Chapter Two
Literature Review

Introduction

Literature on community networking is being published at an increasing rate, although much of this is concerned with community networks outside the UK. The community network I am interested in is situated in a rural area. Therefore, it is necessary to read the literature reflexively and apply general theories to rural areas as well as cities.

When analysing community relationships between network users theories of Community and Social Capital must be examined. Through analysing social capital theory both Putnam (1993; 2000) and Fukuyama (1995) raise the question ‘how can stocks of social capital be measured?’ Putnam is a key contributor to social capital literature and highlights current community problems; however, he does not propose solutions to these problems. Using his theories it is possible to adopt community networks as the solution to the decline in social capital. It is also important to define what constitutes as a ‘community’? This is tackled by Tonnies (1957) as he outlines the difference between ‘society’ and ‘community’.

The main concepts to arise through the literature on Community Networks are; There is a need to develop ‘community’ (Schuler, 1996); Community Networks provide a unique channel for communication (Rheingold, 1998:5); Community Networks hold the potential for community development (Graham, 1995:1). Also, it is highlighted Community Networks are maintained by volunteers and have little funding - this is problematic as Community Networks strive to provide ‘free’ access as an ideal.

These views raise questions about the purpose of such networks; what community networks actually provide, and who uses them?

 

Community

Traditional communities and electronic communities essentially share the same characteristics, a high degree of personal intimacy, emotional depth, moral commitment, and social cohesion. Ferdinand Tonnies in 'Community & Society' (1957) outlines the basic understanding of community. Tonnies famously separates community from society giving an inside/outside distinction.

'All intimate, private, and exclusive living together, so we discover, is understood as life in Gemeinschaft (community). Gesellschaft (society) is public life - it is the world itself' (Tonnies, 1957:33).

Community, regardless of space, is a necessary part of human interaction where kinship and friendship ties are connected through common interests. Graham (1995:5) adopts the concept of community in ‘cyberspace’ stating they contain the same four critical elements that shape communities of geographic location. These are: shared values, unity, intimacy and free expression. As networks transcend geography having a sense of community becomes ever more important. Critical to the rhetoric surrounding Internet use is the promise of a renewed sense of community and, in many instances, new types and formations of community. Computer Mediated Communication allows us to plan, organize, and make efficient our social contacts (Jones, 1998:11).

According to these sources the purpose of ‘community’ is providing intimacy, interaction, and collaboration. For the purpose of this research ‘community’ will be described, using definitions from the literature, as: ‘interaction and intimacy through common interests’. This provides a meaning on which the research can be based. Integrated into literature on ‘community’ are issues of identity and a sense of ‘place’, these ideas are discussed in detail by Castells (1996).

Identity

Castells (1996) expands the ideas of cyber-communities in his discussion of identity on the Internet.

‘Interactive computer networks are growing exponentially creating new forms and channels of communication, shaping life and being shaped by life at the same time’ (Castells, 1996:2).

Castells suggests that in modern society ‘identity’ becomes the fundamental source of social meaning. Castells states that as social movements, institutions, and organisations decline identity is becoming the main, and sometimes the only, source of meaning. People increasingly organise their identity not around what they do but on the basis of what they are, or believe they are. This is made possible through Computer Mediated Communication as individuals are disembodied. Also, it can be adopted into Community Networks as people identify with a community to which they are not geographically bound.

Castells states identity is adopted as a source of meaning, due to the decline in social movements, institutions and organisations. The decline in social activities and institutions is expanded further in literature on Social Capital. The decline in social capital is discussed in many texts, however we will move on to examine two main contributors in this area; Putnam (1993, 1995, 2000) and Fukuyama (1995).

