CITY & COMMUNITY

Simmel’s (1936) famous observation that “one nowhere feels as lonely and lost as in the
metropolitan crowd” illustrates a common theme of alienation and lost community in
Are Virtual Communities True Communities? classic social theory. More recently, analysts such as Nisbet (1976), Bellah (1996), and
Examining the Environments and Elements Putnam (2000) traced this theme in the United States, concluding that community is
indeed diminished. Often, then, assessments of modern and even postmodern societies
of Community include the “eclipse of,” “decline in,” or “loss of” community. Although the nature of
community decline remains debatable, there is nonetheless a wide acceptance of this decline
Robyn Bateman Driskell∗ and numerous searches for the lost community.
Baylor University

Larry Lyon
Baylor University THE COMMUNITY DEBATE

We will argue that both the loss of community and attempts to regain community can be
understood as a series of debates progressing from one environment to another. Specifically,
Critiques of modern societies often cite the loss of community as a result of weak community was seen as being lost from its original environment, the local place, typically
connections with local places and changing modes of social interactions. We will ar-
a village or a residential neighborhood. Then came the claim that community could be
gue that both the loss of community and attempts to regain community can be
understood as a series of debates progressing from one environment to another. regained in the environment of shared space, typically voluntary associations or work
Specifically, community was seen as being lost from its original environment, the groups. The most recent candidate for regaining community is the digital environment of
local place, typically a village or a residential neighborhood. Then came the claim cyberspace.
that community could be regained in the environment of shared space, typically vol- Much of the debate on whether lost community can be regained focuses on the degree to
untary associations or work groups. The most recent candidate for regaining com- which community can exist without a local place. Melvin Webber (1963) was among the
munity is the digital environment of cyberspace. Using existing research, we seek first to argue for a “community without propinquity” as Americans became more closely
to determine if virtual communities are indeed true communities. Can the virtual
tied to voluntary associations than to local neighborhood communities. More generally,
community provide two of the core elements—common ties and social interaction—
without identification with place? We explore each of these environments as we voluntary associations can be seen as an environment for community based on shared
search for community and the qualities necessary to establish community, finding space. The shared space is a church, a bar, a workplace, or anywhere that regular face-to-face
that virtual communities are spatially liberated, socially ramified, topically fused, interaction occurs. The shared space has a location, but unlike the local place, the specific
and psychologically detached, with a limited liability. In this sense, if we understand location is not important for common ties or social interactions to exist (e.g., the church
community to include the close, emotional, holistic ties of Gemeinschaft, then the might move from the downtown location to the suburbs, but the community remains). Yet
virtual community is not true community. That does not necessarily imply, how- some analysts argue that shared space is insufficient for true community. Robert Wuthnow,
ever, that Internet relationships are the antithesis of true community relationships.
for example, sees the weak ties in shared space as fundamentally diminishing the quality
The Internet may either reduce community, reinforce community, or provide a weak
replacement. of community.
The social contract binding members together asserts only the weakest of obligations.
Come if you have time. Talk if you feel like it. Respect everyone’s opinion. Never
Critiques of modern societies often include the loss of community, due to weak connections criticize. Leave quietly if you become dissatisfied. . . . We can imagine that these
with local places and changing modes of social interactions. The idea that Western societies small groups really substitute for families, neighborhoods, and broader community
lose community as they modernize has been an ongoing theme in sociology since Tönnies’s attachments that may demand lifelong commitments, when, in fact, they do not.
Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Tönnies, Simmel, Wirth, and to a lesser degree, Durkheim, (Wuthnow, 1998, pp. 3–6)
Marx, and Weber all concluded that, on balance, the quantity and quality of community
is reduced when a society becomes more urban, more industrial, more Gesellschaft-like. Unlike Wuthnow, Robert Putnam believes the ties in shared space of voluntary associations
are sufficient for community, but we are not participating enough in things like fraternal
organizations, religious affiliations, and labor unions.
∗ Correspondence should be addressed to Robyn Bateman Driskell, Department of Sociology, Baylor University, Over this quarter century the number of voluntary associations roughly tripled,
P.O. Box 97326, Waco, Texas 76798-7326; Robyn [email protected]. We wish to thank Tillman Rodabough,
Tony Orum, and the anonymous reviewers for the thorough and detailed suggestions and the time they devoted but the average membership seems to be roughly one-tenth as large—more groups,
to the reviews. but most of them much smaller. . . . Official membership in formal organizations is
City & Community 1:4 December 2002 only one facet of social capital, but it is usually regarded as a useful barometer of
C American Sociological Association, 1307 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005-4701
⃝ community involvement. (Putnam, 2000 p. 49)

373 374
 VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES CITY & COMMUNITY

