The Changing Idea of Community
Ventura provides an interesting commentary that focuses upon the expectations and realities of the millennium. Though written in 1994, Ventura has strong insight about what the year 2000 will be like, and describes a scenario of the world that is still applicable today, which is one of the article’s main strengths. His prediction that the dawning of January 1, 2000 would be like any other day and would be characterized not by change, “but by the lack of it” ended up being quite correct. This is notable when one remembers the widespread rumors and worries that Y2K would lead to a mass computer crash, yet instead, nothing happened at all. Similarly, Ventura’s metaphor predicting that the first day of the millennium will be comparable to how you feel on an important birthday was very relatable, and in my opinion a justified comparison, since most people have been asked a question like “how does it feel to be 21?” and do not feel any different. One limitation of this article is that Ventura exaggerated his points somewhat, especially in his assertions about how the changing nature of shopping has eliminated community as it once was. Though his logic is understandable, it seems slightly unrealistic that “choosing to buy milk for a nickel less a carton” could really alter community to such a great extent and change “the direction of our civilization”.
Question: To what extent are Ventura’s linkages between shopping, politics and community realistic?
Singer’s article is strong in its discussion of the disparity between our current generation and that of our grandparents; neighbors no longer have shared interests or commonalities and most of the time remain strangers though living in closer proximity than ever before. Myerowitz’s article also discusses “strangers”, in which he cites different conceptions of “strangers” across different eras, bringing up thought-provoking ideas. I was struck by his discussion of the evolution of the notion of “strangers”, progressing from a mysterious world of others in the oral societies to becoming a group more clearly defined and understood as technology advanced and people once separated were able to connect. His discussion of this progression and how different media, such as print and electronics respectively have divided society and then later eliminated barriers established by earlier media, is a great strength of this article.
Rheingold’s and Turner’s discussions of WELL are insightful in both explaining the appeal and history of this virtual community. I found it remarkable that this medium was so well formed in 1985, as I thought that interactive communication did not exist until the growth of the internet years later. Turner’s examination of the origins of this technology and its function as a “network forum” illustrates the role new media has in building alternate forms of community. Despite the comprehensiveness of their evaluations of WELL, their discussions would be been more effective in explaining the world of virtual communities if they had compared WELL to similar software and programs as a basis of comparison.
Question: How does WELL differ from today’s popular virtual communities?