I can’t believe you, Shane Hipps! You think only 18 people are upset about your recent comments?! Make it 19, Shane. I can’t BELIEVE you don’t believe virtual community is community. And you think Twitter is narcissistic? I’d be offended if I thought what YOU thought was half as important as what I think…wow Shane. I thought we had a good thing going. But then you had to go and get all fundie on me and start talking about the “shadows” of the technology we use. You had to go and call us to think responsibly about the technology that uses us we use. You had to go and make us remember the importance and uniqueness of actual face-to-face encounters with the Others in our lives…? Seriously. What a buzz-kill.
So, I’m a little late to the party, but a few weeks ago, Shane Hipps did a quick off-the-cuff interview with Out of Ur (watch here) that caused a bit of an uproar among…well, folks who get a lot out of virtual community (even Scot McKnight joined the party and responded to Shane). There were many who took issue with Shane’s comments about what constitutes “true” community, and many felt that he was taking jabs at virtual community. Everyone’s favorite drummer-rockstar Zach Lind had a video conversation with Shane that might help clarify some of Shane’s comments, and it’s worth watching.
Shane believes community needs to have the following:
- A kind of shared history: This helps establish a sense of identity & belonging
- Permanence: This is how you get the shared history
- Proximity: You have to BE with each other to create meaningful connections
- A shared imagination of the future: This is especially important within Christian community
So, for Shane, virtual community lacks all of these except for a shared imagination of the future (which he thinks is the easiest to get in online, virtual community). Before this past week, I was planning on writing a post pushing back pretty hard on Shane’s definition of community. But when I met with my COM this past week – confusions, misunderstandings and accusations were cleared up, and it was only because it was a face-to-face encounter. I shared all of the same information I’ve been writing in documents and emails since last November. Yet, it was having the chance to actually, physically interact with the committee that really changed everything.
So I get the proximity part. I understand the whole thing about being able to look into each others eyes (and not just through our webcams). I think that changes a lot and adds entirely different dimensions to conversations.
But I guess I would still want to say that virtual community IS a form of community. I’m not one to say that it should ever replace physical encounters and personal face-to-face community. I don’t think you’ll ever find me joining an e-Church where I’d go to worship in front of my computer screen. But do I think there exists some type of community here at pomomusings? Yes, I do. And if you’ve been reading since I started blogging, close to 6 years ago, then yes, there is some shared history and a sense of permanence. Proximity is up for grabs I think, as we live in a global, flattened world. Distance doesn’t necessarily prevent communication.
And as far as Twitter, sure, it’d be silly to think that it’s not a little bit narcissistic. Does it make me feel kind of special that I have 503 followers who are interested in what I’m doing? Sure. But I also think there is some sense of community there, or else I don’t think I would do it. In fact, I tried Twitter a couple years ago and quit after a week because it was boring and I didn’t know why anyone would care what I was doing. It wasn’t until I really gathered a “Twitter community” that it was a tool that was fun, helpful and engaging.
I get where Shane is coming from. I think it’s important to think about the potential issues/dangers with technology, and to become aware of those. But I don’t want to not call it community.
Thanks for sharing this post. It’s funny to think about all of this because when I moved to Vermont it took blogs and social networks to build some relationships with people I never connected with while living in Philadelphia. I think I’ve doubled my friends down in Philly while living in Vermont… So now I try to have face-to-face contact with those friends when possible, but the online dimension has actually strengthened the physical/face-to-face aspect and even opened a world of possibilities. I like occupying the place of tension with physical and online community. Emphasis may shift, one may not replace the other, but there are so many exciting possibilities in that place of tension where we let each format build up the other.
Yup. I think you got it.
Shane may be thinking that there is one kind (and one kind ONLY) of community. And in reality, these different forms overlap as virtual contact cross over into real encounters, and real encounters are supported over time and distance by virtual ones.
How many different forms of community can we think of? What kind of depth of encounter with each other is necessary to define “proximity”? For instance, with distant friends whom I see only rarely, I have one kind of deep proximity over miles and months. But there are friends in my town that the closeness of our miles, doesn’t give us greater proximity in terms of adding meaning to one another, yet.
i think a lot of folk’s self-worth is so wrapped up in online activity and that motivates them to artificially elevate online communication to a level of community. Call it community if you like but I agree with Shane that there is a danger in doing so. The web is a completely customizable experience for the individual that reaffirms individualism and breeds narcissism. Not that the web can’t be an incredibly powerful tool and can help create meaningful connections, but there is an undercurrent to the entire online experience that slowly but surely alters our very definition of relationships and community.
It’s a changing world and some people just cannot imagine that change is good. I remember a few years back worrying about my kids instant messaging and text messaging so much – wondering if it would hurt their social development – as I look back now I think it has enhanced their social development – they are actually more communicative then I was at their age – they seem to know how to engage with others better – they have lots of in person friends (in addition to those online only friends) and they appreciate a variety of communities in person and online. It seems like such a modern idea to think that we have to choose between online and in person or even compare the two to see which is best. I wonder if people had these concerns when telephones were first invented. I just don’t see anything negative about adding to our opportunities to connect with one another. And isn’t connection the very essence of community?
btw – I am embarrassed to say that I had to check to see what a luddite was :>)
Nice work Adam, I agree with. And actually, I think that space and time (proximity) have collapsed in our technological age. I think that we can be in close proximity even if we are not physically present, the problem comes when we value the immaterial close-proximity higher than, or de-value the material proximity. But the problem is that so many outsiders to virtual community, Hipps, et al., (at least seem to) automatically assume that because you engage in these activities that you de-value the material rather than seeing it as supplemental or integrated. I’ll call it community because it is, by all of Hipps definitions, or by others definitions unless community can only happen in the physical, if that is the case then we need to assume a foundationalist position to this argument. Community is what happens face to face, and that cannot be challenged, critiqued, or reinterpreted.
