==============================================================									This document is from the WELL gopher server:	    										gopher://gopher.well.com	   								 Questions and comments to: gopher@well.com							==============================================================Roger Scime                     Copyright 1994 Roger ScimeP.O. Box 217Blue Diamond, NV  89004(702) 875-4313RScime@well.com                <cyberville> and the Spirit of Community:                Howard Rheingold-Meet Amitai EtzioniPrologue    You are on a roadway with many exits. You pass off-ramps that say: shopping district, university, library, town hall, the cracker barrel,government services, bank, church, and more. Although you are hurtlingdown the highway at at the speed of light, you somehow still have time forreflection as to where you are going and what you will do once you reachyour destination or destinations. You unconsciously note the sign that youpassed mere nanoseconds ago:  <cyberville.next.n.exits>. You are travelingdown the information superhighway, and some say that there exists avirtual community just beyond the verge. Introduction    When Howard Rheingold asserts that "whenever [computer mediatedcommunications] technology becomes available to people anywhere, theyinevitably build communities with it" (Rheingold 6), he is making astatement that demands examination. Community, after all, is a term thathas been bandied about in recent years, perhaps as a result of the recentemphasis on its importance as promulgated by communitarian advocates suchas Robert Bellah, and Amitai Etzioni, editor of The Responsive Community,the journal of communitarian thought. Etzioni, a professor at GeorgeWashington University, is perhaps the best known representative of themodern communitarian movement, having written numerous articles as well asan agenda for the movement, The Spirit of Community (1993), which explainsthe communitarian position-as well as rationale-on a number of issueswhere rights and responsibilities might appear to come into conflict.     Howard Rheingold, on the other hand, is a self-described former hippieand member of the "granola-eating crowd." He became involved in thecomputer conferencing group, the WELL in 1985, as a natural outgrowth ofhis involvement with the Whole Earth Catalog, the bible of seriouscounter-culturists during the 1960s. He is an acknowledged lay expert onthe social and cultural implications of cyberspace, and has writtenextensively on the subject, mostly for the popular press. His most recentbook, The Virtual Community (1993), has been cited as an authoritativesource of information regarding the potential for the National InformationInfrastructure (Katz, Schwartz, Weise).     I have attempted to determine the communitarian criteria for communityfrom Etzioni's _The Spirit of Community_, as well as from the writings ofJames Fishkin and Evan Schwartz, who have written on the issue ofcommunity in cyberspace. While none of these communitarian authors committo providing a taxonomy of community, much can be inferred from theirwritings. I have inferred certain determinants of community from theirwritings and compare them to characteristics that Rheingold suggests existin cyberspace (and meet his criteria for community). The characteristicsthat the communitarians assert as being required for a community areshared interests, shared values, caring and nurturing, discourse, and amoral voice. We will first examine these characteristics and then see ifthese characteristics do, as Rheingold suggests, exist in cyberspace. The characteristic of shared interests.     Webster defines community as "a body of individuals organized into aunit or manifesting usually with some awareness some unifying trait," andwe often speak of the legal or medical communities-communities defined byoccupation; indeed, work-based communities have become part of ournational vocabulary. Although less frequently encountered, we sometimeshear of a community of luthiers (stringed-instrument makers), modelairplane enthusiasts, or motorcyclists; reference to ethnic communitiesabound, as well as to communities of minority or protected groups.     Is physical proximity critical to this interest-based paradigm ofcommunity? Not according to Etzioni: "there is room for nongeographiccommunities that criss-cross the others, such as professional orwork-based communities" (Etzioni 32). He goes on to explain that, "theyfulfill many of the social and moral functions of traditional communities. . . " and workers ". . . often develop work-related friendships andcommunity webs. . . .  As they learn to know and care for one another,they also form and reinforce moral expectations" (Etzioni 121). Even incases where community is defined by ethnicity, geographic proximity is notrequired.  As Etzioni states,         In some instances members of one ethnic group live comfortably        next to one another, as in New York City's Chinatown and Miami's Little        Havana.  