A paper written by Mel for her MA in 2002.
Melanie Jane Prideaux.
MA Islamic Studies (Part time year 2).
Module: Religion and Locality.
Tutor: Dr Kim Knott.
Submitted: 14/05/02.
We live in a world where physical proximity to families, friends, shops and
other resources is of diminishing significance. The car, the telephone and
other developments in transportation and communication technologies over the
last century have dramatically altered senses of distance and time; the
development of technologies such as the Internet continue to impact on our
awareness of the world. We are able to maintain family and other relationships
despite geographical boundaries, and even time zones. However, understandings
of community often appear to remain linked to a geographical or physical
'place', and rooted in a 'golden age' of local, supportive and self-sufficient
communities. Our use of the word community and our understanding of the concept
do not seem to have caught up with the reality of life. This leads one to ask
several related questions. Firstly, what is it that the word 'community'
actually signifies? Following on from this first question, the use in this
study of religious congregations as examples of communities leads us to ask
whether religious congregations are rightly described as communities? Secondly,
we need to ask what we mean by 'place', and how does it relate to
understandings of community? Lastly, in the light of the role of the Internet
in one of the congregations studied, what role might the Internet play in
modern communities?
None of these questions are new, and previously articulated responses will be
considered. However, I shall also use a small-scale study of two groups to
provide some evidence for possible conclusions relating to these questions.
Appendices to this essay contain methodological information relevant to the
study. The communities studied are two congregations from the non-conformist
Christian denomination of Unitarianism. Unitarianism (Hill:1994;
Chryssides:1998, 1999) is a small and unusual faith that is represented across
Europe and America, and beyond. Historically, its origins lay in the
Reformation of the sixteenth century, and the surrounding debates about
religious authority and orthodoxy. In modern times the denomination in the
United Kingdom is a small but broad community, with what Andrew Hill describes
as a '. . . spectrum extending from liberal Christianity through to religious
humanism.' (1994:5) Without any credal formulations, and with a belief in the
centrality of human reason, the guiding principles are often held to be
freedom, reason and tolerance. Worship often follows a recognisably Christian
pattern (rarely including communion), although source material for readings and
the address may be drawn from any of the world religions, or indeed from any
sphere, including for instance, science or the media.
As specific types of community, the two congregations under study are rooted in
their own particularity - their location (or lack of it), history and resources
as well as the age, gender, philosophical and religious profile of the
congregation. These are all factors which are different from Unitarian
congregation to congregation, just as evidence from any group of people would
demonstrate variety from community to community as well as place to place. No
great generalisations about the nature of communities can be claimed from this
study. However, it may be possible to extrapolate a certain amount about the
nature of communities and their relationship to places, as well as deduce some
overarching themes or ideas, simply because all communities and places are
rooted in their own particularity. The similarities between a non-conformist
Christian congregation in West Yorkshire and a Buddhist community in Tibet may
appear to be limited. Yet, if we look a little deeper we may see that they do
share a sense that they are, in some way, a community; they inhabit a place,
however understood; and that as a community they do relate to their place in
some way.
Unitarian Communities.
The first community whose particularity I shall explore is that of the
Unitarian community in Wakefield. Westgate Chapel in central Wakefield was
built in 1752 to house a congregation which was established in 1662 and had
become Unitarian in view in the eighteenth century. The April-December 2001
Prospectus proclaims the Chapel to be:
'A liberal spiritual home in the heart of Wakefield.'
After a steady decline in numbers, the appointment of an Outreach and
Development Officer for the Chapel has witnessed a slight growth in membership
to fourteen, and a widening of the activities the Chapel undertakes. Meditation
services, visits to other religious groups, courses and discussion groups, and
one day workshops on topics ranging from Rumi to Celtic spirituality have
become established parts of the Chapel life and the congregation's work. It is
useful to note that the word 'Chapel' is often used to signify the people who
meet in the Chapel, as well as the building itself. This fluid use of the word
will be in evidence in responses to the interview and therefore the way in
which they are discussed.
The second community to be studied is that of the National Unitarian
Fellowship. The NUF was founded in 1945, prompted by a perceived need to
promote Unitarianism in the UK after the end of the Second World War. The hope
was that a national fellowship could act as a first point of contact, and to
enrol those who may not be willing to seek immediate membership of a church.
The fellowship was also seen as a way of linking 'isolated' Unitarians and
others, both active church members and those unable to attend their church, for
example as a result of ill health. The 'Aims' of the National Unitarian
Fellowship, as they appear in the frontispiece of the booklet NUF 50 (1995)
state that the NUF:
' . . . exists to promote fellowship and understanding and to provide a channel
of communication between people who value a free and positive approach to
religion, which sets no dogmatic limits to the individual's quest for spiritual
truth. . . . It seeks to meet the needs of Unitarians and others who are in
sympathy with this approach and do not attend a Unitarian Church or Fellowship.