Of course we also know that lots of face-to-face interactions, I’d say a majority, in our culture, are anything but “community” even though they are physical. From sitting in a class, to riding a public transit vehicle, to working at your office or a coffeeshop. Face-to-face interaction doesn’t necessitate community anymore than immaterial proximity does.
Certainly community is also about shared interests, common goals, shared language, being in the right place at the right time, consistency, a desire to be open to the Other, etc.
Another point, I’d like to make is that there have been “virtual” communities long before the virtual was created. In the 1920′s with the explosion of Zine culture, people shared community, participated in generating a new/alternative vision that challenge capitalism, wrote their own narratives, formed practices, and yes, travelled to visit with one another all around a particular Zine. And we could go back much further, to communities revolving around literature (printed or written) that share a the language and interest of a particular text (hello, the church!) yet may or may not share physical proximity. It seems like the very idea of the “catholic” church, is the theological counter-part to (at least the very best of) community in our age.
Sorry — just to clarify “I agree with [you].”
Finally, I think we should, instead of talking about what is “community,” at some level, someone needs to give Hipps a compelling example of one that isn’t simply material-proximity. I’d challenge him to look into the online Quaker community (QuakerQuaker.org) and the subsequent renewal movement among Quakers called “convergent” Friends. This is a vast network of young and old Quakers all over the world pulling together a) to renew Quakerism within contemporary culture; b) make connections that are no longer possible because of the many factions among Quakers; c) use the internet to produce a re-written narrative of Quakerism that is more compelling the the Enlightenment version we’re currently working with; d) invite voices that are not welcome to those in control of the physical meetings; and e) worship together however, where ever and whenever they can. This group very often gatherings in locations, but isn’t limited to having face-to-face meetings and could have only happened with the level of community many of us now experience on a day to day basis.
I’m right there with ya on this.
I would have to agree with Shane..in part because I actually know him and where he’s coming from. Wes says of the Quaker online community “This is a vast network of young and old ” And there in is the difference. To quote a friend of mine “Much of what passes for community today is simply user-friendly networking” I believe that one thing that differentiates true incendiary Christian community is that it’s not always convenient, it requires one to go beyond what is ‘user-friendly’ and lay down our lives for each other, it’s the cross. I don’t see that happening in virtual communities. I do agree (and I’m quite sure Shane would as well) that technology can be used to enhance community and support community. I have a group of friends that I meet with for retreat about every 2-3 years. In between we keep up through email, Facebook, etc. It keeps us connected so that when we do meet face to face, we don’t have to start from square one again. But I don’t believe that virtual networking can take the place of true face-to-face lay down your life kind of community.
Adam, thank you for this post. It’s incredible how people refuse to embrace the technology of the day which in fact does help and construct what we know today as “community.” I do have to agree that there is nothing better than sitting down face to face over a cup of tea but I am so thankful that social networks and other modes of technology can work side by side and allow us to connect with those we can sit down with. What a blessing it is that I have the ability, via internet, to network with other like-minded thinkers all over the world!!! How can you deny the benefits of that???
Hey Adam,
I ended up writing a long comment here.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer. “Life Together”, Ch. 1.
Shane’s right. This is not community. At best, it’s harmless and not helpful to either the seriously minded theological community or the actual church. At worst, it’s hyper-individualism, narcisissim, and a weird fetishistic technologism finally motivated by typical American consumerism. Go meet your friend for coffee and talk theology with her. Go grab lunch with a pastor and ask for advice. Read a book with a group of friends and talk about it. But if you think theoblogs constitute community you’ve lost your damn minds.
Community is a contiuum.
Virtual community doesn’t have all the aspects that face to face community has. On the flip side, virtual community does allow larger community size based on micro-issues. For instance, those passionate about Church 2.0 can only afford to get together so often, but the virtual space allows them to commune with each other daily.
Ideally, I think virtual communities are FAR better if they have some real world connection which under-girds them. But, thats just a personal preference and gut feeling about how I like to interact.
It would be interesting to read if folks like the author of “Bowling Alone” think that social media and web platforms have the possibility of replacing the lack of community that has existed in the 1990′s and 2000′s.
He may have a point. I was watching a roundtable on SXSW on design and spec. One person pointed out that Spec isn’t design, but decoration because design requires more integration of brand and a depth of communication between designer and company. I think a parallel distinction may exist here. Although, I think again, its an issue of continuum. As text moves to more audio and particularly video…I think the gap between one form of community and the other may drop dramatically.
Great post! John Saddington at Church Crunch had a discussion about this in the context of small groups recently that might be worth checking out.
That short little interview, when I saw it a couple of weeks ago, was a cold shower that I needed. It has literally transformed my perspective on how I interact with others, and where I am connecting deeply with those I minister to.
Whether or not he is “right” hasn’t been the issue to me. His point brings up a weakness in many ministries, that we have allowed tech community to be a counterweight and rationale to the busyness that we choose to throw ourselves into.
The things that bother you about what he said, should be the things you examine to see why they REALLY bother you.