In other cities ethnic groups are more geographically dispersed        but sustain ethnic-community bonds around such institutions as churches        and synagogs, social clubs, and private schools.  (Etzioni 120)The characteristic of shared values.     Etzioni asserts that shared core values are another component ofcommunity. He lists the values of commitment to democracy, the Bill ofRights, and respect for other groups, as being basic to the United Statescommunity, and further asserts that, "constituent communities can followtheir own subsets of values without endangering the body society, as longas they accept these shared values"  (Etzioni 157). The characteristic of caring and nurturing.    Etzioni admits that typically,  a community "is a place in which people know and care for one another-the kind of place in which people do not merely ask 'How are you?' as a formality but care about the answer" (Etzioni 31).The characteristic of discourse.    Is discourse an important characteristic of a community? If we acceptthat democracy should be a basic component of the shared or core values ofa community, then the conditions for deliberation or conversation becomesmandatory. In a deliberative setting, "citizens can exchange reactions,voice and receive rival arguments, and test their opinions against thoseexpressed by others"  (Fishkin 14). The characteristic of a moral voice.     "Communities speak to us in moral voices. They lay claims upon itsmembers," asserts Etzioni (31), of his requirement of rights andresponsibilities for members of a community. It is this willingness toaccept the requirement of service in exchange for rights that provides theunderlying glue that keeps the community together. Members of a communitymust speak out when they perceive immoral behavior. "The disinclination tolay moral claims undermines the daily, routine social underwriting ofmorality" (35). <cyberville> and Computer Mediated Communications (CMC).     For the purposes of this paper, I have chosen to call my virtualcommunity <cyberville>, adhering to the convention that textual referencesto CMC be in courier typeface and often set off by <> symbols. <cyberville> exists in cyberspace, the place-name created byscience-fiction writer William Gibson (Neuromancer) to describe the"conceptual space where words, human relationships, data, wealth, andpower are manifested by people using CMC technology"  (Rheingold 5).     Also for purposes of this paper, I will depart somewhat fromRheingold's example of virtual community, the WELL (Whole Earth 'LectronicLink), the computer conferencing system around which his book is based, toinclude the entire Internet. Thus, when quoting Rheingold's statements andassertions, while some may be specifically about the WELL, they will beequally applicable to the 'Net. About the 'Net and <cyberville>    In other papers I have written on the subject of the Internet I haverelated its history , and will not repeat it here. However, there areseveral aspects of its growth that should be mentioned, primarily in theareas of BBSs and Usenet discussion groups. BBSs, or electronic bulletinboards, were among the earliest manifestations of non-technical personsusing CMC to facilitate discussions around topics of mutual interest.Usenet was created in 1979 by students at Duke University and theUniversity of North Carolina so that they could exchange information viamodem at regular intervals. The universe of Computer MediatedCommunications users has expanded exponentially to the point where it istechnologically accessible to an ever-more-mainstream populace. Thispopulation has grown "from a priesthood in the 1950s, to an elite in the1960s, to a subculture in the 1970s, and to a significant, still growingpart of the population in the 1990s"  (Rheingold 68). <cyberville>: a community of shared interests.         There can be no question but that a plethora of shared-interest groupsexists and proliferates on the 'Net. In fact, its earliest genesis is owedto special-interest groups that grew up around CMC and its concomitantdisregard for geographic distance, mostly on subjects directly related tocomputers and computing. Today, far from being confined to hackers andother devotees of arcana, Usenet offers as many as 5,500 discussion groupson subjects ranging from television, movies, and comic books to everystripe and hue of pet, politics, religion, sex, and rock-and-roll. One canfind discussions about Rush Limbaugh alongside critiques of Noam Chomsky'swritings. One criticism often leveled against Usenet is the fact that manyof its threads of conversation are infantile, sometimes anarchic. Althoughnot always the case, there is enough truth to the accusation to lend somevalidity to its critics. For those who seek more formalized and scholarlyforums, there are the listservers, which are interest groups usuallyrevolving around work-related themes. "Humanist", for example, is anextremely scholarly (some might say "stuffy") listserve that unitesphilosophers in the United States and on all continents. PACS-L iscomposed of librarians and those who love and would promote libraries.There are roundtables consisting of civic journalists and communicationsprofessionals as well as a little-used communitarian listserver. Mostlythese groups post job bulletins, conference announcements, and discussionsregarding the latest controversy to impact their group. I will speakfurther about these groups and Usenet in a following section on"discourse".         "Virtual communities are social aggregations that emerge from the         'Net when enough people carry on these public discussions long enough,         with sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in         cyberspace" (5 Rheingold).     Even then, it is not unknown for people who have forged relationshipsin cyberspace to extend those relationships to real life (IRL: "in reallife").  <cyberville>: a community of shared values.     It would not, I think, be overstating the case, to assert that theresidents of <cyberville> share certain common values. To use an exampleof Rheingold's, regarding the WELL, it was comprised of "the Whole Earth[Catalog] crowd-the granola-eating utopians, the solar-power enthusiasts,the space-station crowd, immortalists, futurists, gadgeteers, communegraduates, environmentalists, social activists" (Rheingold 48). The LastWhole Earth Catalog (1971) described these values in its Statement ofPurpose":         We are as gods and might as well get good at it. So far        remotely done power and glory-as via government, big business,        formal education, church-has succeeded to a point where gross        defects obscure actual gains.         In response to this dilemma and to those gains a realm of intimate,        personal power is developing-power of the individual to conduct his own        education, find his own inspiration, shape his own environment, and         share his adventure with whoever is interested.  Tools that aid this        process aresought and promoted by the Whole Earth Catalog. (1) But that is not to say that other groups on the 'Net do not also sharevalues. Especially as regards the listservers mentioned supra, most groupsshare some common thread of value that has attracted and kept theirmembers. For example, participants in PACS-L believe in the value ofpublic libraries, and the public's access to them; and, members ofCIVJOUR-L, believe in an active role for journalists in the polis; inaddition, there is a communications roundtable for professionals in thefield of communications, discussing the value of communications in thepublic interest. In <cyberville> , as in any other community, "a core ofpeople must flat-out believe in the possibility of community and keepcoming back to that amid the emotional storms in order for the wholeloosely coupled group to hold together at all"  (Rheingold 53). <cyberville>: a community of caring and nurturing.     Rheingold makes much of the caring nature of his community, andrelates the story of the actions of a fellow member of a Parentingsubgroup of which they were both members upon the revelation that hischild had been diagnosed with leukemia. Immediately         the Parenting regulars, who had spent hours in this        conference trading quips and commiserating over the little ups and downs        of life with children, chimed in with messages of support. One of        them was a nurse.  Individuals who had never contributed to the         Parenting conference entered the conversation, including a couple of         doctors who helped Phil and the rest of us understand the daily reports         about blood counts and other diagnostics and two other people who had         firsthand knowledge, as patients suffering from blood disorders         themselves.                 Over the weeks, we all became experts on blood disorders. We also         understood how the blood donation system works, what Danny Thomas and         his St. Jude Hospital had to do with Phil and Gabe, and how parents         learn to be advocates in the medical system without alienating the         caregivers."         (Rheingold 23)The child's illness, by the way, went into remission shortly thereafter.     I have also been the recipient of the largess of my fellow residentsof <cyberville>. When, on more than one occasion, I have had the need foradvice or information, be it school-related, job-related, or something asmundane as the lyrics to a badly remembered song, I have received italmost immediately and without hesitation. I have also provided the sameto those in need. In fact, just prior to my taking the GED exam recently,I was browsing a Newsgroup for graduate students, and came upon a questionfrom a Canadian student regarding admission into US universities. I wasable to and did answer her query, just one small payback for the manytimes that I have received help from my fellow citizens of <cyberville>.     <cyberville> might also be more inclusive than other communities.  Forexample, "people whose physical handicaps make it difficult to form newfriendships find that virtual communities treat them as they always wantedto be treated-as thinkers and transmitters of ideas and feeling beings,not carnal vessels with a certain appearance and way of walking andtalking (or not walking or not talking)" (Rheingold 26). Thus, citizens of<cyberville> might reach a utopian goal of equality before those in reallife. <cyberville>: a community of discourse.     "At its heart, democracy is about citizens reaching decisions throughargument and debate," Rheingold asserts (Weise). Elsewhere, hecharacterizes the Internet as "the electronic agora", after the Athenianmarketplace, "where citizens met to talk, gossip, argue, size each otherup, find the weak spots in political ideas by debating about them"(Rheingold 14).  If we accept this premise, that democracy is arrived atthrough discussion and debate, then the truest picture, I believe, ofdemocracy at its most basic can be found in an institution known asUsenet. Comprised as of this date of discussion groups on over 5,500subjects, Usenet "newsgroups" are often raucous, freewheeling, seeminglyanarchistic free-for-alls of vigorous discourse and debate. Althoughnewsgroups are arranged hierarchically according to whether they are morein keeping with discussions regarding societal, cultural, or scientificemphasis, the rubric alt.politics.* ("alternative topics on politicalissues"), alone, offers the following tantalizing laundry list ofsubtopics: drinking ageeconomicsrepublicanconservativelibertarianelectionshomosexualityorg.misc (Political organization)Perotradical-leftreformsex ("Blue Laws")socialism.trotskyusa.constitution (Issues)Although a moderator will sometime mitigate the acrimony of the variousparticipants of groups dedicated to such topics as Ross Perot,Libertarianism, Scientology, Abortion (pro and con), Save-the-Earth, orPave-the-Earth, and though - notwithstanding my previous characterizationof the groups as being untidy and uncivilized - the overwhelming majorityof the groups and their participants do tend to behave themselves. In thismanner, these forums can be - and often are - comparable to college "bullsessions", where thoughts and ideas are flung far out into areas normallyoff limits to "serious" students.     Indeed, the anonymous nature of pure cybertext allows a degree offreedom from presupposition and stereotype often absent in other forms ofdiscourse. In cyberspace, one reveals one's true gender, race, orabilities only by choice. A favorite Doonesbury arc of mine has MikeDoonesbury "flirting" via the 'Net with a person whom he believes to be afemale. It is only later that we (although not Mike) discover that hisopposite number is actually Mark, a college chum of his, who has recentlyrealized that he is gay. The fact that they (as do many Internet users)have each adopted a pseudonym also helps keep the anonymity going.     Because it has been suggested that there are significant differencesbetween the manner in which men and women utilize the resources of theInternet (Kantrowitz, Katz), several forums on the Internet (PACS-L amongthem) are currently addressing this issue. There has also been muchdiscussion as to the acceptance and utilization of new technology by ournation's senior population, which tends to be far more conservativeinsofar as acceptance of new forms of technology are concerned. This isalso a current subject of discussion on the 'Net. It is of no littleconcern that some groups may be excluded from the conversation, andalthough there is a recognition of the potential problem, it has not yetbeen resolved.     In discussion groups such as I have described, geographic limits donot exist. An issue must be highly parochial if it is not engaged insimultaneously by participants on at least three continents. European,Canadian, and English as well as Australian voices routinely takeenergetic and informed part in "American"  discussions. And, lest there beconcern that only a few "elites" among American citizens will ba able totake advantage of this emerging technology, consider that computers arealready in 23 million homes and that 55 percent of Americans use them atwork. As the proliferation of technology advances throughout our society -from VCRs to ATMs - can home computers be far behind? Or, for the moreskeptical egalitarians among us, many city and county governments areexploring the means toward developing an information infrastructure withplacement of terminals in public places for enhanced community access.(Schuler) <cyberville>: a community with a moral voice.    