Although the loss of community debate continues (Greeley, 1992; Ladd, 1999), some THE CORE ELEMENTS OF COMMUNITY
sociologists have begun to recast the debate, arguing that as modern society gives way to a
postmodern society, a new replacement for the lost community is emerging in cyberspace IDENTIFICATION WITH PLACE
(Haythornthwaite, 2001). According to the emerging debate, the explosion of the Internet
provides either a new medium for an expanded, enhanced community (Wellman, 2001) The lost community thesis often argues that what was lost was a village or small town, a
or a refuge for social isolates avoiding real-world relationships (Kraut et al., 1998; Nie, local place where one was born, raised, and died—a local place with inherently intimate,
1999). Using existing research, we seek to determine if virtual communities are indeed true holistic relationships. Tönnies stresses the importance of place in his original description
communities. This progression of losing and regaining community in the local place, then of the Gemeinschaft-like community.
shared space, and now cyberspace begs the question of whether the essential elements of
A common relation to the soil tends to associate people who may be kinsfolk or
community can be found in each environment. However, answering that question requires
believe themselves to be such. Neighborhood, the fact that they live together, is the
defining one of the most nebulous concepts in the social science lexicon.
basis of their union . . . this type is the rural village community. (Tönnies, [1887] 1957,
p. 257)
DEFINITIONS OF COMMUNITY To assess the necessity for an identification with place for community, it is important to
note that when sociologists speak of the “loss” of community, there are at least two distinct
Since Robert Park’s (1936, p. 3) classic definition, meanings (Bernard, 1973; Lyon, 1999). The psychological meaning focuses on the social
interaction dimension of the community and analyzes the alienation that can come from
The essential characteristics of a community, so conceived, are those of: (1) a popula-
the loss of community (Bellah, 1996; Putnam, 2000). The territorial meaning focuses more
tion territorially organized, (2) more or less completely rooted in the soil it occupies,
on the specific area and the diminishing identification with place (Gans, 1962; Greer, 1962;
(3) its individual units living in a relationship of mutual interdependence . . .
Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974; Hunter, 1975; Ahlbrandt, 1984; Wellman and Wortley, 1990).
the concept of community has been continually redefined and remains extraordinarily Both meanings share the same primary source for the loss of community—the urban,
slippery. Less than 20 years after Park’s definition, Hillery (1955) found no fewer than industrial mass society—and both describe similar problems—excessive individualism,
94 different community definitions (e.g., a group, a process, a social system, a geographic alienation, and a resultant lower quality of life.
place, an attitude, a common lifestyle, local self-sufficiency) and observed that no com- Although the two types of community that are “lost” can be conceptually distinct
plete agreement exists as to the nature of community. Still, Hillery concluded that three and are treated as separate phenomena in most literature, they are, nonetheless, closely
core elements were essential components of most definitions: (1) a specific place—a point related. Robert Nisbet, in the preface to the more recent printings of his famous treatise
crucial to the analysis of cyberspace, along with (2) common ties—perhaps the least an- on individual alienation in the mass society, The Quest for Community (originally published
alyzed of the three elements, and (3) social interaction—the sine qua non of commu- in 1953), relates the decline in identification with the place and property of the territorial
nity. Although few terms can match “community” in definitional imprecision (Sutton and community to the more psychological alienation from close, personal interaction.
Munson, 1976), most sociologists could accept a traditional definition including the three
Similarly, I think alienation from place and property turns out to be, at bottom
core elements identified by Park and later confirmed by Hillery—identification with a
estrangement from those personal ties, which give lasting identity to each. Native
specific geographic area, common ties through an identification by the residents with one
health is hardly distinguishable from the human relationships within which landscape
another and with that area, and, finally, significant social interaction among the residents
and animals and things become cherished and deeply implanted in one’s soul. (Nisbet,
(Lyon, 1999).
1976, p. xii)
For virtual communities, the first element is especially important. Although conceiv-
ing of a community as “rooted in the soil” seems quaint in a modern society, the tradi- Analysts such as Nisbet believe the decline in the relevance of and identification with the
tional idea that a community has a spatial reference or identification with place continues territorial community is related to the decline in Gemeinschaft-like interpersonal relations;
(Grannis, 1998; Orum, 1998; Molotch, Freudenburg, and Paulsen, 2000). By definition, both reinforce one another and both are seen as symptoms of a modern society. If Nisbet
the element of identification with place seems to exclude the concept of a virtual com- is correct, and if identification with local place is necessary for psychological community,
munity. The latter can be defined briefly and initially as people who form communities then a virtual community is impossible. However, if community can exist based only on
through computer-supported social networks within a social structure in cyberspace af- common ties and social interaction, then a virtual community remains a possibility.
ter prolonged discussions (Dean, 2000; Wellman, 2001). The virtual community does not
include identification with place, but it does require common ties and social interaction.
Thus, we can now recast our original question with more precision. Can the virtual com- COMMON TIES
munity provide two of the core elements—common ties and social interaction—without
identification with place? Answering this question requires detailed specification of each The proposition that the common ties necessary for Gemeinschaft-like community can
of these three core elements. emerge without the advantages of an identification with place did not originate with the

375 376
 VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES CITY & COMMUNITY

concept of cyberspace. Without reference to place, Tönnies claims that the Gemeinschaft- If the many social interactions in virtual communities contain these elements, then
like common ties may exist in social organizations or corporate bodies such as leagues, the nonspatial and nonfacial contact interactions in virtual communities would not be
fellowships, associations, or special interest groups. qualitatively different from those associated with traditional communities based on local
place or shared space. With similar Gemeinschaft-type relationships, virtual communities
These social bodies and communities retain their common root in that original state
would resemble what traditional communities are thought to be, lacking only the spa-
of belonging together, which according to our concept is the Gemeinschaft. Indeed,
tial reference and the face-to-face contact. However, it appears that the quality and the
although the original state of common being, living, and working is changed, it
quantity of the interactions in cyberspace are substantially different from the face-to-
retains and is able to renew its mental and political form and its cooperative functions
face interactions in the local place or shared space environments. While some relation-
. . . the essence of both Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft is found interwoven in all kinds
ships in virtual communities seem close and intimate, “there is legitimate concern about
of associations. (Tönnies, [1887] 1957, p. 58)
whether true intimacy is possible in relationships that operate only online, the Net pro-
The Internet certainly provides the opportunity for associations based on all manner motes the functioning of intimate secondary relationship and weaker ties” (Wellman and
of shared interests. Yet, observers such as Galston (2000) contend that newsgroups, fan Gulia, 1999, p. 183). The most effective way to address these concerns and to assess the
clubs, mailing lists, or chat rooms do not constitute a community because a true com- nature of interactions in cyberspace is to analyze the environments of the local place,
munity must have more things in common than a narrowly defined topic. For example, shared space, and then cyberspace. While the local place, shared space, and cyberspace
Amitai and Oren Etzioni (2001) believe that people meeting for the first time in a chat may have many of the same qualities, we expect considerable variations to exist in each
room may have a shared interest, but they would not have the broader common ties that environment.
constitute a community. Common ties require commonalities; the group of individuals on
the Net must have a bond, a measure of commitment, a set of shared values, a culture, a
history, and a shared identity. The Etzionis argue that the process of sharing values for the THE ENVIRONMENTS OF COMMUNITY
virtual community relies on a prior history, communal identity, experiences, and rituals,
thus a need for a communal memory. The views of the Etzionis (2001) and Galston (2000) LOCAL PLACE
suggest that even with a measure of shared values, culture, and history, the common ties
in virtual communities are often qualitatively different from those in traditional commu- The original concept of community was an ideal type that emphasized local place, common
nities. Beyond the qualities of identification with place and common ties, are the social ties, and social interaction that is intimate, holistic, and all-encompassing. Tönnies con-
interactions also different? trasted the types of relationships appearing typically in extended families or rural villages
(Gemeinschaft) with those found in modern, capitalist states (Gesellschaft). Gemeinschaft-
like relationships are based on sentiment, tradition, and common bonds. The basis for
SOCIAL INTERACTIONS these relationships is in either the family or the “soil” (i.e., living and working in a lo-
cal place). Gemeinschaft is characterized by a strong identification with the community,
Perhaps the most important and widely analyzed elements of community are the number emotionalism, traditionalism, and holistic conceptions of other members of the commu-
and nature of social interactions. Tönnies describes the social interactions of Gemeinschaft nity (i.e., viewing another as a total person rather than only as a segment of his status
as being based on: or viewing a person as significant in her own right rather than as a means to an end).
the feeling that we are intimate, that we affirm each other’s existence, that ties Since Gemeinschaft is an ideal type, there is no place where one can find total Gemein-
exist between us, that we know each other and to a certain extent are sympathetic schaft or, for that matter, complete Gesellschaft. Rather, they are hypothetical, extreme
toward each other, trusting and wishing each other well . . . we have certain values constructs, existing solely for the purpose of comparison with the real world. This “gold
in common . . . a definite mutual action must regularly result . . . which one feels standard” community where residents identify with the local place, where common ties
obligated. (Tönnies, [1887] 1957, p. 9) bind them together, and where all interactions are completely holistic has never existed. In-
stead, human organizations and relationships fall somewhere in between Gemeinschaft and
According to previous research and analysis, the ideal Gemeinschaft-type interactions Gesellschaft.
reflect relationships that would be: Yet, the question remains: Does local place still matter? Confining community to solely
spatial conditions clearly neglects the relational elements (common ties and social interac-
! Close and intimate (Redfield, 1947; Tönnies, 1957; Wellman and Gulia, 1999). tions) necessary for community, and a body of research shows that just because people are
! Holistic and all-encompassing (Park, 1936; Redfield, 1947; Bateman and Lyon, 2000). neighbors, does not necessarily mean they are friends (Fischer, 1982). Local place is cer-
! Emotional and supportive (Fischer, 1975; Wellman and Gulia, 1999). tainly not always sufficient to produce community, but the question is: Is place necessary
! Long term and enduring (Suttles, 1968; Rubin, 1969). to produce community? Can communities without local place meet the needs traditionally
! Based on common values (Tönnies, 1957; Etzioni and Etzioni, 2001). met by a village or a neighborhood?
! Associated with regular social interaction (Hillery, 1955; Tönnies, 1957).

