A Debate that Doesn't Die
In this week’s readings we return to the debate about the effects of the internet on community. Hampton and Wellman explore this concept in a real community in Toronto in their article, “Neighboring in Netville.” The authors consider every side of the debate, has the internet strengthened, transformed or weakened the way we interact. At the end of each argument, Hampton and Wellman provide data from their wired community. Overall, they found that the internet has transformed and enhanced the community feeling. They found that Netville’s connected residents led to greater involvement with other residents and increased the probability of knowing other residents. I do not feel that there were selection bias, however, I wonder what other aspects played a role in the connectivity. The internet is a vital component, but it is not the sole component that makes neighboring stronger in Netville. I wonder if having young kids played a role in creating stronger ties with their children’s community playmates. Other aspects including the amount of time spent at home, plays a role in allowing the internet to work effectively for the community. I also believe that the creation of a neighborhood list serve played a role in this. We are frequently connected to our close ties on-line because we have their email addresses and instant message names. The list serve provided the residents with the information needed to make the connections possible. This aspect of the study could be the factor that greatly enhances the results, or it may be another aspect that depends solely on how the participants use the internet.
In a future study I would like to examine how the wired community uses the internet, including their time spent on-line with their neighbors and time spent with outsiders. Also does this suburban study apply to other communities, especially communities that are densely populated in the cities? This question is important because different people inhabit the suburbs compared to those in the city; we must also consider the different environments of suburbs and cities to understand how the internet effects each specific environment. As we saw with the gated community, the usefulness of the internet in aiding community depends on the people and their environment. In Hampton’s second article, he addresses the conclusion drawn by himself and Wellman in their study. Basically, he explains that the results from Netville were in fact a result of the combination of specific characteristics, making my question of how a similar study would play out in another community more relevant.
Hampton and Wellman make a very good point in that neighbors do not have the tools for socialization as people do in other environments. The internet may be the tool that bridges the gap, making socialization for neighbors more important. However, Servon and Pinkett believe that community technological centers can help bridge the gap known as the “digital divide.” I believe that CTC may be helpful for communities that can not afford personal computers and wireless internet access, but I do not believe that CTC will drastically change the widening gap. CTC will help lower class people adapt to new technology, and provide access that wouldn’t otherwise have been possible. The key difference is in the fact that these people will not have computers in their homes. CTC will create communities within the larger community based on users and non-users, possibly providing less of a sense of community in places where community is what the people need most.
Hampton and Wellman’s study fits into our greater discussion of the effects of the internet in an interesting way. It appears to be concrete data supporting the idea that the internet does not in fact hurt the idea of community. Many of our readings have addressed broad generalizations, and it was refreshing to read a study that was specific and concrete. On the other hand Hampton’s second article addresses the conclusion that peoples’ social networks were decreasing. Hampton and Wellman present one side of the story, while Hampton went further in explaining the other side of the argument further complicating the debate.