and it is widely used in to undermine the actions or rationale of CI. Further- parliamentary political discourse in both the United more, the authors ªrmly concur with the progressive States and the United Kingdom. However, in recent intentions of CI and its championing of disadvan- years, we have arguably been witnessing a resur-

20 Information Technologies & International Development AVERWEG, LEANING gence in the more communitarian-oriented of how a sociologically critical approach can be approach. deployed in the study of the idea of community. Emerging from this debate was a renewed inter- 3.2 Derivation of the Term Community est in community and the way in which it is under- The term community arrived in its current use, via stood in political debate. One popular approach, Old French and Middle English, from the Latin words advocated by authors such as Willmott (1989), Lee communitas, meaning fellowship, and communis, and Newby (1983), Crow (1997), and Crow and meaning common, public, or shared (Harper, 2001). Allan (1994, 1995), recognizes three distinct inter- It is no linguistic accident that “community” and pretations of community: “communication” share the Latin root communis • Community is conceptualized as a “locality.” (Webber, 1964). In the most reportive (how it is Here the “commonality” or the essence of used) and prescriptive (the ordinarily used interpreta- community between people is the physical tion that appears in dictionaries and normal par- space in which they reside. This approach to lance) senses, communities are simply the study of community has examined a num- conglomerations of people with common interests ber of topics such as the impact of architecture who communicate with each other. However, it is and geography upon community; when community is contrasted with other, similar- • Community among people emerges from a meaning terms that the nuances of its meaning shared interest or experience. This category become apparent. provides a means by which many forms of as- 3.3 Community, State, and Society sociation that emerge from a shared set of Community’s reªnement as a term with political practices or interests may be conceptualized as importance arises not simply because of its mean- a community. As is noted below, this has ing, but also because of its use in opposition to proven to be a particularly useful tool for ex- other forms of association. As noted by Williams amining the way in which ICT has facilitated (1976), community is always a positive form of asso- communities. ciation, and it is categorically different from other • Community is used to understand the feeling forms of collectivity, such as society or association. of commonality that occurs among people This distinction of community from other terms may around certain topics, beliefs, or spiritual val- be argued to be an inheritance from the emerging ues. Thus, we can talk of a feeling of commu- philosophic and social scientiªc discourse of the nity, or of a link among people in a heightened (especially German) Enlightenment and “Modern” spiritual or emotional state, such as experienc- weltanschauung (worldview) during the late 18th ing a religious event or being part of a crowd and early 19th centuries in Europe. The German phi- at an exciting football match or music concert. losopher George Hegel’s differentiation of Staat This tripartite approach has become useful as an (state) and Gesellschaft (society) fundamentally analytic device for examining social problems, as it is inºuenced much European, and particularly embry- often deployed in the academic disciplines devel- onic social scientiªc thought of the 19th and early oped to understand and address such problems. 20th centuries (Schulte-Tenckhoff, 2001). Moreover, Thus, the approach and its derivations feature in it draws on a Romantic strand of Enlightenment many texts on community studies, criminology, and thought in which the “primordial nature of the social administration (Hoggett, 1997). communal bond was the widely held premise” In this text, we adopt a slightly different perspec- (Schulte-Tenckhoff, 2001). Society was regarded as a tive, critically examining a limited number of somewhat “artiªcial” form of association; it did not instances in which the term community has been capture the true “essence” of “natural” human used within differing discursive political frameworks. association. As will be indicated below, this interpre- In doing so, we make reference to the study of tation was quite distinct from the British Utilitarian community from within a broadly sociological tradi- models of political economy popularized by the tion, both in terms of how it has been understood political philosophers toward the middle of the 19th historically by sociologists and political theorists, and century, such as Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, as well as from the late 18th-century