377 378
 VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES CITY & COMMUNITY

SHARED SPACE the maintenance of this infrastructure without the deliberate intention of the individ-
uals involved.” In other words, when people live near one another, a level of interaction
Some argue that community has not really been lost since common ties and social inter- and common identification is naturally forced upon them. Shared space and voluntary
action can exist without the local place. These ties and interactions can exist in a more associations can and do supplement the local place, but it is difficult to foresee a time
generic, nonresidential shared space, such as a school, workplace, church, or social club. when Gemeinschaft is no longer associated with the local place. Still, it seems clear that
The common tie could be to a company or a religion; the social interactions could be of an in shared space, the common ties and social interactions can and do exist without local
intimate and holistic nature. Therefore, some analysts argue that voluntary associations, place.
the workplace, or other meeting places can meet the same psychological needs that we Organizational ties and networks found in shared space serve as a predecessor to the
assumed small towns and neighborhoods once met (Webber, 1963; Rubin, 1969; Zablocki, types of relationships found in cyberspace. The search for community continues outside
1979; Fischer, 1982; Oldenburg, 1989). the territorial local place and outside the confines of an organization meeting in a shared
Urban planner Melvin Webber was among the first to suggest that the concern for the space to the virtual environment of nonspatial cyberspace.
lost local community is unnecessary and that attempts to revive the territorial community
(local place) are misplaced. In an article, subtitled “Community without Propinquity,” he
argued that the concerns of analysts such as Nisbet over the standardization and cen- CYBERSPACE
tralization of the mass society are unfounded because “rather than a ‘mass culture’ in a
‘mass society’ the long term prospect is for a maze of subcultures within an amazingly The most recent extension of the idea that community can exist without local place is
diverse society” (Webber, 1963, p. 29). However, the basis for this subcultural variation the concept of a virtual community existing in cyberspace. Now the argument is pushed
is not the territorial community. Rather, “Americans are becoming more closely tied to further: not only is local place not necessary,1 neither is shared space. This means that
various interest communities than to place communities” (Webber, 1963, p. 29). A similar face-to-face contact is not necessary for the common ties and social interaction associated
observation is made by Israel Rubin (1969, p. 116). with community.
Barry Wellman has long argued that communities can be liberated from traditional
The romantic theme that modern man has “lost” his community is fed by the com-
spatially compact, densely-knit neighborhoods to a person-to-person community that
mon observation that the neighborhoods, towns, and cities have ceased to serve as
is completely independent of local place or shared space (e.g., connectivity through
significant foci of identification for the mobile man of industrial society. However,
wireless cell phones where one interacts with another regardless of location). Wellman
from our vantagepoint we see no reason for saddling the concept with the territorial
(2001, p. 228) defines community “as networks of interpersonal ties that provide socia-
element.
bility, support, information, a sense of belonging and social identity . . . not limited to
Rubin, like Webber, argued that the territorial, local place community is becoming irrele- neighbourhoods and villages.” According to Wellman, communities function as networks,
vant. Still, the idea of community requiring a local place is a powerful one with remarkable not local groups. These networks of family, neighbors, friends, and co-workers are par-
staying power. Thirty years after Rubin’s observations, we find that network analysts such tial communities that are loosely connected and fragmented (Wellman and Leighton,
as Barry Wellman (Wellman and Gulia, 1999, p. 169) still feel obligated to “educate tra- 1979; Wellman, 2001). From this perspective, the community networks can exist in lo-
ditional, place-oriented, community sociologists that community can stretch well beyond cal places, shared spaces, and cyberspace. People effectively use the technology of the
the neighborhood.” Research has established a widespread connectivity in cities. In the Internet to create networks and sustain community ties in cyberspace, thus forming
shared space, the community ties are often long-distance relationships extending far be- relationships that are both meaningful and supportive (Wellman, 2001). If Wellman is
yond the neighborhood (Gans, 1962; Wellman, 1979; Fischer, 1982; Greer, 1962; Hampton correct, then virtual communities in cyberspace can provide the same quality of com-
and Wellman, 2001). mon ties and social interactions that can be found in shared spaces and even local
Still, the idea that communities based on shared space can replace the local place com- places.
munity as the primary basis for the psychological feelings of community is questionable. The following section addresses the qualities of virtual communities in cyberspace and
A base level of community rises naturally from residential propinquity. While profes- assesses the degree to which virtual communities contain Gemeinschaft-type elements of
sional associations, labor unions, religious groups, and other voluntary associations can identification with place—the common ties and social interaction necessary for commu-
provide a measure of Gemeinschaft, the local place community seems certain to remain nity. We will argue that communities in cyberspace are spatially liberated from geographic
a primary basis for the psychological community. For example, Benjamin Zablocki (1979, and social boundaries, socially ramified in their connections, topically fused in areas of in-
p. 108) maintains that a psychological community requires an “infrastructure” of inter- terest, psychologically detached from close interpersonal ties, with only limited liability
personal interactions to maintain itself and observes that while a voluntary organization for their members. These characteristics of virtual communities, when contrasted with the
“must nourish this infrastructure out of a surplus of its members’ vested resources, if characteristics of the ideal Gemeinschaft-type relationships, enable us to evaluate the differ-
any such surplus remains after the manifest goals of the organization are met,” in the ences between the nonspatial cyberspace community and the spatially based communities
territorial (local place) community, “proximity itself provides for the greater part of in local places and in shared spaces.

