How do you define community in the modern age.

2»

Comments

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    LeRoc wrote: »
    I don't think you can answer the question "Is the Ship a community?" without taking into account that we are the strongly diminished remainder of something that was much bigger and more vivid years ago, hanging on in a world where internet bulletin boards have mostly lost their relevance.

    I'm not dissing the Ship here, I'm simply stating a fact. In a very real sense, this summer camp was better years ago.

    I'd suggest that 'better' is subjective from person to person. Bigger isn't necessarily better, and people like myself who find a huge, busy community overwhelming may be more at home in a smaller, quieter one that has settled down a bit.

    Having said that, I do wonder what the future of the Ship is, now that, as you say, the internet has largely moved on from bulletin boards. I find myself comparing in some ways to monastic communities, where the issue of relevance in today's society is a big one.

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    It was certainly different*. But again, if one never comes down from the mountain top the kind of 'community' that stays up there tends to be a bit kooky.

    ==

    *It occurred to me in the course of this conversation that for many of us, Molly was probably the first person whose last days we witnessed close at hand through the medium of the Internet.

    That is an interesting point. I find as a general thing, in internet communities I've been part of, a lot of the nostalgia people experience, as the community becomes more settled and 'boring,' is also about the sheer novelty of internet communities at the beginning. Everything was fun and exciting, people experimented with all kinds of things, and it was almost like a game. People often didn't realise at the beginning that real friendships could happen on the internet, and so it's quite an astonishing realisation when it happens. You are experiencing so many things for the first time, and so it does have a deep, vivid impact.

    I actually never experienced the Ship in this way, because I had other online communities where I experienced this, and I found the Ship too busy and confusing to navigate at first, so my experience here is different. More a gradual returning every so often, getting the hang of it a bit more, and being quite relieved at the format of the new Ship, which is much easier to process visually.

  • For me community is people I have regular contact with, and the more often that happens the closer they feel. First would be my personal friends, and neighbors, I see one or the other most days. Second would be my faith community that I see most weeks.
    Third would be friends I know that may live near or far but I keep in touch with mostly through social media. Then I move to extended community people I may have never met but feel I have some regular contact with and the Ship fits there for me.
    In a special place is my family that I do not see in the flesh that often but have contact with via phone or text, most weeks.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    @NOprophet_NØprofit I think you miss my point. Both Molly and Erin were as @Rossweisse says people who helped build the community - Erin was after all Community Editor. They were central figures (in very different ways) but the community didn't revolve around them - unlike going to see a famous film star in person.

    As for "in crowd" and "old guard", one of the best things I've ever heard about the notion of community is that a healthy community should have a fringe membership, otherwise it's a cult.
    Your first paragraph is the "last year at summer camp" which is nice and fine with it, but it's moved along to "this year at summer camp".
    It's not nostalgia. The influence of Erin and in a different way Molly on the Ship is a historical reality.

    (If it had not been for Erin, the Ship would be very different from how it is now and very probably wouldn't have been here at all).

    The point I was trying to make is that when Erin and Molly were alive, despite their significant influence here, it was quite possible to be part of the community without interacting with, or being focused on, either of them.

    Which is very different from the scenario of people gathering to see a celebrity, as @climacus described here.
    Your second paragraph is interesting. If I put it in context, those who are not Molly And Erin People may be permanently fringe(?)
    You're missing my point completely.

    In my experience, complaints about the existence of an In Crowd usually boil down to the complainant being upset they are not part of the In Crowd.

    'In Crowd' is loaded language. In my view what you referred to as an 'In Crowd' is really just the counterpart to a fringe membership, and as such is the sign of a healthy community.

    The community of disciples around Jesus had both and 'in crowd' an a 'fringe membership'.

    If a community has no fringe membership, that means everyone has exactly the same level of engagement, and I think that's called a cult.
    The point is not that there is fringe membership, but that there is a permanent historical/inner circle which newbies/fringe membership have no access to without a time machine. I wasn't aware that Erin and/or Molly made up the Jesus of the Ship in comparison: interesting and clarifying. As for cults, there is a lot more than same level of membership engagement, cults are interested in control and specificity of purpose in addition.
  • The point is not that there is fringe membership, but that there is a permanent historical/inner circle which newbies/fringe membership have no access to without a time machine.

