Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The New
Community
Citizens in a modern state have a great deal of interconnectedness but
very little in the sense of community and attachment to place.
Abstract
During the last decades of the 20th century, the technological revolution changed society.
Internet, computers, PDAs and other devices altered our day to day life, keeping us all
connected to each other at all times. However, it seems that instead of reinforcing the social
relationships, they have somehow diminished them to their virtual existence. The main purpose
of this paper is to discuss the effects of interconnectedness in the sense of community and
attachment to a place. To analyze how interconnectedness and the sense of community relate
to each other, this paper starts with a clear definition of both community and place
attachment. Moreover, its important to understand how globalization has change human
relations and, consequently, the way we define the sense of community and belonging. Finally,
if possible there will be presented arguments to explain how globalization might have killed the
sense of community in modern societies.
Defining Community
The word community was first used by Aristotle in his work NICHOMACHEAN ETHIC, in
the sense of a group of people living in the same place at the same time and under the same
political and social order. Yet, this minimal definition doesnt clarify the difference between
community and society. So, to Aristotle, in community the focus is not in the unity of this
people, but in the harmony that thrives among them1. Traditionally, it was said that this
harmony could only be achieved if there were a social, religious, political, scientific and moral
consensus. However, modern societies have shown that communities only need minimum
consensus of the core values in order to succeed.
In 1887, Ferdinand Tnnies in his book, GEMEINSCHAFT UND GESELLSCHAFT , created the
first formal dichotomy between society and community2. According to Tnnies, the social ties
developed by humans can be divided into two categories: they are personal interactions, roles,
values and beliefs base on direct, total and significant relations or they are indirect interactions
and impersonal roles complemented by formal values and principles based on formal, abstract
and instrumental relation. It is needless to say that the first relation is called community while
the second is called society.
In Rawls THEORY OF JUSTICE he defends that a community is the main product of an
association by independent individuals and its worth must be estimated by the justice of the
terms upon which the individuals chose to associate. This view has been widely criticized by a
school of thought that was given the name of Communitarianism. Michael Sandel, one of the
communitarianism scholars, supports that the existence of individuals who are able to decide,
chose and agree to associate themselves is, by itself, the product of a pre-existing
community3.4 This means that community is the second form of society: right after the state of
nature, human beings started to communicate and to agree with each other, thus creating a
community. Thus, community is a group of people who chose to live together, under the
political and social order constructed upon their shared values and beliefs. The view of
Communitarianism is vital because they highlight two important characteristics of community:
first, the fact that the shared values are the background of all institutions of a community;
Aristotle uses the word koinnia, which can be translated as sharing or taking part in a thing with
others, the author also uses it do refer to a group of persons- travelers and commercial partners, for
example- who work together to achieve a common goal. (KRAUT, 2002)pp. 355.
2
Recent authors have decided that it is more appropriated to translate it as the distinction between
community and civil society. However many scholar still refer to the discussion as community versus
society, and so will this paper.
3
The individuals, according to Sandel, must be already involved in the community life in order to accept
any form of association.
4
Cnf. (KUKATHAS, 1990)
secondly, MacIntyre underlines that everyone inherits from the past of their family, tribe and
nation a great variety of debts and obligations that constitute their starting point. This second
point shows us that every person is changed by the community they are born into and
therefore it changes her character and shapes her principles accordingly.
Other authors take under consideration additional factors, such us geography and
urbanization, hence defining community as a geographically defined subarea of the city in
which residents are presumed to share both spatial proximity and some degree of mutual
circumstance, need, priorities, and access to the broader metropolitan area and the systems
that have an impact on their lives (CHASKIN, 1999, pp 1) So, Chaskin refers to community as
neighborhood and not as a group of people who chose to live together and have shared
values.