379 380
 VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES CITY & COMMUNITY

IDENTIFICATION WITH PLACE IN CYBERSPACE with short attention spans. In the traditional community, relationships are more perma-
nent and based on affective ties. An essential aspect of a traditional community is the
Spatially Liberated
assumption that the members of the community will always be there. Virtual members,
Certainly the most visible and possibly the most crucial difference between cyberspace however, can shut others out with one click of the mouse (Dean, 2000). It is not easy to
and other types of community is the absence of place. Almost by definition, the vir- leave one’s family, move from a familiar neighborhood, change or renounce one’s religion,
tual community in cyberspace has been liberated from confines and constraints of place or find a new workplace, but one can obtain a new e-mail address, chat room, website, or
(Wellman, 2001). Even before the Internet, Western society privatized community with Usenet by just the click of the mouse. In the cyber relationship, it can be easier to replace
the automobile and the suburbs, telephones and television, all resulting in less time in pub- the relationship, change chat rooms, or “move” to another virtual community than to
lic places and more activities indoors and in private homes. Community building activities work out differences. Due to the lack of face-to-face contact and the weak ties, virtual
such as visiting friends at a café, or dropping in on the barbershop on Main Street to catch communities in cyberspace, unlike the local place or shared space community, have only
up on the local gossip, grew less common. It may be that relations in virtual communities limited liability for their members. While cyberspace lacks the identification with place
are sufficient to offset the declining importance of local place (Katz, Rice, and Aspden, and has ramified and weak common ties, it is also expected that social interactions in
2001; Wellman, 2001). Whether this is the case depends, of course, on the level of common cyberspace will vary from the types of interactions in the local place and shared space.
ties and quality of social interaction in virtual communities.2

SOCIAL INTERACTIONS IN CYBERSPACE

COMMON TIES IN CYBERSPACE
Two characteristics of social interactions in cyberspace suggest qualities that generally
Two distinctive characteristics emerge from the literature on the types of ties that develop appear antithetical to Gemeinschaft.
among Internet users; neither lends itself to a Gemeinschaft-like community.
Topically Fused
Socially Ramified
In cyberspace, interactions are topically fused in their focus. Interactions in the vir-
In comparison to the communities of local place and shared space, cyberspace communi- tual community are narrowly focused on specific topics and specialized (Wellman and
ties tend to be more numerous and more heterogeneous in social characteristics such as Wortley, 1990; Kling, 1996); relationships in the local place are viewed as holistic and all-
race, region, or income (Hiltz and Turoff, 1993). Thus, we may follow Fischer (1975) and encompassing (Park, 1936; Redfield, 1947). Internet relationships are highly segmented
conclude that the virtual community is ramified in its ties and social interactions. On the and are usually based on shared interest rather than the more holistic relationships based
Net, it is possible to maintain an increasing number of ties in virtual communities. The on family, neighborhood, or work relationships. While our Trekkers are from various racial
easy accessibility of e-mail and Internet chat rooms supports sending messages to a large groups, educational levels, religious groups, and income levels, they will all know and care
number of people and remaining in contact with multiple social environments (Wellman about the Borg’s battles with the Federation. Thus, the interest in Star Trek may be in-
and Gulia, 1999). In cyberspace, therefore, the virtual community can easily support ties tense and also narrow in that concerns are not likely to extend beyond the Federation’s
to a large number of people. Participants are almost effortlessly connected to virtual com- quadrant of the galaxy. Our parents, spouse, neighbor, or even co-worker may be interested
munities that would not exist otherwise (Wellman et al., 1996). The virtual community in what we had for dinner, what we think about the local football team, and how late our
allows participants to increase both the number of community ties and the diversity of the teenagers stayed out last night; members of our Star Trek chat room probably will not.
people whom they encounter. While we are likely to resemble our family, neighbors, fellow Online discussion groups tend to fragment into narrower and narrower topics as users
worshipers, and co-workers in racial and social background, a chat room of Star Trekkers, share a specific topic of interest (Shapiro, 1999; UCLA CCP, 2000). Cyberspace communi-
for example, may be of any racial category, educational level, religion, political party, or ties foster specific communities of interest rather than communities of multi-interests that
income level. Of course, the participant may also join groups discussing Star Wars, Spider- support a personal closeness and broad familiarity among members (Wellman and Gulia,
man, and Britney Spears, but the fact that one may belong to a large number of interest 1999).
groups in cyberspace does not mean that any of them contain qualities of Gemeinschaft.
Psychologically Detached
Limited Liability
The quality of social interaction necessary to create and sustain community requires a
The virtual community holds only limited liability for its members (Greer, 1962; Suttles, significant level of trust and intimacy. Virtual communities and online relationships may
1968). The ties binding virtual community relationships are typically weak, reflecting a lack this psychological closeness. Many features of the virtual community do not promote
marketplace approach to community much like that described in the recent analysis of interpersonal knowledge, trust, or commitment. Virtual communities may lack identity
Wuthnow (1998). Virtual communities are self-selecting, contingent, and often transient, recognition in voice and tone, physical responses or gestures, and incremental signals
from others resulting in deception or manipulation (Donath, 1999). Furthermore, such