    Shades of Exodus 13:8 perhaps? Both you and LeRoc are alluding to the difficulty of perpetuating community identity over time (which is one part of that 'thickness' I was referring to earlier).

    And I think fineline is right, a lot of virtual communities became spawned real friendships somewhat accidentally, and maintaining and perpetuating a community of any kind is hard work anyway, even before the element of distance comes into play.

    In my limited experience this only becomes a live issue in retrospect -- a lot of communities online can get lucky in terms of encountering favourable conditions for spreading early, but without deliberate attempts to recruit eventually run out of steam.
  • The point is not that there is fringe membership, but that there is a permanent historical/inner circle which newbies/fringe membership have no access to without a time machine.

    What are you smoking? There is no "permanent historical" membership of any earthly community because people fricking die. More than a few Shipmates have died since the Ship began. Or perhaps immortality was granted to those with a one-digit member number? (Shit, I missed out on that, I was originally no. 3081. I want a refund).

    Besides, a lot of people who were here in the early days are no longer an active part of the community, and a lot of people who are active here now weren't here then. This strikes me as healthy and normal. I've been here a long time, but the Ship was old enough by the time I arrived for me to feel very much a newbie.

    You also allege there is a "permanent... inner circle". Well, I'm beginning to think you might be right.

    Despite being member 3081 on what was I think at least the second if not the third online incarnation of the Ship, I'm now one of half a dozen or so people here with access to more permissions and boards than anybody else, and at the time of writing have the largest post count... and I still worry there's a "secret board" somewhere which is home to this fabled and much talked-about "inner circle". If you find it - and them - before I do, let me know.
    I wasn't aware that Erin and/or Molly made up the Jesus of the Ship in comparison: interesting and clarifying.
    Well if you could kindly point to where I said just that then please do. Or retract that total bullshit.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    @NOprophet_NØprofit I think you miss my point. Both Molly and Erin were as @Rossweisse says people who helped build the community - Erin was after all Community Editor. They were central figures (in very different ways) but the community didn't revolve around them - unlike going to see a famous film star in person.

    As for "in crowd" and "old guard", one of the best things I've ever heard about the notion of community is that a healthy community should have a fringe membership, otherwise it's a cult.
    Your first paragraph is the "last year at summer camp" which is nice and fine with it, but it's moved along to "this year at summer camp".
    It's not nostalgia. The influence of Erin and in a different way Molly on the Ship is a historical reality.

    (If it had not been for Erin, the Ship would be very different from how it is now and very probably wouldn't have been here at all).

    The point I was trying to make is that when Erin and Molly were alive, despite their significant influence here, it was quite possible to be part of the community without interacting with, or being focused on, either of them.

    Which is very different from the scenario of people gathering to see a celebrity, as @climacus described here.
    Your second paragraph is interesting. If I put it in context, those who are not Molly And Erin People may be permanently fringe(?)
    You're missing my point completely.

    In my experience, complaints about the existence of an In Crowd usually boil down to the complainant being upset they are not part of the In Crowd.

    'In Crowd' is loaded language. In my view what you referred to as an 'In Crowd' is really just the counterpart to a fringe membership, and as such is the sign of a healthy community.

    The community of disciples around Jesus had both and 'in crowd' an a 'fringe membership'.

    If a community has no fringe membership, that means everyone has exactly the same level of engagement, and I think that's called a cult.
    The point is not that there is fringe membership, but that there is a permanent historical/inner circle which newbies/fringe membership have no access to without a time machine. I wasn't aware that Erin and/or Molly made up the Jesus of the Ship in comparison: interesting and clarifying. As for cults, there is a lot more than same level of membership engagement, cults are interested in control and specificity of purpose in addition.

    I'm not sure it's permanent as such. People leave, become busy with other stuff, and dynamics change. Also, perceptions of inner circles can be distorted. I always saw you as part of the historical inner circle, @NOprophet_NØprofit. I'm actually quite taken aback at you seeing it as something which you are not part of. I suspect many people get seen as part of an in-crowd when they really don't feel they are.

  • The point is not that there is fringe membership, but that there is a permanent historical/inner circle which newbies/fringe membership have no access to without a time machine.

    Shades of Exodus 13:8 perhaps? Both you and LeRoc are alluding to the difficulty of perpetuating community identity over time (which is one part of that 'thickness' I was referring to earlier).