Contemporary, the term community appears with three uses:
as Chaskin defined it: as local groupings created due to proximity and face-toface interactions, putting the focus on geography
In recent years the concept of community gained a new face, when Howard Rheingold
published THE VIRTUAL COMMUNITY , in 1993. He defended that communities were possible
when people carried public discussions long enough and embraced them with sufficient feeling
that allowed them to form webs of personal relationships online. But, instead of creating new
forms of community, many sociologists consider that globalization has created a global society
and so, the true sense of community has disappeared in human relations6.
All in all, the level of uncertainty remains: what truly defines a community? Most
academics would answer: the sense of community7 is what actually defines it. In order to
define SOC, it will be taken under consideration the work of MacMillan and Chavis8 and their
theoretical development of the concept. The authors divided the definition into four main
Even though the main idea in Rawls was never the reference to community of interests or ethnic
community, he also developed the idea of free association between people, regardless of what caused
or characterized this union.
6
This will be discussed ahead.
7
From this point onwards, it will be used the abbreviation SOC to refer to Sense of Community.
8
The work refered is (MACMILLAN, 1986) pp. 9-14
Membership denotes the idea of feeling of belonging and personal interconnection to the other
members of the community.
10
Influence relates to the awareness that both the organization and each member is influenced by the
participation.
11
Reinforcement subdives into two categories: fullfilment of needs and integration, and it is concerns
the idea that the members needs will only be fulfilled by the in integration in the community.
12
Finally, emotional connection refer to the commitment and belief that members have shared and will
share history, common places, time together, and similar experiences (MACMILLAN, 1986) pp.9
13
Some authors mention that in human life there are connections that occur in divergent physical places
and so, community does not necessarily relates to neighborhood and living community, but also that of
working community, interest community, etc. And in recent years, the virtual space as well.
14
All the quotations in previous paragraphs were taken from (CROSS, 2001)
As quoteb by (KYLE, 2006)
16
According to (KYLE, 2006)
17
According to (Society for Community Research and Action, s.d.)
15
18
community is viewed as a complex system of friendship and kinship networks and formal and
informal associational ties rooted in family life and on-going socialization processes. At the
same time it is fashioned by the large scale institution of mass society. Indeed, it is a generic
structure of mass society, whose form, content, and effectiveness vary widely and whose
defects and disarticulations reflect the social problems of the contemporary period.
(KASARDA, 1974, pp. 329)
It is worthy noticing that nowadays communities have subtle boundaries and their
sense of self varies immensely from certain areas to another. Besides, human interaction as
also changed and communities are getting more and more informal, so the only way to identify
them is, like suggests Kasarda and Janowitz, by focusing on local social networks and
abstracting out those relations that are directly linked to the occupational system (KASARDA,
1974, pp 329). If such approach is taken, the conclusion is that neither urbanization nor
heterogeneity is causing the lack of community bonds.
Technology changed the nature of communication from the public to the private
sphere: while in the 19th century most of the communication happened in public spheres, like
the local market, the church or the town square, nowadays people mostly communicate with
friends and family by phone or email. This change in way we communicate has also made it
harder for people to meet their neighbors and start developing a sense of community.
Another valuable aspect of todays society is the fact that, more than ever before,
people have different spheres of connections, Burkes little platoon have flourish and
encompassed all types of social interactions, from PTA meetings, to soccer practice, to yoga or
book club. These are new forms of community, but they are interest-based and not
geographically-based. Furthermore, it seems that today basic group identity fails to
appreciate that individuals have any number of identities.
Etzioni & Etzioni, have made a brilliant point when referring to the possibilities of
joining the virtues and benefits of the internet to the run for a closer community. This mixture
of both face-to-face and online communication would actually allow communities to became
more united that only one type of communication. Besides, online exchanges may lead to
offline contact and vise versa (HAMPTON, 2007, pp3)
So, we can conclude that the interconnectedness is not what has been killing the sense
of community and attachment to place. Attachment to place has been weaker because
nowadays people keep moving across country or from different cities, or even to different
neighborhoods, which makes it difficult to create real bonds with others. As has been
demonstrated, attachment is directly and positively correlated to the amount of time one lives
in that community; and so it is getting shorter and shorter, since very few families have been
living in the same neighborhood for more than one maybe two- generations.