381 382
 VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES CITY & COMMUNITY

anonymity allows people to send messages online that probably would not be articulated TABLE 1. Community Environments and Elements
in a face-to-face conversation (Wellman and Hampton, 1999). Although there is little Core Elements
empirical data, the commonly expressed view is that the virtual community lacks an
Identification Common Social
element of trust due to its limited information and social cues about the other community Environments with Place Ties Interaction
members (Donath, 1999; Etzioni and Etzioni, 2001). While members in a traditional, local Local place + + +
place community will have a degree of social responsibility, the virtual community requires Shared space ± + +
no commitment beyond one’s own interest (Galston, 2000). Robert Putnam comments Cyberspace – ± ±
that while the Internet is a tool of communication, he is unsure if the computer-mediated + element likely to be present.
communication can foster social capital and genuine community. ± element may be present.
−element likely to be absent.
Anonymity and fluidity in the virtual world encourage “easy in, easy out,” “drive-by”
relationships. That very casualness is the appeal of computer-mediated communica-
tion for some denizens of cyberspace, but it discourages the creation of social capital. the local place, or even the organizations in the shared space. Thus, Table 1 posits that
If entry and exit are too easy, commitment, trustworthiness, and reciprocity will not Gemeinschaft-type relationships cannot easily exist without place (the local place or shared
develop. (Putnam, 2000, p. 177) space).
Our reading of the literature generally supports the proposition that the decline in the
Not only are members of virtual communities physically distant, they are socially distant
relevance of and identification with the local place is related to the decline in Gemeinschaft-
as well. Participants seeking companionship or support rather than basic information may
type relationships. While the shared space of voluntary associations may provide a suitable
find virtual communities unfulfilling. The low level of trust, intimacy, and commitment
environment for community, it seems plausible at this point to conclude that most virtual
make the kinds of emotional support associated with traditional, local place communities
communities do not contain the necessary qualities of true community. However, such a
difficult to replicate in cyberspace.
conclusion does not address the related but conceptually distinct questions concerning the
Although it would be rare, a virtual community with a relatively small number of largely
effects of the Internet on community.
homogeneous participants could foster intimacy. And while achieving such conditions is
difficult, it appears that virtual communities can achieve a level of intimacy if the number
of participants is small, admission to the community is controlled, and people are honest NET EFFECTS ON COMMUNITY
about their identities (Etzioni and Etzioni, 2001). It becomes a tradeoff as users try to
balance privacy, accountability, and trust (Donath, 1999). Thus, while the possibility for While virtual communities, lacking a spatial component, have a difficult time providing
virtual communities with close psychological ties exists in theory, in practice, members of the common ties and social relationships associated with Gemeinschaft, it does not neces-
virtual communities are likely to remain psychologically detached from one another. sarily follow that this is a problem. Most social entities do not create Gemeinschaft; even the
traditional local place community often falls short (Fischer, 1995; Bellah, 1996; Wuthnow,
1998; Putnum, 2000). Holding virtual communities to the “gold standard” of Gemeinschaft
THE LACK OF TRUE COMMUNITY IN CYBERSPACE may be unrealistic. Perhaps a more reasonable metric would be the impact of virtual com-
munities on Gemeinschaft-like relationships. Are communications via the Internet likely
In evaluating virtual communities, we find them unlikely to contain many aspects of the to hinder or help the development of the common ties and social interaction associated
ideal Gemeinschaft-type relationships. Without exception, the non-Gemeinschaft character- with Gemeinschaft?
istics of the virtual community in cyberspace reflect the absence of a spatial reference. The A significant body of research concerning Internet use and its effects on community is
fact that virtual communities are spatially liberated increases the likelihood that they also emerging. Many of the initial studies indicated a negative effect on community. Although
possess characteristics antithetical to Gemeinschaft. Relationships in communities without these reports were often limited methodologically, the common view of detrimental effects
a spatial reference are more likely to be socially ramified and topically fused, resulting in on community persisted.
community members who are psychologically detached and feel only limited liability to
the community.
Although virtual communities can include both common values and regular social in- NEGATIVE EFFECTS
teraction, the limited liability to the community reduces long-term stability and strong
group identification. Further, given that virtual communities are likely to be psycho- Observations that Internet-induced isolating, alienating individualism is replacing com-
logically detached, these communities will not have the qualities of close, intimate, emo- munity typically generates more popular acceptance than empirical support. Initial re-
tional, and supportive characteristics of Gemeinschaft-type relationships. Finally, as virtual ports indicated that long-term and intense Internet users would indeed replace community
communities are socially ramified, they do not have the holistic knowledge of their vir- activities with solitary cyberspace activities. Many authors are concerned that Internet
tual neighbors common in Gemeinschaft-type relationships of traditional communities in use may encourage spending more time alone, communicating with strangers, or forming