    To my mind that's nothing to do with an "inner circle". Those people in any community are/were "founding fathers".
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    NoProphet is right in saying that there is a group that remembers the old times, and of course that influences their posting. How can it not? Time machines don't exist, so there's nothing that can be changed about that.

    Whether these people constitute an inner circle depends on their attitudes. In my view, most of the old hands are much too blasé about it to constitute much of a clique.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    Thinking about the concept of an inner circle, I'm not sure the extent to which it exists, but I think what is perceived as such is often simply the people who are around more and who are therefore aware of, and part of, all the different things as they happen. So they have these shared experiences, and might mention these sometimes to each other. I've been a member of the Ship for a long time, but I just wasn't around for a lot of things, as I didn't come onto the Ship often or regularly. So I wasn't part of the Miss Molly quilt, and I didn't know Erin other than a name. I don't think that makes me any less of a member now though. I think in any group there will be shared experiences that some have and others don't. And also there will be more recent shared experiences that I have, that won't be shared by people who used to be very active and now aren't.
  • I agree. @LeRoc and @chrisstiles are of course right that that there is a closed circle consisting of the founding generation of any community.

    As far as the Ship goes, the remaining members of the founding generation are surprisingly vanishingly few (just how many depends on when you count as the start).

    And anyway, that's not at all the same thing as an inner circle. Like I say that's an unhelpfully loaded term; and if there is an inner circle here in any sinister sense, I've yet to find it.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    The point is not that there is fringe membership, but that there is a permanent historical/inner circle which newbies/fringe membership have no access to without a time machine.

    Shades of Exodus 13:8 perhaps? Both you and LeRoc are alluding to the difficulty of perpetuating community identity over time (which is one part of that 'thickness' I was referring to earlier).

    To my mind that's nothing to do with an "inner circle". Those people in any community are/were "founding fathers".

    I think the terms are somewhat slippery ; if a community is defined in part by a shared memory of a set of myths, then the inner circle may 'just' happen to define those sets of myths more extensively (and thus set the boundaries of where that community starts more narrowly).
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    I'm not even sure if the division old hands vs (relative) newcomers is the most relevant one.

    Each community, especially one like this where the choice how much time one spends on it is rather free, has more vs less active members. This isn't measured just in terms of post count.

    If there is a more active core on the current Ship, in my view NoProphet is part of it.
  • I think the terms are somewhat slippery ; if a community is defined in part by a shared memory of a set of myths, then the inner circle may 'just' happen to define those sets of myths more extensively (and thus set the boundaries of where that community starts more narrowly).

    I can't help but muse over what this means for the Church over time. There's a very definite and explicit dividing line in the Bible between the actual eyewitnesses of the risen Christ and those that believed later, including Paul "as one untimely born" (is this the first ever complaint about not being part of an 'inner circle'? ;)), conscious that all of the original community were in the process of dying off.

    It's taken me many years to realise how much Christianity changed, experientially and theologically, after the Resurrection and the Ascension, and I don't think this is widely-realised enough. The "shared memory of a set of myths" is of course crucially and foundationally important, but it could be argued that the definitive form of the Christian community (prior to the eschaton) is our current one, after the first generation had gone. "Do not hold onto me"; "It is better for you that I go...". Hmm.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited April 27
    But how do you define that inner circle?

    Is it all the people who were on the boards before they were free? I think in that case you can count the number of people on the fingers of one hand.

    All the people who were on the first incarnation of the old boards before there were avatars? Or maybe just those who were hosts or admins on those boards?

    All the people who used the old cafe? That did make a tighter friendship group and attracted people who would not have otherwise stayed. Quite a few left while there was no cafe and the new cafe never took off in the same way.

    How do you deal with someone who was a host and admin, took part in the Ark but last posted when Erin died? Or what about Nightlamp who was iirc Erin's successor as Hell Host?

    You see the boundaries are fluid. In some ways, the inner group is simply those who joined the boards and stayed before I joined.