Although I've taken pains to admit the anarchic nature of theInternet, an overarching morality, I contend, does exist, much of it basedin custom. Its codification can be found in a document called"netiquette", which is located in the newsgroup news.announce.newusers,and at various other sites on the 'Net. This document suggests one's idealbehavior on the 'Net. For example, one should not enter a discussionunless one has at least learned a bit about it in advance, often byreading a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) statement posted on the group.One should not interrupt a conversation with inappropriate postings, norshould one post all in upper case-it is the Internet equivalent ofSHOUTING. One should never repost private email without the author'spermission. And, one should never advertise on the Internet.  This last, Ibelieve, epitomizes a core value among the citizens of <cyberville>, i.e.,that gross commercialism has no place in the virtual community. As anillustration of the moral voice of the <cyberville> community speaking outagainst a transgression against its values, I offer the following truestory: In April of 1994 an Arizona couple, attorneys, ignoring theanti-commercial value-system of the 'Net, posted an advertisement fortheir legal immigration services on "every active bulletin board on theInternet-some 5,500 in all-thus ensuring that it would be seen by millionsof Internet users, not just once but over and over again" (Elmer-Dewitt51). Simultaneously, Dewitt continues, from all over the world, Internetusers expressed their displeasure by "flaming" the attorneys; that is,sending megabytes of vituperate email to their Internet mailbox . So manyangry messages were sent that, ultimately, their host closed theirInternet account. The values that were transgressed, I believe, were (1)that citizens' privacy should be respected on the 'Net, and (2)mindfulness of the community's limited common resources (in this case theavailable disk space allocations of the users' accounts).     Similarly, individuals who behave inappropriately on an individualgroup are liable to be flamed, the cybernetic version of being censured. The author has been subject to flaming after he posted what was felt byothers to be an inappropriate question to alt.philosophy.objectivism.Another form of censure in the Usenet is through "kill-filing," wherebyany member can designate that a certain author's postings not appear inhis mailbox nor on his screen. This would be equivalent, I might suppose,to being shunned or sent to Coventry-an expression of disapproval of one'sactions.  <cyberville>: a community of rights and responsibilities.     With the exception of those restraints on individuality which findtheir expression in 'netiquette, described supra, the Internet, as hasbeen asserted, is rather anarchic. As long as one behaves oneself andcomports oneself in conformity with accepted norms, one has pretty muchthe right to do anything that one wishes. However, as a member of a group,one is expected to contribute in certain ways. One of the most basic isposting to the discussion: in listserve groups if one fails to join thediscussion and contribute to the mosaic of discourse, one is likely tofind oneself dropped from the list. This is because these groups are, byand large, forums for serious dialog and debate, and freeloaders arefrowned upon. On many bulletin boards, one's access time is determined bythe number and quality of postings that one contributes to the BBS: themore postings, the longer one is allowed to remain online, using thecommunity's resources. In addition, moderators or facilitators perform thefunction of keeping discussions moving and dynamic.     There is also an "informal, unwritten social contract", that requiresthat information discovered in niches or nooks of <cyberville> be sharedwith those who have an interest in, or could make good use of it. Theability to forward information to one or thousands of fellow citizens witha mere keystroke, makes the hoarding of information an antisocial act."This informal, unwritten social contract is supported by a blend ofstrong-tie and weak-tie relationships among people who have a mixture ofmotives and ephemeral affiliations. It requires one to give something, andenables one to receive something" (Rheingold 57). <cyberville>: perhaps not for everyone.     Periodically the concern is voiced that the proliferation of CMC willlead to greater atomization of the populace, as the need and desirabilityfor face-to-face encounters diminishes. I know: I've voiced those concernsmyself. Notwithstanding the preceding philosophical exercise, I am stillof a divided mind as to whether <cyberville> is a place that we all can-orshould-live in. If we posit that the concept of community can be reducedto a taxonomy of abstractions, then, yes-<cyberville> meets the criteriaand is thus a community in every sense of the word.     