383 384
 VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES CITY & COMMUNITY

relationships with weak ties, displacing the higher quality face-to-face relationships of Probably the strongest evidence for positive effects comes from Wellman and Hampton’s
family and friends (Thompson and Nadler, 2002; Putnam, 2000). Although lacking em- (1999) study of “Netville.” Theirs was a two-year study of approximately 60 families living
pirical support, Norman Nie (1999) suggests that people who spend even a few hours on in a newly built, wired (equipped with Internet technologies) suburb of Toronto—Netville.
the Internet each week suffer higher levels of depression and loneliness than less frequent The residents’ ties tended to extend not only to those in close proximity, but throughout
users. According to Nie, isolation is reinforced, not reduced, in cyberspace. The Internet the Netville community (Wellman, 2001), and wired residents reported increased contacts
use provides a refuge for social isolates avoiding real-world relationships. with neighbors, family, and friends (Hampton and Wellman, 2001). The Net helped build
In a small, nonrandom study, Kraut et al. (1998) conducted the “HomeNet” study relationships with neighbors and kept them informed of the community and neighborhood
of first time users in Pittsburgh. The 73 households that agreed to participate in the activities. Similar to reports from other hybrids like the WELL, the Internet activities
study were given a free computer and Internet access. This longitudinal study included of the place-based Netville encouraged and integrated face-to-face interaction. The Net
169 people self-reporting on various scales of social involvement and psychological well- enhanced participants’ ties to the Toronto community. In fact, users recognized three
being. When compared with nonusers, participants in the HomeNet study spent less time in times as many of their neighbors and spoke with two times as many neighbors as nonusers
family communication, maintained fewer local social networks, received less social support, (Hampton and Wellman, 2001).
and reported higher levels of stress. The HomeNet study concludes that Internet use is
associated with subsequent reductions in social involvement and increases in loneliness
and depression. EMERGING CONSENSUS

Although it is hardly uncommon to find contradictory positions in the social sciences, the
POSITIVE EFFECTS emerging consensus seems to be that the Net has a limited, but positive, effect on users’
face-to-face interactions. In fact, some recent research reexamines and backs away from
A major and widely cited empirical study of the Internet is the UCLA Internet Report: the claims of social isolation, loneliness, and depression (Nie, 2001; Kraut et al., 2002). In
Surveying the Digital Future by the UCLA Center for Communication Policy (UCLA CCP). an updated study, Nie (2001) tries to reconcile some of the negative findings by arguing
The sample included 2,096 American Internet users and nonusers in a national random- that the key to the isolating effects is often the amount of time spent on the Internet. His
digit-dialing phone survey. According to the UCLA CCP Internet Report, two-thirds of survey results indicate that excessive time spent on the Internet takes away from time
all Americans use the Internet. The most popular activities are not the chat rooms that once spent interacting and socializing with family and friends (Nie and Erbring, 2000).
might create a virtual community, but web surfing, browsing, e-mailing, locating hobby When spending excessive amounts of time in cyberspace, users may actually reduce their
information, reading news, and finding entertainment information. Most Internet users personal interactions and face-to-face contacts (Nie, 2001), with the key variable being the
appear to be seeking information rather than social support. UCLA CCP (2000) reports amount of time, not the effect of the Internet. Further, Nie (2001) found that individuals
that Internet users spend an average of 9.4 hours per week online and those who have who already exhibit a high degree of social ties and community participation continue to
more than four years of Internet experience spend on average a remarkable 16.2 hours a be social and maintain a high degree of social interactions.
week on the Net. Surprisingly, users and nonusers spend roughly the same amount of time In a follow-up study of HomeNet, Kraut and his associates (2002) found that some of
reading books, reading newspapers, and talking on the telephone. the negative effects dissipated and those that remained were nuances of personality types.
The UCLA CCP (2000) data imply that the Internet may be a catalyst for creat- Internet use predicted better outcomes for extroverts and those with more social support;
ing and maintaining friendships. Users report that the Internet has had a modestly the outcomes were worse only for introverts and those with less support. Among introverts,
positive impact on both increasing contact with others and communicating more with using the Internet was associated with decreases in community involvement and self-
family. Some users have friends known only online, while others have created in-person esteem and increases in loneliness and time pressure. However, among extroverts, Internet
friendships that began on the Internet, thus making the Internet a new source of social use was associated with increases in community participation and social interactions.
contact. In fact, Internet users report having slightly more friends outside their house- Similar to the recent findings of Kraut et al. (2002) and Nie (2001), Gross, Juvonen,
hold than do nonusers. Overall, however, few differences were found in comparing Inter- and Gable (2002) report that there is no simple or main effect of the Internet on the av-
net users and nonusers. The Internet effects on community appear to be minimal, but erage person, but that the most common effects are minimally positive. For the socially
positive. dysfunctional or anxious individual, the Internet may exacerbate isolation and depres-
Similar results were found in an earlier study of Internet use and its effects of community sion. Simultaneously, for well-adjusted individuals, the Internet is simply another form of
integration conducted by Katz and Aspden (1998). They compared users and nonusers communication—a tool to maintain ties with family members and the community (Gross,
in a national random-digit-dialing survey of 3,000 Americans. The results indicate that Juvonen, and Gable, 2002).
Internet use does not decrease shared space community participation, does not decrease Given this emerging consensus, rather than virtual communities replacing local place
face-to-face interaction, and does not promote social isolation. Overall, they conclude that communities, the Internet may enhance community in the local place or shared space.
the Internet probably strengthens ties and creates richer social relationships (Katz, Rice, Wellman and Gulia (1999, p. 179) provide accounts of community ties that combine
and Aspden, 2001). both online and offline relationships and appear rooted in a shared space and local place:

385 386
 VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES CITY & COMMUNITY