Social Capital Theory

Harvard Professor Robert Putnam defines social capital in terms of well developed social networks of civic engagement, which embody norms of trust, reciprocity, and collaboration (Putnam, 1995 cited in Schuler, 1996:42). Putnam believes the decline of social capital is due to the privatization of leisure time, and describes a need for the reinvention of community. Putnam describes these networks of interpersonal communication as neighbourhood associations, choral societies, co-operatives, and sports-clubs, stressing these are an essential form of social capital. Yet, these are declining in popularity, contributing to the decline in social capital. In his book ‘Trust’ (1995) Fukuyama gives an example of the decline in social capital as the decline in family life: i.e. rise in divorce rate.

In Fukuyama’s opinion (1995:316) the rise of individualism at the expense of community is linked with electronic technology. While proponents of the Internet have argued that the computer opens up broad new possibilities for ‘virtual communities’ not dependent on geographical proximity, it would appear that many technological innovations have a privatising effect. Movies and television, unlike earlier entertainment’s such as fairs, meetings of people with similar intercepts, or simple conversation, involve one-way communication with no opportunity for direct social interaction. Fukuyama (1995:321) discusses association within virtual communities, believing they provide a healthy form of community networking. However, he states that ‘virtual’ communities are not an adequate substitute for face-to-face communities.

Putnam (1993:92) highlights the discussion of mass media and its role within a community throughout his text. Putnam states that newspapers remain the medium with the broadest coverage of community affairs. In ‘Bowling Alone’ Putnam (2000:218-246) argues that new technologies have led to decreased civic involvement, again using newspaper readership as his illustration of this.

Putnam states that civic involvement is deteriorating due to ‘TV and its electronic cousins’. However, he has also stated that people reading newspapers and taking an active interest in the community increases civic involvement, one can therefore argue that community networks are simply the technological advancement of newspapers. Putnam also raises the argument that once social capital stock has been spent it may never be replenished, an argument echoed by Fukuyama:

‘Stocks of social capital, such as trust, norms, and networks, tend to be self-reinforcing and cumulative. Virtuous circles result in social equilibrium with high levels of co-operation, trust, reciprocity, civic engagement, and collective well being. Conversely, the absence of these traits in the uncivic community is also self-reinforcing ’ (1995:321).

This argument suggests that there must be a new method of increasing trust and integration, which once adopted, will be self-reinforcing. This research will investigate whether Community Networks can be adopted as a new method of increasing social capital.

According to the above authors Social Capital - described as trust, norms, and networks, is declining. Both Putnam (1993; 2000) and Fukuyama (1995) are concerned about the low levels of civic engagement. Both authors state that social capital stocks need replenished, if they can be replenished at all. This is one of the theories behind the development of Community Networks, another is ‘Communitarianism’ discussed by Etzioni (1995, 1998).

Communitarianism

Communitarianism, as discussed by Etzioni (1995; 1998) is described as a critical alternative to liberalism. Communitarian’s are committed to rebuilding pillars of society, these pillars are - family, school, and community. Etzioni states that Communitarians look to the experience of community for moral guidance and promise (1998:61). There are two main schools of communitarian thinking; a school arguing that communitarian thinking is a source of reform for contemporary liberalism, and one emphasising the ways in which communitarian thinking offers an altogether distinctive approach to political theory. Nevertheless, contributors share common concerns exploring the ways in which contemporary political theory can better address questions of community, virtue, and moral discourse in the public square (Etzioni, 1995:28).

Communitarianism can be seen as a plea for the enhancement of social capital. Concerns of Communitarians combined with issues of social capital compose a good argument for the creation of Community Networks. The advantages and limitations of Community Networks are highlighted through the literature reviewed next.

Community Networks

Rheingold (1998:5) defines electronic communities as offering a unique channel for publishing and communicating. These assets, he states, are fundamental to democracy and healthy societies. He also states ‘many people are alarmed by the very idea of a virtual community’ - he is the only author reviewed who acknowledges this.

Douglas Schuler (1996) in 'New Community Networks: Wired for Change' examines the Seattle Community Network. Schuler addresses theories and questions surrounding both Seattle and future community networks. Schuler begins by outlining what is needed to develop a community; like-minded people, a recognition of shared aspirations and interdependence, interaction in ordinary as well as extraordinary human activities (1996:11). A quote from Theodore Roszak reinforces the need for a new model for social interaction;

'I can't predict what kind of community it will be, but the new community will be in reaction to the crushing bigness of systems’ (Schuler, 1996:11).