Volume 7, Number 2, Summer 2011 21 VISIONS OF COMMUNITY

Rousseauian and French revolutionary-inspired idea because they have a particular set of interests; of “contract” political models. rather, their interests are determined by their mem- bership of a community. The community determines 3.4 Bonds their interests, but membership of the community is Perhaps the most inºuential early thinker on the determined by something far more essential—per- topic was Ferdinand Tönnies. Tönnies’ most haps location, family, kinship, or status. signiªcant work on this area, Gemeinschaft und This is an extremely inºuential idea, and it is cen- Gesellschaft (Community and Society, published in tral in the work of many social thinkers of the 19th 1887), continues Hegel’s concept of distinguishing and early 20th centuries (Giddens, 1971). Cohen among forms of association (Freund, 1979). Tönnies (1985) argues that this idealized interpretation of worked from the contention that people can have community has lead to, has inºuenced, and contin- two “types” of “will” or thought: the Wesenwille, ues to inºuence numerous political ideologies and the natural or essential will, which is an instinctive, philosophies. The intention to recover the lost, pre- organic, or spontaneous type of thought—the kind modern community—the “ªctionalized memories of of thoughts and ideas that occur without intention, a golden past” (Mayo, 2000, p. 39)—underpins the idea of free-ºowing consciousness; and the many of the dominant ideologies of the 20th cen- Kürwille—the reasoned or arbitrary will—those tury. Conservatism, nationalism, and socialism all call ideas and thoughts that are instrumental, delibera- on both this sense of loss and the desire to recover tive, purposive, and goal-oriented. a deeper sense of association (Delanty, 2002). Tönnies considered the associations based upon Indeed, the recovery of community against a “face- essential “will,” Gemeinschaft (or community), as less” society has become so normal that it is a virtu- more valuable than those based upon arbitrary ally unchallenged “good” that no political party “will” Gesellschaft (or society). Behavior and associ- could seriously contest. It is deployed to “soften” or ations that occur without planning or having an end add a positive aura to numerous terms that, without are valued more highly than those that are the addition of community, would be far less the result of speciªc rational intention. Thus, com- “attractive” (Day, 2006, p. 14). It is widely used in munity meets the requirements of “real and organic anti-systemic movements (Heelas, 1996) as well as life,” while society serves “artiªcial and mechanical mainstream ones, and it is a potent rallying point. representation” (Tönnies, 1955, p. 54). Gemein- This interpretation of community has been the 20th schaft (community) should be understood as a living century’s most potent challenge to modern society organism, while Gesellschaft (society) should be (Delanty, 2002). However, the romanticism and understood as a mechanical aggregate and artifact. romanticization of community are not trouble-free. Thus, preference is established for a more natural The concept often becomes tied to not only inward- interpretation of forms of association: the more facing and deeply conservative positions, but as unthinking, emotional, and deep the links or bonds Rocher (1968, p. 58) notes, this model of commu- among individuals in an association, the more valid nity leads eventually to a fascist, racist worldview, that association. Conceptions of association that are and it perhaps legitimated or contributed to the rise built on overtly rational, end-orientated, and instru- of nationalism and Nazism in Germany. mental intentions, such as society, are regarded in The use of the distinction between the desired some way as not as genuine. Therefore, those asso- Gemeinschaft (community) and the undesired ciations that emerge from rational, purposive, or Gesellschaft (society) is found in political movements instrumental “will”—the Kürwille, are intrinsically in many parts of the world. For example, Marx less valuable than those that emerge from the emo- (2002) notes the resonance of this “lost” commu- tive “will”—the Wesenwille. nity conception with ubuntu as a political narrative In the model of community derived from this in the post-Reconciliation and Truth Commission era approach, membership in the community is not an in South Africa. However, we must be wary, as actively sought pursuit; membership is derived from Spivak (1990) warns, of simply viewing all cultural being born into, raised as a member of, or achieving behavior through a Eurocentric critical theoretical a particular status in a community. Members of a framework; thus, it is important to remember that community in this interpretation are not members this understanding of community emerged during,