It also offers to ministers and members of Unitarian congregations and
Fellowships an opportunity for wider communication with others having a concern
for religious values.'
After a peak in membership in 1982 at around 413, the membership now stands at
around 250 and the NUF is now thought to be the largest Unitarian group in the
UK. As it does not have a physical base there is no regular worship of the type
usually associated with Unitarian groups. Activities instead include regular
Newsletters and other publications, Books of Fellowship
1
, resources such as a
cassette library, and the recent development of web resources including email
book discussions.
Responses from eight volunteers from each of these two congregations
demonstrated considerable variety in their concepts and experiences of
community and its relationship to physical place. As we shall see, one of the
most notable areas of diversity was in the definition and understanding of
community.
What do we mean by community, and are religious congregations necessarily communities?
' . . . definitions of community are elusive, imprecise, contradictory and controversial. Community has both descriptive and evaluative meanings, and is as much an ideological construct as a description of a locality. The term not only exists in a geographical and material sense but also reflects people's thinking and feeling as to where they believe a community exists.' (Popple 1995:3)
Key Features of 'Community'.
The term 'community' has experienced a dynamic history of definition and
remains a concept without a clear or commonly shared definition. One of the
early definitional exercises occurred in the 1880's when Ferdinand Tönnies
identified a distinction between two kinds of social relationship, Gemeinschaft
and Gesellschaft. Gemeinschaft is ' . . . based on affection, kinship or
membership of a community, such as a family or a group of friends.' (Popple
1995:2.) Gesellschaft is ' . . . based upon the division of labour and
contractual relations between isolated individuals consulting only their own
self-interest.' (Popple 1995:2). Sociologists and anthropologists were
exercised for many decades with elucidating a more clear understanding of the
word, and identifying the ways in which society could be said to be moving from
Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft. Examples of the definitional discourse include
Raymond Plant's study in the 1970's in which through a study of the use of
language he hoped that:
'Freed from the preconception of essentialism we shall no longer be preoccupied
with looking at language in a one-dimensional way, that is to say looking for
the
meaning of a word, but we shall on the contrary be more alive to the 'open
texture' of its use - its actual use in language and thought, in the
description, interpretation, organisation and evaluation of behaviour.'
(1974:10)
2
In the 1980's Anthony Cohen looked to the symbolic construction of community,
and specifically the significance of the boundary:
3
'Community' thus seems to imply simultaneously both similarity and difference.
The word thus expresses a relational idea: the opposition of one community to
others or to other social entities. Indeed, it will be argued that the use of
the word is only occasioned by the desire or need to express such a
distinction. It seems appropriate, therefore, to focus our examination of the
nature of community on the element which embodies this sense of discrimination,
namely, the boundary.' (1985:12)
This discourse over definition appears to have dissipated in academic circles
with an acceptance that the word has become so multifarious in its definitions
that the task now is to simply find and use a working definition and be happy
to accept alternative definitions. For example:
'What do I mean by community and locality? My definitions are common sense
ones, and other scholars would be at liberty to choose their own operational
definitions. By community I mean a social group with one or more common
features or interests, which has a greater or lesser awareness of these, and
thus a more or less conscious communal identity. Examples might be local
communities . . . ethnic communities . . . caste communities, religious
communities . . . or communities drawn together by political, leisure or other
social interests. In late-modernity some of these groups, particularly the
latter but also many ethnic communities, are not defined by what we might
normally think of as locality. Some may form loose networks, others segregated
by migration and national boundaries.' (Knott 2000:94.)
Although this freedom in use allows one to look at the actual groups we might
call 'communities' without definitional baggage, it still leaves a gap in
general use and understanding which, as we shall see from the responses to the
research, can lead to much debate and even confusion. In a situation where
there is no agreement on the meaning of community it becomes possible for those
with a political agenda to argue that there is no such thing as community.
However, I will assume that regardless of the nuances the word and concept may
include, there is something concrete in the experience of life to which I can
refer and which we can all recognise. In my use of the word here I shall,
unless working with another's definition, use the word community to signify
very loosely a group of people who feel themselves to be in some way mutually
supportive and sustaining. It is however necessary to accept that:
' . . . community must remain an essentially contested concept.'
(Popple 1995:3)
A Unitarian perspective on community recently appeared in the denominational
newspaper,
The Inquirer
. An address by the Revd. Cliff Reed (a nationally
recognised figure in the Unitarian movement) was broken down into five short
articles under the title 'A Unitarian Church: Some definitions' (2001). One of
Reed's opening statement makes it clear that he sees a Unitarian congregation
as a community,
' . . . that is to say, it is a corporate body, a coming together of
individuals and families in something that enfolds and transcends their
individuality and distinctiveness without denying these things.' (2001a)
He suggests that the 'provision of community' is one of the most valuable
things Unitarianism can offer in an 'increasingly atomized society' (2001a).