The truth is that community is built upon mutual trust which sometimes might be
lacking in modern societies, due to criminality or to shorter stays in the community.
Furthermore, intellectual currents in the past century, such as neoliberalism or
postmodernism, have pointed towards more fragmented societies, that, in the end, mean the
death of communities. Since human beings are incapable of living alone, the SOC will probably
rise in the next decades, but lets be clear, not in the form of close neighborhood communities
as we know them. It can be argued that an emerging global civil society, attested to the desire
and the capacity of individuals and groups to negotiate new forms of belonging- many of which
are disconnected from more familiar attachments to territory, geography of policy. Both
community and attachment will be around for centuries to came, what is changing is just the
form, not the essence.
Bibliography
BLANCHARD, A. L. &. M. M. L., 2004. The Experienced Sense of Virtual
Community:Characteristics and Processes. The DATA BASE for Advances in Information
Systems, Winter, pp. 65-79.
CHASKIN, R. J., 1999. Defining Community Capacity:A Framework and Implications from a
Comprehensive Community Initiative. s.l., Urban Affairs Association Annual Meeting.
CROSS, J., 2001. What is Sense of Palce?. s.l., s.n.
CROUCHER, S., 2004. Globalization and Belonging: The Politics of Identity in a Changing World.
1 ed. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
ETZIONI, O. &. E. A., 1999. Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communities: A Comparative
Analysis. The Information Society, October, pp. 241-248.
HAMPTON, K., 2007. Neighborhoods in the Network Society: The e-Neighbors Study.
Information, Communication & Society, 12 March, pp. 714-748.
JAMES, B., 2004. Community Attachment: Determinants, Indicators and Measures. Pensilvania,
Building Attachment in COmmunities Affected by Residential Mobility and Transience.
KASARDA, J. &. J. M., 1974. Community Attachment in Mass Society. American Sociological
Review, June, pp. 328-339.
KRAUT, R., 2002. Aristotle: Political Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KUKATHAS, P. &., 1990. The Communitarian Critique. In: Rawls - A Theory of Justice & Its
Critics. Standford: Standford University Press, pp. 92-118.
KYLE, G. &. C. G., 2006. The Social Construction of a Sense of Place. Leisure Sciences, 2006
August, pp. 209-225.
MACMILLAN, D. &. C. D., 1986. Sense of Community: A Defenition and a Theory. Journal of
Community Psychology, 14 January, pp. 6-23.
MANNARINI, T. & ROCHIRA, A. &. T. C., 2012. How Identification Processes and InterCommunity Relationships Affect Sense of Community. Journal of Community Psychology,
November, pp. 951-967.
MESCH, G. &. T. I., 2010. Internet Connectivity, Community Participation, and Place
Attachment: A Longitudinal study. American Behavioral Scientist, 18 February, p. 10951011.
SCHMIDT, J. P., 2011. Comunidade e Comunitarismo: consideraes sobre a inovao da
ordem sociopoltica. Cincias Sociais, Dezembro, pp. 300-313.
SCHULER, D. &. D. P., 2004. Shaping the Network Society: The New role of Civil Society in Ciber
Space. 1st ed. Massachussetts: MIT.
SITES, W. & CHASKIN, R. &. P. V., 2007. Reframing Community Parctice for the 21st Century:
Multiple Taditions, Multiple Challenges. Journal of Urban Affairs, pp. 519-541.
Society for Community Research and Action, s.d. University of Washington. [Online]
Available at:
http://larch.be.washington.edu/people/lynne/docs/Neigh_as_common_ground_w_tables.pdf
[Acedido em May 2013].
TNNIES, F., 2001. Community and Civil Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.