  • I haven't checked to see if anyone's mentioned it already, but I am reminded of C/.S. Lewis' lecture on "The Inner Ring" (well worth reading IMHO): https://tinyurl.com/y5lsdrul
  • LeRocLeRoc Shipmate
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    But how do you define that inner circle?
    It's the people who know the secret handshake.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Paraphrased from the 'What is Hell about then?' thread:

    'I was with people I love last night, in a circle, led by a wonderful young woman. She'd spent £20 to be at a day of healing on Thursday, along with 300 others. 300. On a school day. £30 on the door. At least £6,000 For an American faith healer. Miracles were on tap. The same and only beneficiary I have ever heard of for many years was testified to. This was in an Anglican church. She was therefore inspired to lead, orchestrate our reaction to, our interpretation of

    Acts 2 The Fellowship of the Believers

    42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43 Everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. 44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need. 46 Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47 praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

    To put that horse behind her cart.

    I tried to suggest that the desired effect was righteousness - social justice - crystallizing around the miraculous, the release in Christ - and that that should be our desire. But no. It's all about the miracles. Not their minor incidental side effect. Which of course was absent on Thursday and barely echoed in our circle of 'equals' last night.'

    The greatest miracle was the community, which we have never regained.
  • Interesting, Eutychus. 'Hmmm...' indeed.

  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    edited April 27
    Off-topic. Sorry.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited April 28
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    All the people who used the old cafe? That did make a tighter friendship group and attracted people who would not have otherwise stayed. Quite a few left while there was no cafe and the new cafe never took off in the same way.
    I think by "old cafe" you mean what us old-timers referred to as the "new cafe" which replaced what came to be known as the "Goringe cafe" (in which conversations stayed around for, literally, years).

    The first place I actually entered text into the Ship was I think this "new cafe" (where @Alan Cresswell invited me to discuss a communion-related subject in Purgatory, so my maiden post was a new Purg thread), but as I recall from time to time it would fall over and the regulars would have to revert to the "old [Goringe] cafe", so I did post there too.

    The most intense moment of what I think you are calling the "new cafe" was a virtual funeral service simultaneously with Erin's RL funeral. I think I have an entire printout somewhere and I think it's the only time an online event has made me weep. But by that time social media had arrived.

    (I sound old).
  • CJCfarwestCJCfarwest Shipmate
    I think these are over restrictive definitions of community. For me communities can be tighter or looser; physical or virtual; deeply interconnected or with just one main focus.

    I would say I am a part of lots of communities, but in very different ways. I live in a tiny hamlet of about a dozen houses. Most of the time we just wave hello to each other, but if it snows, or the power goes out, we will check people are ok and help each other out. Both the hospital and hospices I work at have some sense of community, but that's very different. There is a definite community of UK palliative care physicians - probably more so than in a larger speciality - but that is sporadic and professionally focussed. I'm not part of a church community properly at the moment but feel comfortable coming and going within the cathedral community. However the local trail running community is more connected, generous, supportive and warm than most churches I have been part of, and that's a huge joy. This community I mainly come to to read, but have been doing so for about 15 years now. Does the fact that I rarely post make me less part of it?

    That's not an exhaustive list at all, but those are all communities which I identify as part of and which shape my life in some way. There seems to me to be both richness and fluidity in that variety in nature, interaction and intensity, changing over time.
  • Jengie JonJengie Jon Shipmate
    edited April 28
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Jengie Jon wrote: »
    All the people who used the old cafe? That did make a tighter friendship group and attracted people who would not have otherwise stayed. Quite a few left while there was no cafe and the new cafe never took off in the same way.
    I think by "old cafe" you mean what us old-timers referred to as the "new cafe" which replaced what came to be known as the "Goringe cafe" (in which conversations stayed around for, literally, years).

    The first place I actually entered text into the Ship was I think this "new cafe" (where @Alan Cresswell invited me to discuss a communion-related subject in Purgatory, so my maiden post was a new Purg thread), but as I recall from time to time it would fall over and the regulars would have to revert to the "old [Goringe] cafe", so I did post there too.

    The most intense moment of what I think you are calling the "new cafe" was a virtual funeral service simultaneously with Erin's RL funeral. I think I have an entire printout somewhere and I think it's the only time an online event has made me weep. But by that time social media had arrived.

    (I sound old).

    I am trying to remember which cafe Erin's funeral was in. I know there were three cafes but I just cannot remember which. I do not think I was ever in the original cafe. I remember there was a time between the old and new cafe when there was no cafe available and several people created lifeboats including DoubleThink. The virtual funeral for Erin was spectacular, not simply because it happened but because people made the effort to be there. I was on the edges of cafe circle in the new cafe.