Reed identifies a distinctive community ethos that offers an 'unconditional
welcome to all people of goodwill' and that does not place conditions on
fellowship except 'extending to others the same respect and reverence that one
seeks and asks for oneself' (2001b). He also asserts the Unitarian congregation
as a faith community rooted in a liberal Christian heritage:
'It is a community of faith, a faith deeper than creedal statements or
theological concepts. And it is a faith community where, as it has been put,
you don't have to leave your mind at the door when you come in'. (2001c)
In conclusion, Reed focuses on the Unitarian congregation as a loving community,
' . . . it is of the nature of a Unitarian congregation to be loving community
- regardless of who or what its members identify as the Source of love.' (2001e)
This is only one Unitarian perspective, and can in no way be seen as a
definitive statement of what Unitarians believe their communities to be, as we
shall see from the responses from our two congregations. However, it is
significant that no letters appeared in
The Inquirer
in response to this series
of articles, indicating at least that there was little opposition to any of the
definitions that Reed put forward.
Responses to the research, although often sharing much with each other and with
Reed, demonstrated some of the variety we might expect around the word
'community', which we have identified as having such debated and even contested
definition. From Westgate Chapel, definitions that incorporated a sense of
human relationship were prevalent, e.g.:
'Intimacy is a key ingredient.'
'A group of interacting, mutually supportive people.'
'Human links within that locality.'
For most there was also a sense that there was some uniting force among the
members of a community, whether that be common values, shared interest or
culture. One participant stated that within a community:
'Beliefs can be divergent but there is something which binds the members
together.'
Two out of the eight respondents identified geographical proximity as
significant, mentioning a 'shared geographical location', and identifying
community as 'principally but not exclusively geographical.' All the
respondents linked the community of Westgate Chapel to the building. However,
as we shall see later when considering the role of 'place' to community, this
does not necessarily mean that they believed the building to be central.
Responses from the NUF also demonstrated this variety of definition. Again,
three of the eight identified locality as important. Two of those in the NUF
who identified locality also, unsurprisingly, did not view the NUF as a
'community'. All those responding identified common interests as significant,
but only two respondents identified personal relationships between NUF members
within their response.
4
Although the various definitions of community shared much of common ideas and
language, a significant difference was noted in whether or not the respondents
felt their congregation was a community. This key issue will be discussed
further in the following section. It is however worth noting at this point that
despite in some cases sharing definitions, views of the same institution were
very different. There may be many different explanations for this, not least
the individual's personal experience of their congregation. However, the most
significant reason for the variety in perceptions of the same congregation
appears to be that respondents used the word community evaluatively. With one
notable exception in the NUF, which will be discussed later, all respondents
used the word community in a positive sense. The use of community in this
overwhelmingly positive way is not unusual:
'The dominant view of community is an idealised one which always locates a
'golden age' of clearly defined and secure neighbourhoods in the historical
period before the present one.' (Popple 1995:2)
The first participant from Westgate Chapel provides a good example of the way
in which the term community can be used evaluatively. He firstly identified
community as a group of people who voluntarily come together, united by common
values or characteristics and a vision of the future, with intimacy as a key
ingredient. The respondent went on to identify that he felt Westgate fulfilled
the definition in the sense that broadly speaking members shared values, but
the Chapel and its congregation did not wholly meet the definition in that it
did not provide an intimate environment, and was rendered 'sterile' by
historical preoccupations. For this respondent community is a positive
aspiration that the Chapel congregation must seek to 'measure up' to.
Are congregations necessarily communities?
As might be expected, when the concept of community is so varied, it is not
always clear which groups of people may constitute a community, other than that
they define themselves as such. Many, if not most, groups of religious people
would tend to view themselves as being in some way a community (Ward:1999).
This is explicit in the use of the phrase 'religious community' to imply a
monastic, or similar, order. 'Congregation' is a commonly accepted and used
term to refer to a local worshipping group, which may consider itself to be a
'community'.
5
We have already seen that for the majority of respondents to the research there
was an assumption that the group they belong to (Westgate Chapel or the NUF)
was to a greater or lesser extent a 'community'. For two participants from
Westgate Chapel, congregations (when they function effectively) were explicitly
mentioned as being a type of community. All those interviewed viewed Westgate
Chapel as a community to some degree, and we can therefore assume that they
would extend the term community to cover most congregations. There was
considerable divergence in opinion on the 'effectiveness' of Westgate Chapel as
a community, (the extent to which it successfully fitted the respondent's
definition) as would be expected when, as we have already noted, 'community' is
often used as an evaluative term. This divergence was such that for some
Westgate Chapel could not be considered a community at the present time because
it fell so far short of their chosen definition.