Schuler (1996:13) moves on to discuss the implications of impersonal communication. Conversation in real time is synchronous, within email or forums conversation is asynchronous, taking place over the course of hours, days, or even months. In this way email is like traditional mail but lacks individual touches. Like telephones, computer networks enhance connectivity, and help people to form and maintain ties over long and short distances. This raises the question 'to what extent can communities be reinvented/improved using new technologies?'

In theory privatisation of community provides a practical and modern solution for increased interaction. However, by taking away body language and eye contact is it possible to build up relationships of trust?

Community networks appear to be the core of a newly formed sense of belonging, like a local newspaper or radio station, but symbolic interaction also needs to take place in order to nurture new relationships. It must then be asked: whether Community Networks adequately foster community spirit?

The distinction between groups and social networks opens up consideration of how the characteristics of computer-supported social networks affect the behaviour of the people using them and the social systems in which these networks are embedded. According to Wellman (in Kiesler, 1997:183-198) researchers have found that despite the traumatic changes of modernization, communities continue to flourish. Community ties are already geographically dispersed, sparsely knit, specialised in content, and connected heavily by telecommunications (phone and fax). Although virtual communities may carry these trends a bit further, they also sustain in personal encounters between community members.

Jennifer Light in ‘Virtual Geographies’, (Crang, Crang, & May, 1999:109) highlights issues of inclusion/exclusion within Community Networks. She states:

‘Cyberspace is heavily dominated by elite groups, yet often presented as if open to all, its privatised spaces presented as if they were public’
(Light 1996:125)

Light also suggests that community networks will become more accepted as perspectives on cyberspaces’ evolve; just as perspectives on electricity, telephones, radio, photography and computers have evolved over many decades.

Graham (1995) in the paper ‘The Social Purpose of Community Networks’ discusses Canadian Community Networks. He makes the point many other writers have not highlighted; that community networks are about people, not technology. Graham points out that by creating community networks;

‘Canadian communities hold the potential for community development’ (1995:1).

Graham echoes Putnam (2000) and Schuler (1996) in his description of Community Networks as electronic public space where ordinary people can meet and converse about common concerns. Graham also emphasises the struggle community networks have with funding and resources:

‘...often community networks are founded by one or a few volunteer members of the community, who work from their own homes in many cases’ (Graham, 1995:3).

Graham (1995:13) points out that all community network associations in Canada, as social sector organisations, are committed to some form of universal ‘free’ access as an ideal. All associations rely on in-kind volunteer services. Although raising money is not a big part of the motivation of community networking activists, it is a huge part of their reality.

The key points to emerge from this literature are that Community Networks offer a unique channel for communication and hold the potential to develop communities. To develop a community people must share aspirations and build relationships of trust. Limitations of Community Networks evolve from people not accepting online communities, a major issue stemming from this is low funding and few volunteers. These issues will be developed throughout the course of the research and investigated in relation to the case study. We will investigate whether the statements made by Graham (1995) are reality and what can be done to counteract these limitations. Another aspect of Community Networks is their potential for escapism. This is discussed in conjunction with Oldenburg’s theory of a ‘third place’ away from both work and home.

The ‘Third Place’

Oldenburg (1991) theorises that the decline of social capital is due to the lack of a 'third place'. Oldenburg's third place is, he claims, essential for interpersonal integration. This third place can be a coffee shop, bar, town hall, anywhere away from both work and home. A third place is essential for identification and belonging, social support, participation, and inclusion. Common and essential features of a third place are outlined in Schuler, these are:

Conversation is the main activity, the third place is a leveler, it is on neutral ground, there are regulars, it is a home away from home, there is a low profile, the mood is playful (1996:42).