22 Information Technologies & International Development AVERWEG, LEANING and reºects certain political fears of early to middle dence is a major characteristic of our great modern modernity. communities.” While MacIver’s (1970/1917) concep- tion of community predates more recent political 3.5 Communities of Interest ideas of community found in much center-left dis- A second strand of thought on the idea of commu- course, it certainly contributes to the current model nity can also be detected. Here, the emphasis, while in which community and the attendant model of cit- still very idealistic, contends that community should izenship is understood to be something that confers be, or is, based around the interests of members. both rights and responsibilities on its members (see, This tradition stems from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s for example, Etzioni, 1995, 1997). question of how best to achieve and safeguard per- sonal interests, our “particular will”—the volonté 3.6 Postmodern Communities particuliére. Writing in the politically turbulent sec- Both of the above-noted models have their roots in ond half of the 18th century, Rousseau proposed the period of early Modernity and the attempts to that our best strategy lay in aligning ourselves with understand the changes that were taking place in common interests or sublimating our volonté those societies. The philosophical works, as well as particuliére to the “general will”—the volonté the classical sociological theories developed from générale (Rousseau, 1968). Only in society can we them, that sought to understand the changes taking be free; to enter society, then, is to enter a social place at the time, played a considerable part in nar- contract. Perhaps the best-known exponent of this rating the events and actually structuring how we idea is Robert MacIver, in his 1917 text, Community: understand the modern world. The social theory of A Sociological Study Being an Attempt to Set Out the age of Modernity was concerned with explain- the Fundamental Laws of Social Life (MacIver, 1970/ ing that period of time and the gradual transitions 1917). MacIver argues that community should stem taking place. Postmodernity; its attendant cultural from the “communality of interests” that commu- aesthetic, postmodernism; and interpretation in the- nity offers, that our interests are best served by ory have also made use of the idea of community. being in a group, an extension of the Rousseauian However, this interpretation is decidedly different idea. MacIver challenges the Tönniesian contention from earlier sociological notions. In this interpreta- that communities cannot (and should not) be cre- tion, community is stripped of its link to a lost or ated by “will” or common interest. Communities primordial past. Instead, postmodern communities can come into being though the recognition of are organized around three key features, which we shared interests and “common will.” However, this now discuss. First, there are the twin problems of will must be of a certain type—it must be a will to identity and negotiating “difference.” Negotiating bind people together; a will must be for the “com- difference refers to the recognition that living in cos- mon good” (though how this is determined is a mopolitan environments throws innumerable cul- more tricky question). MacIver and Page (1961/ tural groups together, and that, with a few 1937, p. 8) note that we “may live in a metropolis exceptions, such groups must live together and yet be members of a very small community (Bauman, 2001). Our traditional categories of social because our interests are circumscribed within a nar- demarcation, such as race, class, gender, religion, row area.” sexual orientation, nationality, culture, or other Moreover, it is important to distinguish this from “markers,” are often not as clear-cut as we once the simple idea that community is just a collection thought them to be. New categories, new of people with like interests. In MacIver’s model, inºections, and new fracture points must continually community is more than aggregated interests; draw- be dealt with in postmodern times. While primordial ing heavily from the Functionalist ethos that pre- certainties and pasts are attempted on occasion by dominated in American sociology of the period, political activists and certain new social movements community becomes a social entity in its own right. (Heelas, 1996), the lived experience of most people Community becomes the vehicle though which cannot be understood in this way; they simply have interests are not only expressed, but made possible. to get on with living, negotiating, and coping with MacIver and Page (1961/1937) contend that eco- difference in ways that could not have been imag- nomic and “increasingly...political interdepen- ined in “modern” times. Identity, here, is no longer