    I think I probably in shipmates terms I still make you look pretty new. I came on board really with the change to free boards though had posted in Small Fires just before that. I just preferred the slower pace of the boards.

    I have a pet theory that ones archetypal Hell Host is the senior host when you first come on these boards. For me that is Erin.
  • Thinking about cafés, I joined properly in 2006, although I had found the Ship in the very early days, between 1996 and 1998. I rediscovered the next version and lurked from 2005. I was around for the second cafe but only in school holidays and not really to get involved, the one that followed the first one and Gorringe - we did use Gorringe occasionally. Then I was around for Doublethink's life raft and the new café the one with all the rooms where we held Erin's funeral. I was there for that and the launch of the Café, when Erin came along too.

    There was a café community in the new café - but different people. It's why I feel more linked to certain posters (as I was a pretty much permanent fixture for a couple of years), many of whom chatted more in the café and hardly posted on the boards. Not all of that group are still around.

    Then there are the other groups we know from Shipmeets. There has been a biggish group of London Shippies who all know each other quite well from meets, but weren't posting on the Ship much, if at all. I've only recently lost contact with some who very rarely posted, but I saw regularly.
  • Looking at the OP again, it seems curious to be defining what community is. Is this supposed to help me find communities, stay in them, create new ones? I used to be involved a lot in various birding groups, or bird-watching in old money. I am less involved now, partly because of aching joints, but now should I set out to redefine such communities? It sounds too self-conscious to me. I might as well seek to define marriage and inform my wife, look, we have failed/succeeded, but look on the bright side, we can redefine it after Brexit.

    Short version, I am tired of being defined.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    edited April 28
    That's a good view, imho.

    I've been thinking on CJCfarwest's post...need to think more. But may I return to Eutychus' response, which I agreed with, about us attending a live show presented by a podcast "star" (oh, how she'd eschew that term!) not being a community?

    In this online world, when is the transition? If we listen to the podcast individually, or The Archers as Fawkes Cat wrote, I can see how the traditional word "community" could be a stretch. If we get together, still seems a stretch to me but not as much. If we engage with each other at the live event, does that change it? If we then "like" the Facebook page, and read the posts (or, heaven forfend, contribute!), is that a step toward, or indeed reaching, community?

    I realise I am possibly trying to define a very sticky concept, especially in the virtual space. But I do find it interesting.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited April 28
    The question to my mind is the extent to which there is any meaningful interaction between attendees that doesn't revolve solely round the person that is the original pretext for the gathering.

    In this sense the Ship clearly is a community that sometimes has real-life expressions. We don't spend all our time here or in RL talking about Simon or Erin or Ancient Mariner.

    Applying that same criterion to the Church is a really intriguing exercise.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    It seems the word community has a lot of definitions. Some academic you might say, and some social (the dictionary definition verses usage).
  • DonLogan2DonLogan2 Shipmate
    Community definition = Nailing jelly to a wall.

    However it helps us to understand other people better and how they make sense of the world they inhabit, whether that is as small and solid as the hamlet CJC mentions above or as large, vague and undefined as facebook can be.

    I don`t come on here often as I don`t have time but I used to be a regular visitor/poster on another forum, and it shocks me to find out I have been a member there for 15 years! I was even a moderator there but now I am just a curmudgeonly figure who attacks people who post absolute nonsense. I am really swimming against the flow there now yet before I had status, not just as a mod, but due to the knowledge I had. Community has (as a base perhaps) the Aristotelian idea;
    "...whatever existence means for each class of men, whatever it is for whose sake they value life, in that they wish to occupy themselves with their friends...dice...hunting...drinking...for since they wish to live with their friends, they do and share in those things which give them the sense of living together."
    we have something in common, something that allows us to be in communion with other humans, after that it has to do with space/place and Aristotle didn`t have the internet/phones/computers where we can contact others without having to be face-to-face.
    Sit down with some YP and watch them hold a conversation with the person they are with and someone via whatsapp/snapchat etc its amazing how that is culturally appropriate for them but for oldies like me it isn`t as well as the fact I couldn`t do it now that I am old and wrinkly.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    When ever someone is newly baptized or joins the congregation I am a member of, we have a saying that we are a new congregation. It has certainly changed over the years. At one time it was mostly Scandinavian in background. Then a few Germans joined. I think I was the first one with an English name. Recently, we had an African family join. We have had some Chinese come and go after they finish their education here. And the latest influx has been some Presbyterians. Every time a new person joins, we definitely change.


