Critically analyze the concept of ‘community' in relation to electronic community. It is difficult to examine the concept of ‘community' since the term ‘community' is used in a really wide sense to refer to several different figurations of people (Bell & Newby, 1974), as a result generating many separate meanings (Stacey, 1969). In order to gain a comprehension of what ‘community' really means it is important to consider the history of its use. The term originated from the fourteenth century and was used to relate either to the organised body of people, significant or small , such as a faith based community, as well as to the common persons, the commonalty within this sort of a body system (Tyler, 2002). Use of the word ‘community' shifted in the Renaissance of the 16th and 17th centuries, when ever new concepts of self and other developed, thus shifting use of the term ‘community' by people to all their relationships (Tyler, 2002). It had been then used to refer to common ownership (of a community of goods), cultural communion (with God, for example) or common identity (Tyler, 2002). In the modern time of the 18th and nineteenth centuries the Medieval and Renaissance feelings merged, and ‘community' started referring to the people of a section or neighbourhood. It is this of the term that carries most prominence today. However , more recently the term ‘community' has been used to make reference to other categories of people who are not really concentrated in to an well-known territory (Johnston et ing, 2000). For instance , as was the case in the Middle Ages we now refer to religious groups while communities. In the united kingdom ethnic teams are also also known as communities, the term is also implemented by groups with other shared characteristics, for example deaf neighborhoods or working-class communities. Categories of people with a shared interest are also known as communities, for example sports residential areas or music communities. Lately a new sort of community features emerged; electronic community. The internet allows not simply for regional social networks, but also for global networks.
With the term ‘community' being utilized in several ways and referring to numerous varied categories of people, it raises the question what is it that backlinks these different groups collectively? What do all of these groups have in common that lead to them being known as community? This essay aims to examine the concept of ‘community', looking at how theoretical work concerning community provides shifted via a focus in community as being bound by simply space, to community to be imagined. It is going to attempt to determine the common affiliation that each figuration of people mentioned previously must have to become labelled a ‘community'. It can focus specifically on online community, applying arguments purported by advocates of place based community theories and imagined community theorists to dispute whether virtual communities will need to in fact be labelled as communities. The situation encountered the moment attempting to look at the concept of ‘community' is that the location lacks theory. In attempting to examine the idea of ‘community' research workers have merely focused their very own study by themselves differentiated community and then used their studies to various other communities, as a result making brief and filter range generalizations (Bell & Newby, 1974). Bell and Newby in fact question if theoretical work in the field could even be branded theory, purporting that they absence two indispensable qualifications of scientific theories. Firstly, they can be untestable, because they cannot be demonstrated or refuted by empirical research, and secondly, they don't act as stepping pebbles to recommend new problems or for the development of even more theory (Bell & Newby, 1974). Although theoretical work regarding the examine of residential areas has been heavily criticised, in examining the concept of ‘community' it is vital to consider how academic work so far has contributed to our knowledge of ‘community'....
Bibliography: Allen and Hamnet (eds) (1995) " Introduction”, within a Shrinking Community? Global Uneveness and Inequality, Oxford School Press: Oxford.
Bell and Newby (1974) The Sociology of Community, Frank Cass: London.
Castells, M. (2001)The Internet Galaxy: Reflections for the Internet, Business and World, Oxford College or university Press: New york city.
Johnston ain al (2000). The Book of Individual Geography, Blackwell Publishers Ltd: Oxford.
Man made fiber, J. (1999) The mechanics of community, place and identity, Environment and Planning A, 31: 5-17.
Stacey, M. (1969) The myth of community studies. British Journal of Sociology twenty: 134-47.
Valentine, G. (2001) Social Geographies: Space and Society, Pearson Education Ltd: Harlow.
Webber (1963) ‘Order in range: community with no propinquity', in Wingo, T. (ed. ) Cities and Space, John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore.
Wellman (1979) The Community problem: the close networks of East Yorkers, American Record of Sociology 84: 1201-31.
Wellman (2001) Physical place and cyberplace: the surge of networked individualism, Intercontinental Journal of Urban and Regional Exploration.
Willson (1997) ‘Community in the abstract: a political and ethical dilemma?, in Sherlock holmes, D. (ed. ) (1997) Virtual Governmental policies, Sage: Birmingham.
Young and Wilmott (1962) Along with Kinship in East Greater london, Penguin: Harmondsworth.