“Despite all the talk about virtual community transcending time and space sui generis, the community found in the local place and in shared space, but they are poor replace-
much contact is between people who see each other in person and live locally.” Their ments for the Gemeinschaft-type relationships found in the place called The Community.
research indicates that communication, via telephone or the Internet, takes place with Communities still exist most readily, most naturally, and most often when people identify
people who live nearby and that the communication “filled in the gaps between in-person with place—the neighborhood, the school, the church, or the workplace—and personal,
meetings, and made arrangements for future get-togethers.” It appears that cyberspace face-to-face interactions are still important within the boundaries of a geographic area.
provides an excellent arena to initially establish and subsequently maintain the network
of social ties necessary for community. Still, additional research exploring the Net effects Notes
is needed. As Internet use expands and telecommunications technology evolves, what is 1 Ironically, references to space and spatial metaphors abound in the electronic environment. Internet users
true now may not be so in the near future.
often refer to navigating through cyberspace, traveling the information highway, and visiting different virtual
communities around the Net (Hiltz and Turoff, 1993; Howard, 1997). Further, high technology facilities that
could be located anywhere in the new global economy tend to be spatially congregated in high-tech centers such
CONCLUSIONS
as Silicon Valley (Webster, 2001).
2 Although the concept seems oxymoronic, a number of place-based virtual communities exist. Rhein-
The inherent qualities of cyberspace suggest that virtual community members will be
gold (2000) argues that the WELL (www.well.com) meets the qualifications for a real community by creat-
liberated from geographic and social boundaries, develop ramified social connections, be-
ing a neighborhood through a fusion of virtual and territorial community (see also Charles, 1992; Schwartz,
come topically fused in their interests, and yet remain psychologically detached, with only
1995; Shapiro, 1999; Rheingold, 2000). Other Internet-based communities with important spatial refer-
a limited liability toward other residents. In this sense, if we understand the elements of
ence include Echo (www.echonyc.com), based in New York, Charlotte’s Web in Charlotte, North Carolina
community to include the close, emotional, holistic ties of Gemeinschaft, then cyberspace
(www.charweb.org), Blacksburg Electronic Village in Blacksburg, Virginia (www.bev.net), Liberty Net in
does not contain these elements and, therefore, the environment of cyberspace is less likely
Philadelphia (www.libertynet.com), and Seattle Community Network (www.scn.org). The WELL and other
to support true community than the environments of local place and shared space. That
similar virtual communities with emphasis on the local place facilitate face-to-face contact and, thus, help build
does not necessarily mean, however, that the cyberspace relationships are the antithesis of
common ties that are intimate, holistic, supportive, and enduring (Kavanaugh and Patterson, 2001). Different
true community relationships or even that they are merely weak, unfulfilling substitutes
examples of distance learning programs integrating the local place environment with cyberspace (Haythorn-
for holistic community relationships.
thwaite et al., 2000; Kazmer and Haythornthwaite, 2001) include the successful distance learning program at
The Internet is better conceived not as a substitute for community, but as a new enhanced
Duke University. Duke Corporate Education, Inc. (2000) has developed the “Place and Space” model that blends
means of communication having effects on community similar to that of the telephone
traditional, residential forms of teaching and learning (place) with virtual, distributed communities (space).
(Pool, 1983; Fischer, 1992, 1997). For example, an e-mail relationship may enhance com-
munity, just as a telephone conversation could, by leading to more holistic, more personal,
face-to-face interactions. The phone, and now the Net, can be the first limited contact References
toward developing closer levels of community (e.g., when asking for a date), and they can Ahlbrandt, R. S., Jr. 1984. Neighborhoods, People, and Community. New York: Plenum Press.
provide important substitutes when face-to-face encounters are impossible (e.g., when fam- Bateman, R. L., and Lyon, L. 2000. “Losing and Finding Community: The Quest for Territorial and Psychological
ilies are physically separated). Most of the interaction that occurs on the Net is relatively Community from the Neighborhood to Cyberspace,” in D. A. Chekki (ed.), Research in Community Sociology,
narrow communication of specific information. Although communication is necessary for Vol. 10, pp. 59–78. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, Inc.
community, communication alone cannot create community. Bellah, R. [1985] 1996. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Thus as we search for community, the Net may: (1) reduce community with hours de- Bernard, J. 1973. The Sociology of Community. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
voted to impersonal searches of websites for information leading to social isolation and Charles, D. 1992. “Socializing in Cyberspace,” New Scientist 134(1821), 12–14.
the absence of community, by any definition of community; (2) create a weak community Dean, J. 2000. “Community,” in T. Swiss (ed.), Unspun: Key Concepts for Understanding the World Wide Web,
replacement by including significant amounts of e-mail correspondence and chat room pp. 4–16. New York: New York University Press.
conversations, leading not to a Gemeinschaft-like community, but to a virtual community Donath, J. S. 1999. “Identity and Deception in the Virtual Community,” in M. A. Smith and P. Kollock (eds.),
Communities in Cyberspace, pp. 29–59. New York: Routledge.
of specialized ties with a weak set of secondary relationships; or (3) reinforce community Duke Corporate Education, Inc. 2000. The Place and SpaceTM Model. Available online at www.dukece.com/
by providing the initial or supplemental connections that lead to the Gemeinschaft-like PandS/Place.html.
community. All three connections to community currently exist in cyberspace, and if the Etzioni, A., and Etzioni, O. 2001. “Can Virtual Communities be Real?” in A. Etzioni (ed.), The Monochrome
telephone is a reasonable analogy, our growing use of the Internet will continue to simul- Society, pp. 77–101. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
taneously reduce, replace, and reinforce community. Fischer, C. S. 1975. “Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism,” American Journal of Sociology 80, 1319–1341.
Fischer, C. S. 1982. To Dwell Among Friends. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
The quest for community continues in cyberspace. However, after the first few years of Fischer, C. S. 1992. America Calling: A Social History of the Telephone to 1940 . Berkeley, CA: University of
this search, the proposition that nonspatial virtual communities can replace the local place California Press.
and shared space community as the primary basis for the psychological feelings of com- Fischer, C. S. 1995. “The Subcultural Theory of Urbanism: A Twentieth-Year Assessment,” American Journal of
munity remains questionable. For now, at least, Internet relationships can complement Sociology 101, 543–577.

387 388
 VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES CITY & COMMUNITY