    But as people have indicated here, there is--shall we say, an old guard, that is "vanishing." Then there were some that joined later. I can't even remember my membership number. But there are still different levels of membership here. A homogeneous community probably would not have that at least in my mind.
  • DonLogan2DonLogan2 Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    <Snipped> But as people have indicated here, there is--shall we say, an old guard, that is "vanishing." Then there were some that joined later. I can't even remember my membership number. But there are still different levels of membership here. A homogeneous community probably would not have that at least in my mind.

    It does happen. When I used to be a part of a detached youth work group we sometimes started at the local skatepark. They had their own community, skaters/bladers/skooters, there and the ages ranged from late 30`s to pre-teen. The young people tended to behave well as the older guys would not pass on tips to those who were acting the arse and this was understood rather than enforced verbally and it isn`t the only one I can think of.
  • DonLogan2DonLogan2 Shipmate
    I suppose what I am saying is that we are members of differing homogenous groups which form sub-sets with "me" in the middle where they all converge. Each set has rules, codes of conduct, language etc that is common to them and possibly one or two of these are also common to another group
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Is homogeneity important? Why?
  • DonLogan2DonLogan2 Shipmate
    Because you have something in common, a bond if you like and it allows conversation to flow more naturally. There is an inherent value to the reason you have something in common, fishing, knitting, a dog, train spotting, then the lines of me and "other" disappear and we re almost alike. Yes it can exclude but it doesn`t have to for a lot of things, an example is talking to the ladies who gather to knit and them finding out how I can also knit, but I only do nets, then the talk revolves around ferreting and fishing and stories of times past and half remembered things that others didn`t know and so the bonds of community strengthen through a common link. I then find out that there is a craft session at our local Brewdog pub, and I can then talk to the ladies in this and another group about it and conversations go back and forward about some going down to see what is on and others unwilling due to it being a pub .....

    So the threads of social capital strengthen and lengthen from the simplest of conversations around a common social bond and different communities that can be losely linked become stronger and a slightly different community emerges perhaps.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    This is probably getting a bit off-topic, so feel free to tell me to take my unwanted musings to a new thread if so, but this article, which looks at gentrification in Washington DC, and the fight by local African-American residents to keep their culture and lifestyle alive, reminded me of how "interesting" (poor word, I know, as this is people's lives...) this topic is to me and what it means for a "community" when the makeup of that community drastically changes -- and new residents make changes to the existing way of life. Given this example is a white increase in a predominantly African-American neighbourhood, I think it adds additional potency.

    Do Shipmates know of other successful major demographic changes in terms of a feeling of community where, perhaps, there was tension at first? What impacts do wealthy, generally white from what I read, people moving into once "undesirable" neighbourhoods have on the notion of "community"? Does this definition need to continually evolve, or are there cases for sticking with what is there?

    I am more thinking of examples such as in the article, not increased migration from other lands, say, when the White Australia Policy was revoked and "others" allowed in... While not without issues, I see much success in Australia (but still some way to go). I'm thinking at the local community level where a definite culture exists and where that has been threatened, or changed irrevocably, by gentrification in particular. But feel free to take this whenever you like.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    DonLogan2 wrote: »
    I suppose what I am saying is that we are members of differing homogenous groups which form sub-sets with "me" in the middle where they all converge. Each set has rules, codes of conduct, language etc that is common to them and possibly one or two of these are also common to another group

    Mousethief has already raised this, but are you saying that homogeneity is a good thing? It fills me with horror. I am doubtful about the idea of community, as a raging introvert.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    I love the paradox of that q. And that here you are extroverted. In answer to the OP, us. As good as any other with different strengths, weaknesses compared with face to face.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    I wouldn't call doing a post on a forum extroverted! I get tired of all the vaunting of community, and if you add to that homogeneity, no thanks. Reminds me of the Python joke, "you're all individuals" - (A lone voice from the crowd, "I'm not!").
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    I remember an old obituary, I think of Ted Hughes, by another poet, who said inter alia, "we were great friends, but as we got older, we learned to leave each other alone".
  • DonLogan2DonLogan2 Shipmate
    <snipety snip>
    Mousethief has already raised this, but are you saying that homogeneity is a good thing? It fills me with horror. I am doubtful about the idea of community, as a raging introvert.