Volume 7, Number 2, Summer 2011 23 VISIONS OF COMMUNITY the certainty it used to be; it is in “ºux” (Lyon, temporary networks and groupings, referred to as 2001). Giddens (2002, pp. 32–33) describes how tribes or “emotional communities.” Such communi- the processes of modernity, particularly the greater ties are temporary and have no long-term focus. reºexivity or constant emphasis on the “self” as a Rather, they are built on the consumption and mani- project, bear on the individual to such a degree that festation of lifestyle choices, images, and fashions. individuals are no longer grounded in the virtually While they have been predominantly metropolitan unchanging systems of tradition. Giddens notes that phenomena, such temporary communities are versa- identity becomes an activity itself, a quest to ªnd tile and ºexible. They seek not to constrain mem- who we “really” are—“the self becomes a reºexive bers, but to offer a sense of belonging, however project” (ibid.). As categories collapse, it becomes ºeeting. For authors such as Jean-Luc Nancy, the harder and harder to maintain the certainties of the postmodern communities also offer a shelter from “ªxed” traditional national, gender, class, or racial the decline of society and forms of mass collectivity, identities of previous periods. Moreover, this chal- as well as from the rise of individualization (Nancy, lenge to the centered subject, the core of modern 1991). Furthermore, many advances in ICT are as a thinking, also damages the modernist trend of indi- result of postmodernism (Wells, 1996). vidualization, the gradual demarcation of the self from society. Second, with such challenges to the 4. Information and Communication certainties (if there ever were any) of the modern Technologies (ICT) and world, postmodernity must also be understood in Communities terms of the ºuidity of signs, images, and markers. Signs lose their ªxity; they become unmoored and Numerous instances of the application of this are used in new, dynamic ways. The process by postmodern theorization of community to online which signs acquire meaning, semiosis, is greatly communication by individuals using a variety of accelerated, and signs now shift in a complex web Web-based social media exist. In the early years of of borrowing, montage, and ironic play. In this Internet research, much emphasis was placed on the postmodern world, “image” can no longer be con- creation of long-term “virtual communities” (Baym, trasted with “reality”; image is reality. Third is the 1998; Dawson, 2004; Feenberg & Bakardjieva, development of ICT and the emergence of what has 2004). More recently, this term has fallen into been termed the “mode of information” (Poster, decline, but research into the use of a variety of 1990). Here, it is argued that the underlying eco- Web 2.0 applications to facilitate, enable, and create nomic mode has shifted toward one in which infor- communities has grown signiªcantly (Burgess, mation becomes the primary commodity, and its Green, Jenkins et al., 2009; Rice, 2009; Rettberg, production, manipulation, and usage becomes the 2008). However, while it has been widely pointed focus of labor. Such a transformation in particular out that online communication is simply one further economies contributes to increased “time-space modality of communication (Leaning, 2009; Slevin, compression” (Harvey, 1989) or “time-space 2000), all current communities that exist beyond distanciation” (Giddens, 1990, 2002). Authors such face-to-face contact and use media to communicate as Castells (1996) and van Dijk (2006) note the are, to some degree, imagined or virtual (Feenberg emergence of the term “the network society,” & Bakardjieva, 2004). It is not the intention here to wherein the multiplicity of electronic systems of demarcate between pre-existing communities that communication affords new means of association now use ICT (such as Web 2.0 social media and across previously unsurpassable physical and tempo- mobile technologies) and communities that have ral boundaries. Against this backdrop, a number of come into being through ICT, or to pass judgment authors have argued that we are witnessing the on the validity of using the term community. Rather, rebirth of community. However, this community our intention is to highlight the different ways in does not make use of the ideas of either the “non- which community has been understood. society” or “community of interests” models. While ICT makes various types of communities Rather, postmodern communities tend to be anti- possible, understanding of the community category essentialist, ºuid, open-ended entities. Maffesoli remains ºuid. It is important to recognize, however, (1996) argues that, in postmodern times, we live in that community is often deployed in a political man-

24 Information Technologies & International Development AVERWEG, LEANING ner to justify actions. Moreover, considering the his- • As a term of reference, its use should be care- tory of the term, use of the term must be fully considered within speciªc contexts so its recognized as being political. Activities such as the differing historic interpretations may be re- deployment of ICT resources, gaining access to ICT garded as important in its use within the disci- equipment, and gaining access to training for and pline of CI. Local context and political history maintenance of ICT infrastructure are all deeply play a signiªcant part in determining what political issues (Selwyn, 2004). Asserting that a com- community is and is not. CI projects must be munity will beneªt is a way of associating moral aware of such political activity, and of the privi- beneªts with such actions and thus increasing the leging of certain positions. likelihood of their continuation in times of budget • A fuller exploration of the term in the CI disci- restriction. In such instances, community seems to pline is needed. In arguing for this, we hope to be used in a manner that is unmindful of its history engender a critical engagement and reºexive and blind to the connotations of the term and its approach to the practice and multidisciplinary consequences. ªeld of academic study of CI. 5. Conclusion and • For practitioners in the ªeld of CI, greater reºection on the term community will be re- Recommendations quired. Such practitioners will need to combine With such different interpretations of community reºection and practice when addressing ICT currently in use, we wish to offer the following cau- practice issues in CI projects and initiatives. tionary recommendations to practitioners of CI. We hope that these recommendations may lead While we fully support the activities of CI, we do to more reºexive practice in the progressive disci- argue that use of the term community has “costs,” pline of CI, and to a more critical engagement with and that its use should be measured. one of its central terms of reference. We feel that We offer the following recommendations in the problems noted here relating to the understand- conclusion: ing of community pose very real problems for the • It should be recognized that the term commu- legitimacy of the academic and practitioner ªelds of nity is, for the most part, used in an CI. It is our hope that this article raises awareness of unproblematized manner that is unmindful of such issues, and that doing so makes a positive con- its history. Consequently, we argue that it tribution to these ªelds. ■ should be recognized as a politically emotive term, as it has been used in a variety of politi- References cal projects, and its use is politically charged. Adomi, E. (2007). Overnight Internet browsing We advocate that practitioners of CI and re- among cyber café users in Abraka, Nigeria. The lated disciplines note that using community has Journal of Community Informatics, 3(2). Retrieved attendant political overtones above and be- January 10, 2011, from http://ci-journal.net/ yond the simple addition of a positive aura index.php/ciej/article/view/322/319 (Day, 2006). Bauman, Z. (2001). Community: Seeking safety in an • Community should be recognized not as a uni- insecure world. London: Polity Press. versal good, but as a locally contingent posi- tion in possibly much wider debates taking Bieber, M., Civille, R., Gurstein, M., & White, N. place in a society. Invoking community in the (2002). A white paper exploring research trends practice of a particular activity will situate that and issues in the emerging ªeld of community activity in opposition to activities that are not informatics. Retrieved August 1, 2006, from community-oriented. This positioning is often http://www.is.njit.edu/vci/vci-white-paper.doc locally and politically determined—as noted Baym, N. K. (1998). The emergence of on-line com- above, to be procommunity is a not an abso- munity. In S. G. Jones (Ed.), Cybersociety 2.00: lute value, but one tied to a position in a Revisiting computer-mediated communication conºict or debate.

