|
building
a community
by
john o'keefe
what
is "community?" what does it mean to
"form community?" will a first century model meet
the needs of a twenty-first century mind? can one
truly develop community in cyberspace? If we can,
develop community in cyberspace, does it change the
meaning of community or move it to a new level?
Interesting questions as we face our walk into the 21st
century hand in hand with tech. more importantly,
i believe, is the question; as christians, is a
community developed in cyberspace seen as a
"christian community?"
let
me start by saying this, developing community is
hard. it is one of the hardest things we as humans
can do. it takes work on behalf of all, and a
constant drive to accomplish community - community is
not "just" it is work. according to
webster community is "an interacting population
of various kinds of individuals (as a species) in a
common location." without getting into
the "species" debate, I think the definition
is pretty good. I like the concept of community
being a "particular population" in a
"common area" who "interact"
with each others. but will it allow for a "cyber-community?"
can a cyber-community meet the definition of community,
or will the definition need to be changed? I believe
cyber-community meets the definition of community, let me expand....
seeing
community as "an interaction of a particular population
in a common location" can be seen in three distinct parts
(I know, how dare a postmodern theologian list anything
in three - too darn traditional - but to paraphrase
freud, "sometimes three is simply
three."). lets look at the first one, "a particular
population."
a
particular population
what
is meant by "a particular population?" I
can see the term ranging from the extremely small (two
people with common interests) to
the extremely large (thousands of people with a
particular interest). size has nothing to do with
determine a particular population. you can be a
particular population of
two. so, we know size does not define a particular
population.
the perimeters of a "particular
population" are not defined by those outside of the
population; meaning people in the group are accountable
to people in the group, outsides have no say. if change needs to occur, it must come
from within the particular population. Jesus did not criticize
those outside of his own group (the jewish people). his main ministry
dealt with those who were within his particular
population. as the ministry grew, and after his
death and resurrection, the particular population base grew and
changed - because those from outside came in and
accepted the basic of the particular population.
they, in turn, expanded the particular population to
others.
the
internet allows people to develop within a particular
population. people, who are seen as living
"outside" of a main stream group, can develop
a connection with a particular population on the
internet. people who would not feel connected
locally, because of a lack of a particular population,
can find voice and place in cyberspace.
Christ
taught building a community was central to developing as
a people of faith. examining the reality of our
faith allows us to know that throughout history people
have developed community with those who they felt lived
in their particular population. this can be seen
within the monk communities and the creation of
denominations and associations of the past. for
these groups location was defined by geography, but for
the cyber-community geography is not key.
in
a common location
the
second fact of the definition that cyberspace fits is
the "in a common location." most people
see location in terms of limited geographical
boundaries; boundaries defined by nation, states, cities
and town - even neighborhoods and city blocks. cyberspace exploded the concept of boundaries
and boarders. cyberspace expanded the concept of
location to being bigger then anyone could think of -
space defined in terms of "infinite."
most who see community in terms of location have a hard
time seeing cyberspace as a location. to them,
location must have a physical context - land and boundaries.
they need to limit the condition of community to be of a
physical place - and not a place where physical space is
not connective. now, I am not saying developing
community based on a geographic location is wrong - it
is not, but neither is developing cyber-community were
the definition of geography is of no interest.
cyberspace
expands the concept of community to being something
powerful. a particular community on china can
actually have community with the same particular
population in tulsa - "common location" is
seen as a computer screen. within the concept, and the
minds, of those living in this particular population,
cyberspace has become a "common location." a way I like to think about it,
and explain it, is in the item of a vacuum. most
people see a vacuum as a "great void" empty of
everything. while others see it as filled with
"nothing" - one sees it empty of everything, and another
sees it as full of nothing. people who see it as empty, can
not grasp the concept of seeing it as full - in fact,
they will tell you you are wrong and try to change your definition
to meet the conditions of their definition. people
who desire location to be physical, have a hard time
seeing cyberspace without walls - and they desire
strongly to give cyberspace walls. they desire
this because they believe their is no human touch, no
human interaction.
interaction
the
last area of the definition, is actually the first, it is that of
"interaction." I wanted to save this one
for last, because it is (for me) the most important part
of the definition. here again we are caught in the
debate of physical and cyberspace.
interaction
does not require a physical connection between two
people for it to be valid, as some demand. if that
were the case, phone calling and letter writing would
both be considered "wrong" and outside the definition
of community. the goal of any
community should be to get to people together, if it
never happens on a physical level - it is still a valid community. for
interaction to be valid it does not need to be physical,
it just needs to be meaningful.
a
particular population expresses interaction as an inner
relationship between two or more people where meaningful
exchanges can take place. I believe
the internet allows for a particular population to
relate on a personal level; in fact I believe the
internet demands it. when we have a physical
interaction it depends on so many pretences that it may
be hard to truly be ourselves - we pretend to be what we
are not to please. we build a fake front where we
block ourselves from ourselves and others from
ourselves. I have found that
dealings over the internet has developed my empathic
skills. by reading what is written, and how it is
written, I have a strong connection to people and how
they feel.
while
I do understand the concerns people have with people
developing only internet communities - I do not see this
happening; I understand, I just do not agree. I belong to several different email
groups, and cyber communities. I enjoy each one,
and I enjoy the relationships I am developing with
people in my particular population. even though I
have a great relationships on the net, I still enjoy
getting together with my friends and having a great
time.
I believe as a Christian people we should strive to take
the community to the next level - meeting; but it is not
a requirement for the cyber-community to be valid.
community
is a connection of a particular population striving to
meet the needs of each other - even if that community is
developing on the internet - community is what makes us
people. cyber-communities are growing, meaning
they are meeting the needs of a particular
population. what we as christians need to do is
not complain about cyber-communities, we need to develop
them and model after them. we can learn why
cyber-communities are growing, and what need they are
filling in people - if we can find that, we will be a
community open to all particular populations.
|