Fischer, C. S. 1997. “Technology and Community: Historical Complexities,” Sociological Inquiry 67(1), 113–118. Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and
Galston, W. A. 2000. “Does Internet Strengthen Community?” National Civic Review 89(3), 193–202. Schuster.
Gans, H. 1962. The Urban Villagers. New York: Free Press. Redfield, R. 1947. “The Folk Society,” American Journal of Sociology 52, 293–308.
Grannis, R. 1998. “The Importance of Trivial Streets: Residential Streets and Residential Segregation,” American Rheingold, H. 2000. The Virtual Community. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Journal of Sociology 103(6), 1530–1564. Rubin, I. 1969. “Function and Structure of Community: Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis,” International
Greeley, A. 1992. “Habits of the Head” (book review), Society (May–June), 74–81. Review of Community Development 21–22(Dec.), 111–122.
Greer, S. 1962. The Emerging City. New York: Free Press. Schwartz, E. 1995. “Looking for Community on the Internet,” National Civic Review 84(1), 37–42.
Gross, E. F., Juvonen, J., and Gable, S. L. 2002. “Internet Use and Well-Being in Adolescence,” Journal of Social Shapiro, A. L. 1999. “The Net that Binds: Using Cyberspace to Create Real Communities,” Nation 268(23),
Issues 58(1), 75–90. 11–15.
Hampton, K., and Wellman, B. 2001. “Long Distance Community in the Network Society,” American Behavioral Simmel, G. [1936] 1950. “The Metropolis in Mental Life,” translated and edited by K. H. Wolff, The Sociology of
Scientist 45(3), 476–495. Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press
Haythornthwaite, C. 2001. “Introduction: The Internet in Everyday Life,” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3), Suttles, G. D. 1968. The Social Order of the Slum. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
363–382. Sutton, W., Jr., and Munson, T. 1976. “Definitions of Community: 1954 Through 1973.” Paper presented to the
Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M., Robins, J., and Shoemaker, S. 2000. “Community Development Among American Sociological Association. New York.
Distance Learners: Temporal and Technological Dimensions,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication Thompson, L., and Nadler, J. 2002. “Negotiating via Information Technology: Theory and Application,” Journal
6(1). Available online at http://www.ascuse.org/jcmc/vol6/issue1/haythornwaite.html. of Social Issues 58(1), 109–124.
Hillery, G. A., Jr. 1955. “Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement,” Rural Sociology 20, 779–791. Tönnies, F. [1887] 1957. Community and Society, translated and edited by C. P. Loomis. East Lansing, MI:
Hiltz, S. R., and Turoff, M. 1993. The Network Nation (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Michigan State University Press.
Howard, T. W. 1997. A Rhetoric of Electronic Communities. Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation. UCLA Center for Communication Policy. 2000. The UCLA Internet Report: Surveying the Digital Future. Available
Hunter, A. 1975. “The Loss of Community,” American Sociological Review 40, 537–552. online at www.ccp.ucla.edu.
Kasarda, J. D., and Janowitz, M. 1974. “Community Attachment in Mass Society,” American Sociological Review Webber, M. 1963. “Order in Diversity: Community without Propinquity,” in L. Wingo, Jr. (ed.), Cities and Space:
39, 328–339. The Future Use of Urban Land. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Katz, J. E., and Aspden, P. 1998. Cyberspace and Social Community Development: Internet Users and Its Community Webster, F. 2001. “Re-Inventing Place: Birmingham as an Information City?” City 5(1), 27–46.
Integration Correlates. Available online at www.nicolahoering.net/Hogrefe/Katz2.htm. Wellman, B. 1979. “The Community Question: The Intimate Network of East Yorkers,” American Journal of
Katz, J. E., Rice, R. E., and Aspden, P. 2001. “The Internet, 1995–2000: Access, Civic Involvement, and Social Sociology 84(March), 1201–12731.
Interaction,” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3), 405–419. Wellman, B. 2001. “Physical Place and Cyberplace: The Rise of Personalized Networking,” International Journal
Kavanaugh, A. L., and Patterson, S. J. 2001. “The Impact of Community Computer Networks on Social Capital of Urban and Regional Research 22(2), 227–252.
and Community Involvement,” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3), 496–509. Wellman, B., and Gulia, M. 1999. “Virtual Communities as Communities: Net Surfers Don’t Ride Alone,” in
Kazmer, M. M., and Haythornthwaite, C. 2001. “Juggling Multiple Social Worlds: Distance Students Online and M. A. Smith and P. Kollock (eds.), Communities in Cyberspace, pp. 167–194. New York: Routledge.
Offline,” American Behavioral Scientist 45(3), 510–529. Wellman, B., and Hampton, K. 1999. “Living Networked On and Offline,” Contemporary Sociology 28(6), 642–654.
Kling, R. 1996. “Social Relationships in Electronic Forums: Hangouts, Salons, Workplaces and Communities,” Wellman, B., and Leighton, B. 1979. “Networks, Neighborhoods, and Communities: Approaches to the Study of
in R. Kling (ed.), Computerization and Controversy: Value Conflicts and Social Choices, 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: the Community Question,” Urban Affairs Quarterly 14(3), 363–390.
Academic Press. Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L., Gulia, M., and Haythornthwaite, C. 1996. “Computer Networks
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., and Crawford, A. 2002. “Internet Paradox as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community,” Annual Review of Sociology 22,
Revisited,” Journal of Social Issues 58(1), 49–74. 213–226.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., and Scherlis, W. 1998. “Internet Paradox: Wellman, B., and Wortley, S. 1990. “Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support,”
A Social Technology that Reduces Social Involvement and Psychological Well-Being?” American Psychologist American Journal of Sociology 96(3), 558–588.
52(9), 1017–1032. Wuthnow, R. 1998. Loose Connections: Joining Together in America’s Fragmented Communities. Cambridge, MA:
Ladd, E. C. 1999. The Ladd Report. New York: Free Press. Harvard University Press.
Lyon, L. 1999. The Community in Urban Society. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Zablocki, B. 1979. “Communes, Encounter Groups, and the Search for Community,” in K. Black (ed.), Search for
Molotch, H., Freudenburg, W., and Paulsen, K. E. 2000. “History Repeats Itself, But How? City Character, Community. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Urban Tradition, and the Accomplishment of Place,” American Sociological Review 65, 791–823.
Nie, N. 1999. “ZEITGEIST—Telecommuting and the Future of the Social Sphere,” American Demographics 21(7),
50–80.
Nie, N. H. 2001. “Sociability, Interpersonal Relations, and the Internet: Reconciling Conflicting Findings,”
American Behavioral Scientist 45(3), 420–435.
Nie, N., and Erbring, L. 2000. Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for
the Quantitative Study of Society.
Nisbet, R. [1953] 1976. The Quest for Community. New York: Free Press.
Oldenburg, R. 1989. The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores,
Bars, Hangouts and How They Get You Through the Day. New York: Paragon House.
Orum, A. M. 1998. “The Urban Imagination of Sociologists: The Centrality of Place,” Sociological Quarterly 39(1),
1–10.
Park, R. 1936. “Human Ecology,” American Journal of Sociology 17(1), 1–15.
Pool, I. de S. 1983. Forecasting the Telephone: A Retrospective Technology Assessment of Telephone. Norwood, NJ:
Ablex Publishing.

389 390