Volume 7, Number 2, Summer 2011 25 VISIONS OF COMMUNITY

and community (pp. 35–68). Thousand Oaks, Day, P. (2005). Sustainable community technology: CA: SAGE Publications. The symbiosis between community technology and community research. Journal of Community Budka, P., Bell, B., & Fiser, A. (2009). MyKnet.org: Informatics, 1(2), 4–13. How Northern Ontario’s First Nation communities made themselves at home on the World Wide Delanty, G. (2002). Communitarianism and citizen- Web. The Journal of Community Informatics, ship. In B. Turner (Ed.), Handbook of citizenship 5(2). Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http:// studies. London: Sage Publications. ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/568/450 De Moor, A. (2006, June 6). e-Mail (CI Researchers Burgess, J., Green, J., Jenkins, H., & Hartley, H. listserv). STARLab, Vrije Universiteit Brussels. (2009). YouTube: Online video and participatory De Moor, A. (2009). Moving community informatics culture. London: Polity. research forward. The Journal of Community In- Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. formatics, 5(1). Retrieved March 18, 2011, from Oxford: Blackwell. http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/ view/546/434 Childers, T. (1984). Information and referral: Public libraries. New York: Ablex. Durrance, J. C. (1984). Community information ser- vices: An innovation at the beginning of its sec- Cohen, A. (1985). The symbolic construction of ond decade. Advanced Librarianship, 13, 100– community. London: Tavistock. 128. Cooley, M. (2008). On human-machine symbiosis. In Eley, R., & Hossain, D. (2010). Council community S. Gill (Ed.), Cognition, Communication and Inter- directories as a source of information about local action Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Interactive health services in rural Australia. The Journal of Technology (pp. 457–485). London: Springer- Community Informatics, 6(2). Retrieved January Verlag. 10, 2011, from http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ Crow, G. (1997). What do we know about the ciej/article/view/461/590 neighbours? Sociological perspectives on neigh- Erwin, G. J., & Taylor, W. (2004). Social appropria- bouring and community. In P. Hoggettt (Ed.), tion of Internet technology: A South African plat- Contested communities: Experiences, struggles, form. The Journal of Community Informatics, policies (pp. 17–30). Oxford: Polity Press. 1(1), 21–29. Crow, G., & Allan, G. (1994). Community life. An in- Erwin, G. J., & Taylor, W. (2006). Assimilation troduction to local social relations. Hemel by communities of Internet technologies. Hempstead, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf. In S. Marshall, W. Taylor, & X. Yu (Eds.), Encyclo- Crow, G., & Allan, G. (1995). Community types, pedia of developing regional communities with community typologies and community time. Time information and communication technology & Society, 4(2), 21–41. (pp. 40–46). Hershey, UK: Idea Group Publishing. Dawson, L. E. (2004). Religion and the quest for vir- Etzioni, A. (1995). The spirit of community: Rights, tual community. In L. Dawson & D. Cowan (Eds.), responsibilities, and the communitarian agenda. Religion online: Finding faith on the Internet London: Fontana. (pp. 75–89). New York and London: Routledge. Etzioni, A. (1997). The new golden rule. Community Day, G. (2006). Community and everyday life. Lon- and morality in a democratic society. London: don: Routledge. Proªle Books.