But the feeling that the human condition requires face-to-faceinteraction persists. After the recent California earthquakes, officialssuggested that as many people as possible "telecommute" to their jobs, toavoid freeway traffic on the damaged arterials. In some parts of thecountry-particularly the Northeast-telecommuting is becoming increasinglypopular as more and more professions involve the manipulation of data, aprocess which can be performed anywhere. Will this lead to greaterdisconnectedness among people, or will it lead to greater communion byallowing us to spend more time in our geographic communities and with ourfamilies?     Another concern might be caused by our love affair with technology. Blind worship of technology can be as insidious as the Luddite positionthat all technology is evil and destructive. As Rheingold himself admits,        Many people are alarmed at the very idea of a virtual community, fearing        that it is another step in the wrong direction, substituting more        technological ersatz for yet another natural resource or human freedom.         These critics often voice their sadness at what people have been reduced        to doing in a civilization that worships technology, decrying the        circumstances that lead some people into such pathetically disconnected        lives that they prefer to find their companionship on the other side of         a computer screen. There is a seed of truth in this fear, for virtual        communities require more than words on a screen at some point if they        intend to be other than ersatz. (23) Rheingold is asserting that community requires more than than mere passivereceptacles of cybernetic input, and that personal stakes and personalinvolvement-responsibilities-are required in order to create communitiesin cyberspace. And, as Evan Schwartz points out in an upcoming issue ofThe Responsive Community, "for many people the choice seems to be betweena very good simulation of community and no community at all; that choicemakes virtual community look attractive indeed."     What is the answer, then? Is a virtual community better than nocommunity at all? I assert that the answer is a qualified "yes." Temporary residence in <cyberville> allows us to broaden our intellectualhorizons and interact with groups of people in arenas that may not havebeen accessible heretofore. It provides us with templates by which we canhone our moral voices: transgress in cyberspace and the moral voice of thecommunity will let you know it! Through conversation around the cyberneticcracker barrel, we might stand a better chance of coming to democraticjudgment than we might otherwise, being restricted to a communities basedsolely upon geography and work. If we have elected to join a communitythat fosters nurturing and caring, a support group may exist that can lenda virtual hand in times of crisis and turmoil. No matter where one lives,one is almost assured of "meeting" others who have shared interestsand-yes-values.     My major caveat is that we should resist the temptation to accept thisnew vision of community uncritically. The social sciences have not yetadvanced to the point where we can say "this is good for the humancondition, this is valuable, this is what makes us human" with absolutecertainty. However, neither should we reject the idea of virtualcommunities out of hand. I contend that <cyberville> , like Las Vegas, isa nice place to visit, but one probably wouldn't want to live there. Occasional trips to <cyberville> for friendship, work, information,discussion, clarification, amusement and entertainment, are fine and good.And, if we see a virtual community as the least of the Chinese nestingboxes which Etzioni uses as a metaphor, in which "less encompassingcommunities . . .  are nestled within more encompassing ones . . . whichin turn are situated within still more encompassing communities" (32),there may be some value in their designation as communities. However, weshould still view them with a skeptic's eye.     Works CitedElmer-Dewitt, Philip. "Battle for the Soul of the Internet." Time 25 July 1994: 50-56.Etzioni, Amitai. The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda. New York: Crown, 1993.Fishkin, James S. "Beyond Teledemocracy: 'America on the Line'". The Responsive Community. Volume 2, Issue 3, Summer 1992.Kantrowitz, Barbara. "men, women & computers." Newsweek 16 May 1994: 48-55.Katz, Jon. "Hackers 1, Media Elite 0. Online Readers Bite Back." New York 30 May 1994: 16-19.Portola Institute. Inc. The Last Whole Earth Catalog. Menlo Park, CA: Random House, 1971.Rheingold, Howard. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading. MA: Addison-Wesley, 1993.Schuler, Doug. "Community Networks: Building a New Participatory Medium." Communications of the ACM January 1994: 39-51.Weise, Elizabeth. "Cyber philosopher predicts bright future for Internet." Las Vegas Review-Journal,  26 June 1994: 14B.							==============================================================									This document is from the WELL gopher server:	    										gopher://gopher.well.com	   								 Questions and comments to: gopher@well.com							==============================================================