    Yes I do believe it is a good thing, it allows people to have that thing in common and unless abused it removes the power thing that some social situations have.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I love the paradox of that q. And that here you are extroverted. In answer to the OP, us.

    As good as any other with different strengths, weaknesses compared with face to face.

    The only thing I don`t like about some online communities is they can become echo chambers for those who think they know better than everyone else and it tends towards bullying. Face to face it is harder to browbeat someone.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    edited May 7
    DonLogan2 wrote: »
    <snipety snip>
    Mousethief has already raised this, but are you saying that homogeneity is a good thing? It fills me with horror. I am doubtful about the idea of community, as a raging introvert.

    Yes I do believe it is a good thing, it allows people to have that thing in common and unless abused it removes the power thing that some social situations have.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I love the paradox of that q. And that here you are extroverted. In answer to the OP, us.

    As good as any other with different strengths, weaknesses compared with face to face.

    The only thing I don`t like about some online communities is they can become echo chambers for those who think they know better than everyone else and it tends towards bullying. Face to face it is harder to browbeat someone.

    True Don. Is there a link to an image or better yet video of you in Hell, under the swimming pool, being tortured by a demon, having a fag, in the end credits of Sexy Beast?
  • DonLogan2DonLogan2 Shipmate
    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!......No!.....No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! It`s not what you are saying it`s all the stuff your not saying, incinuendoes!

    ;)
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Shipmate
    DonLogan2 wrote: »
    <snipety snip>
    Mousethief has already raised this, but are you saying that homogeneity is a good thing? It fills me with horror. I am doubtful about the idea of community, as a raging introvert.

    Yes I do believe it is a good thing, it allows people to have that thing in common and unless abused it removes the power thing that some social situations have.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    I love the paradox of that q. And that here you are extroverted. In answer to the OP, us.

    As good as any other with different strengths, weaknesses compared with face to face.

    The only thing I don`t like about some online communities is they can become echo chambers for those who think they know better than everyone else and it tends towards bullying. Face to face it is harder to browbeat someone.

    Can't help feeling that there are two quite different interpretations of homogeneity here.

    For the record, the dictionary defines it as "The quality or state of being all the same or all of the same kind." which is not the same as having things in common.
  • DonLogan2DonLogan2 Shipmate
    OK, I`ll try to explain myself better.
    From a community work perspective, which is the OP was about, then homogenous groups can be defined as a group in which all members have some characteristics in common such as; age, class, gender, language, interests, shared values etc etc. Donald McGavran hypothesised that it was easier, from a missiological perspective, for people to become christians when they didn`t have to cross "racial, linguistic or class bariers". This was developed further into what is known as the Homogenous Unit Principle (HUP) and is used by some youth and community workers to give a focus to their work rather than a broad and undefined group.
    Dictionary definitions are all well and good for an idea about what a word may mean, reality teaches us that there may be a bit more to it than that.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Shipmate
    edited May 9
    DonLogan2 wrote: »
    OK, I`ll try to explain myself better.
    From a community work perspective, which is the OP was about, then homogenous groups can be defined as a group in which all members have some characteristics in common such as; age, class, gender, language, interests, shared values etc etc. Donald McGavran hypothesised that it was easier, from a missiological perspective, for people to become christians when they didn`t have to cross "racial, linguistic or class bariers". This was developed further into what is known as the Homogenous Unit Principle (HUP) and is used by some youth and community workers to give a focus to their work rather than a broad and undefined group.
    Dictionary definitions are all well and good for an idea about what a word may mean, reality teaches us that there may be a bit more to it than that.

    Well, in that sense I am indeed part of a homogeneous group of middle-aged, middle-class, male, English-speaking, railway enthusiasts of a liberal and pro-EU disposition, albeit as an atheist with a fondness for foreign railways whose main interests are writing and photography I'd probably cause a schism.

    For me, "community" and especially homogeneity are things I react against.

    My position is that we are all active in multiple and over-lapping communities which allow us to express various aspects of our individualism within a social setting. But we belong to no single community.
  • DonLogan2DonLogan2 Shipmate
    Pretty much that, as I said further up the thread, they overlap and some people will be in several communities with you and not in others. I would say we are in a single community when engaging in a single pastime with others who share that, but as soon as you step out from there the common bond is temporarily broken.
Sign In or Register to comment.