Day, P. (2004). Community (information and com- Feenberg, A., & Bakardjieva, M. (2004). Virtual munity) technology: Policy, partnership and prac- community: No killer implication. New Media & tice. In S. Marshall, W. Taylor, & Y. Xinghuo Society, 6(1), 37–43. (Eds.), Using community informatics to transform Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. regions (pp. 18–36). London: Idea Group Pub- Chicago: University of Chicago Press. lishing.

26 Information Technologies & International Development AVERWEG, LEANING

Freund, J. (1979). German sociology in the time of www.etymonline.com/index.php?term Max Weber. In T. Bottomore & R. Nisbet (Eds.), ϭcommunity A history of sociological analysis (pp. 149–186). Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. London: Heinemann. Cambridge: Blackwell. Giddens, A. (1971). Capitalism and modern social Heelas, P. (1996). The new age movement. Oxford: theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blackwell. Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of moder- Hoggett, P. (1997). Contested communities. In nity. Cambridge: Polity Press. P. Hoggettt (Ed.), Contested communities: Experi- Giddens, A. (2002). Modernity and self identity: ences, struggles, policies (pp. 3–16). Oxford: Self and society in the late modern age. London: Polity Press. Polity Press. Keeble, L., & Loader, B. D. (2001). Community infor- Goodwin, I. (2007). Community informatics and the matics: Themes and issues. In L. Keeble & B. D. local state in the UK: Facilitating or assimilating Loader (Eds.), Community informatics: Shaping and agenda for change? Information, Communi- computer mediated social relations (pp. 1–10). cation and Society, 10(2), 194–218. London: Routledge. Goodwin, I. (2008). Community informatics, local Kling, R. (2000). about information tech- community and conºict. Convergence, 14(4), nologies and social change: The contribution of 419–437. social informatics. The Information Society, 16(3), 217–232. Gurstein, M. (Ed.). (2000a). Community informatics: Enabling communities with information technolo- Kling, R., Rosenbaum, H., & Sawyer, S. (2005). gies. London: Idea Group Publishing. Understanding and communicating social infor- matics: A framework for studying and teaching Gurstein, M. (2000b). Community informatics: the human contexts of information and commu- Enabling community uses of information and nications technologies. Medford, NJ: Information communications technology. In M. Gurstein (Ed.), Today, Inc. Community informatics: Enabling communities with information technologies (pp. 1–31). Lon- Kochen, M., & Donohue, J. (1976). Information for don: Idea Group Publishing. the community. Chicago: American Library Asso- ciation. Gurstein, M. (2001). Community informatics, com- munity networks and strategies for ºexible net- Leaning, M. (2009). The Internet, power and society: working. In L. Keeble & B. D. Loader (Eds.), Rethinking the power of the Internet to change Community informatics: Shaping computer medi- lives. Oxford: Chandos. ated social relations (pp. 263–283). London: Lee, D., & Newby, H. (1983). The problem of sociol- Routledge. ogy: An introduction to the discipline. London: Gurstein, M. (2003, August 3) Effective use: A com- Unwin Hyman. munity informatics strategy beyond the digital di- Little, A. (2002). The politics of community: Theory vide. First Monday, 8(12). Retrieved January 10, and practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University 2011, from http://www.ªrstmonday.dk/issues/ Press. issue8_12/gurstein Loader, B., Hague, B., & Eagle, D. (2000). Gurstein, M. (2004). Editorial: Welcome to the Embedding the Net: Community empowerment journal of community informatics, Journal of in the age of information. In M. Gurstein (Ed.), Community Informatics, 1(1), 2–4. Community informatics: Enabling communities Gurstein, M. (2008). What is community informatics with information technologies (pp. 81–102). (and why does it matter)? Milan: Polimetrica. London: Idea Group Publishing. Harper, D. (2001). Online etymological dictionary. Loader, B., & Keeble, L. (2004). Challenging the digi- Retrieved August 1, 2006, from http:// tal divide? A literature review of community in-