This can be adapted to describe a new arena for communication in virtual space. Discussed by Rheingold (1998) is the first community forum ‘World Earth 'Lectronic Link’ (WELL). This project signified the privatisation of community. Privatisation means that people must actively contact community members to remain in touch rather than visiting public spaces and waiting for friends and acquaintances to pass by.

Rheingold (1998) discusses the ‘WELL’ as an example of Oldenburg’s third place:

‘Perhaps cyberspace is one of the informal public places where people can rebuild the aspects of community that were lost when the malt shop became a mall’ (1998:6).

This idea of a ‘third place’ is important as it represents leisure-time and interaction. The ‘third place’ can be anywhere an individual feels comfortable and is an area where networks of trust can be built up. Internet forums or Community Networks can be described as a ‘third place’, therefore, these areas can provide a means of building social capital.

The ideas presented on Community Networks are general theories, we will now look at the application of these theories within rural communities.

Rural Communities

Ray & Talbot in ‘Virtual Geographies’ (1999:150-163) discuss ‘telematics’ within rural societies. Telematics is said to promote ‘community’, through the enhancement of networks of communication within localities (‘community networks’). Ray and Talbot discuss telematics and the Information society as tools that local communities can employ in order to protect their chosen way of life, including a sense of ‘local community’. However, it is also suggested that the net result of the Information Society might be intensification in social decline.

Doheny-Farina (1996) is important with reference to the connection of rural communities. In his book ‘The Wired Neighbourhood’ he discusses a community network in rural Vermont. Doheny-Farina argues that every community has its problems, therefore community networks are important in both urban and rural areas:

‘…although it makes sense that the largest Free-Nets are located in metropolitan areas there is growing support to develop such enterprises in rural regions as well. Rural regions need the support’ (1996:132-133).

Doheny-Farina states that community nets may only continue to network those already engaged in their communities. Thus raising the question: Will Community Networks have any effect on the low skilled, unwired family?

Conclusions

According to the reviewed scholars the most important aspect of Community Networks is the immense potential for participation. Key points emerging through the literature include the decline in social capital, particularly Fukuyama (1995) and Putnam (1993; 2000) discuss this. The decline in social capital is not challenged, however, both scholars blame information technology for a decrease in public life. This needs to be challenged. This research will argue that information technology can enhance public life, and in turn social capital. The concept that social capital needs replenished will be applied to Community Networks, providing a solution to the decline in social networks.

Schuler (1996) and Doheny-Farina (1996) apply social capital theory in their discussions on Community Networks. Both authors believe that if everyone in a community had access to a Local Net, social cohesion and social capital would be increased. However, neither author concludes whether Community Networks actually improve social capital in practice. This research aims to conclude whether Community Networks enhance social capital, not only in theory, but practice. Schuler (1996) examines a case study of Seattle Community Network, this idea of a specific case study is adopted and will be applied to a network in rural Scotland. Thus, similarities and differences within Community Networks can be emphasised. Through the literature on Community Networks positive aspects of such networks are highlighted as giving people a voice, identity, and sense of belonging. Limitations are education, funding, access, and enthusiasm. The literature on Community Networks stress the positive aspects more than the negative, this research aims to investigate both aspects equally and draw impartial conclusions.

Wellman (in Kiesler, 1997:200) proposes a preliminary list of questions to be put on research agendas, thus highlighting a gap in the literature and in research into Community Networks. The question: ‘Is there a natural history to online networks? How do they get founded, maintained, transformed, or die?’ will be integrated into and answered through this study. Further arguments to be considered, include:

Should the government provide universal free access to Community Networks?

Can Community Networks also be businesses? If not, where should funding come from.

Taking Putnam’s (1993; 2000) argument that newspapers are the cornerstone of a community, can Community Networks be seen as the advancement of local newspapers?

Community Networks are discussed in terms of enhancing a local community. Do they also enhance a global community?

This reasoning establishes the research in context, highlighting why Community Networks and their social implications need investigated. We will now move on to examine how the study was carried out and a brief description of why the research methods were chosen.

Chapter 3 ->>>