Volume 7, Number 2, Summer 2011 27 VISIONS OF COMMUNITY

formatics initiatives. York, UK: Joseph Rowntree Sawyer, S., & Rosenbaum, H. (2000). Social informa- Foundation. tics in the information sciences: Current activities and emerging directions. Informing Science, 3(2), Lyon, D. (2001). Everyday life in informational 89–95. Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http:// societies: Uncertainties, morals, and Zygmunt www.inform.nu/Articles/Vol3/v3n2p89-96r.pdf Bauman’s sociology. International Review of Soci- ology, 11(3), 383–393. Schackman, D. (2010). Commons or gated commu- nity? A theoretical explication of virtual commu- MacIver, R. M. (1970/1917). Community: A sociolog- nity and the example of Craigslist. The Journal of ical study being an attempt to set out the funda- Community Informatics, 6(2). Retrieved March mental laws of social life. London: Frank Cass & 18, 2011, from http://www.ci-journal.net/ Co. index.php/ciej/article/view/457/628 MacIver, R. M., & Page, C. H. (1961/1937). Society: Schuler, D. (1996). New community networks: Wired An introductory analysis. London: Macmillan Co. for change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Maffesoli, S. (1996). The time of tribes: The decline Schulte-Tenckhoff, I. (2001). The concept of commu- of individualism in mass society. London: SAGE nity in the social sciences and its juridical rele- Publications. vance. Law Commission of Canada. Retrieved Marx, C. (2002). Ubu and Ubuntu: On the dialectics August 1, 2006, from http://www.lcc.gc.ca/ of apartheid and nation building. Politikon, 29(1), research_project/01_social_1-en.asp 49–69. Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popu- Mayo, M. (2000). Cultures, communities, identities. lar understandings of the . New Me- London: Palgrave. dia & Society, 6(3), 341–362. Miller, D., Coleman, J., Connolly, W., & Ryan, A. Slevin, D. (2000). The Internet and society. London: (1991). The Blackwell encyclopedia of political Polity. thought. Cambridge: Blackwell. Spivak, G. C. (1990). The post-colonial critic: Inter- Nancy, J. L. (1991). The inoperative community. views, strategies, dialogues. London: Routledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Stillman, L., & Linger, H. (2009). Community infor- Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. matics and information systems: Can they be New York: Basic Books. connected? The Information Society, 25, 255– 264. Poster, M. (1990). The mode of information: Poststructuralism and social context. Chicago: Tambini, D. (1999). New media and democracy: University of Chicago Press. The civic networking movement. New Media & Society, 1(3), 305–329. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Taylor, W. (2004). Community informatics in per- spective. In S. Marshall, W. Taylor, & X. Yu (Eds.), Rettberg, J. (2008). Blogging. London: Polity. Using community informatics to transform re- Rice, J. (2009). The church of Facebook: How the gions (pp. 1–17). London: Idea Group Publishing. hyperconnected are redeªning community. Tönnies, F. (1955). Community and association. New York: David C. Cook Publishing Company. (Charles P. Loomis, Trans.). London: Routledge Rocher, G. (1968). Introduction à la sociologie, vol 2. and Kegan Paul. Paris: HMH. Tovey, H. (2009). Theorising “community.” In Rousseau, J. J. (1968/1762). The social contract. C. Forde, E. Kiely, & R. Meade (Eds.), Youth and London: Penguin. community work in Ireland—Critical perspectives (pp. 81–104). Dublin: Blackhall. Sandel, M. (1998). Liberalism and the limits of jus- tice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

28 Information Technologies & International Development AVERWEG, LEANING van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society. 2nd ed. Williams, K., & Durrance, J. (2009). Community in- London: SAGE Publications. formatics. In Encyclopedia of Library and Infor- mation Sciences, 3rd ed. London: Taylor and Webber, M. M. (1964). The urban place and the Francis. nonplace urban realm. In M. M. Webber et al. (Eds.), Explorations into urban structure Williams, R. (1976). Keywords. A vocabulary of cul- (pp. 108–111). Philadelphia: University of Penn- ture and society. London: Fontana. sylvania Press. Willmott, P. (1989). Community initiatives: Patterns Wells, J. D. (1996). Postmodernism and information and prospects. London: Policy Studies Institute. technology: Philosophical perspectives and prag- Wirth, L. (1964/1933). The scope and problems of matic implications. In J. Carey (Ed.), Proceedings the community. In A. J. Reiss, Jr. (Ed.), Louis of the Americas Conference on Information Sys- Wirth on cities and social life (pp. 165–175). tems (pp. 602–604). Arizona State University, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Phoenix. Retrieved October 15, 2010, from http://amcis1996.aisnet.org/papers/Wells.htm

Volume 7, Number 2, Summer 2011 29