6
Within the NUF there was considerably less clarity for three respondents over
whether a congregation, such as this geographically dispersed fellowship, could
be deemed a community. The principal reason however was linked to geographical
constraints on effectiveness, rather than more individual measures of
effectiveness as were found at Westgate Chapel. For instance, one respondent
from the NUF stated that a community is:
'A group of people with a common denominator who have local contact. Therefore
NUF is NOT a community BUT it is a useful substitute when in your own locality
there is not a group of similarly like-minded folk.'
For some, the effectiveness of the NUF as a community was judged in terms of
the level of participation rather than the quality of relationships. For two
respondents the fact that members of the NUF could be passive
7
was viewed as a
merit, rather than a negative indicator, of the fellowship:
'The NUF allows its members to participate or not depending on what each
individual wishes.'
'It allows people very different levels of commitment while maintaining the
basic link.'
For one respondent the human relationships are key to the sense of the
congregation being a community. The geographical issue is not so much a
barrier
to community as the
reason for
the community:
'The NUF is a community which enables people to come together in spite of
geographical distance through developing the use of alternative methods of
communication. All the accepted requirements of community are available within
the NUF i.e. support, friendship, shared awareness.'
Most of the NUF respondents shared the perception of those from Westgate who
identified community as a positive concept, although as we have seen for some
the geographical element rendered the NUF as not a community. However, one
respondent having raised the geographical issue also goes on to dismiss the
idea of the NUF being a community for very different reasons:
'Sometimes communities are closed, one has to 'be like them' in order to be a
member! . . . Whilst I fully agree that the NUF is a 'body of people' who have
something in common, a freedom which is very important and vital to keep alive,
I cannot really see the NUF as a 'community', and frankly would find the idea
giving rise to unease.'
Unusually, this response has focussed on a negative connotation of community
and used it to reject the concept for the NUF. This response relates
significantly to the previously mentioned work of Cohen in focussing on the
boundary as the defining character of the community. The community is defined
by those whom it excludes. Reed, to quote again from his series of articles
(2001a), also identifies the boundary as a significant marker of community:
' . . . at any one time any healthy congregation will have associated with
those who do not - or do not yet - feel ready to make the transition to full
membership of the community, but it will have at its core a group who
constitute a true community, for whom the congregation is 'us' rather than
'you' or 'them'.'
Reed does not invest community with the same negative connotations as the
respondent, despite sharing this recognition of the significance of boundaries.
Again, the evaluative quality of the word 'community' is very much apparent.
There is no reason to think the respondent would include any further
congregations in her rejection of community, as she clearly sees the NUF in a
very different light because of its unusual make up.
It would appear then, that for most of our respondents, religious congregations
could be seen as communities
if those congregations were functioning as
effective communities
. To be an ineffective community, therefore, is to be no
community at all! The level of perceived effectiveness was, of course dependent
on the respondent's definition which, although sharing common language, were in
few incidences identical. This picture is further enlarged by one of the
respondents from Westgate who felt that the Chapel congregation did not ' . . .
fulfil all the aspects of community for all the people.' Clearly, not everyone
necessarily benefits from being linked to a community.
If we accept a definition of community that loosely implies mutually supportive
and sustaining groups of people it is easy to fit most religious congregations
into this definition. However, within the context of the contested and value
laden use of the term it is possible to see that community is used to express
an inherently positive perspective on the religious congregation. When a
religious congregation functions in this positive, supportive way then for many
it would be considered a community. Indeed, we can expect that for many
congregations this is the goal (to be a community) towards which they work. In
this sense therefore, a religious congregation may fit the general sense of
community descriptively, and strives towards fitting the evaluative sense that
many would ascribe to it.
What do we mean by 'place', and how does it relate to understandings of community?
As we have seen through our study of the meaning of the word community, for
many people a link is made between community and locality or place. The group
of people that might be considered a 'community' is expected to relate to each
other in or around a specific place. However, this is not a necessary aspect of
the definition. Three respondents from the NUF for instance recognised their
community as such despite the lack of a physical place. In discussing how
community might relate to place, and if indeed community needs a physical
'place' to exist, we must firstly consider what it is that we mean by place. We
have already seen how geographical location was identified as significant by
NUF respondents and Westgate Chapel respondents alike when attempting to define
the word 'community'. Two respondents from Westgate Chapel used the word
'place', and in such a way as to give us a useful window onto accepted
understandings of the word. For one respondent community was about people in or
around a place, although the ' . . . place isn't the community.' For another:
' . . . community is about people, and a shared geographical location or place.'
Clearly, for both the concept of place is very much linked to a geographical
locale or a physical structure such as a Chapel building. As we shall see
later, in the consideration of the historical significance of the Chapel the
building becomes a place that 'holds' a shared history and memories. Casey,
following Heidegger, expresses how this 'holding' ability of place gives it
significance:
'Place is the generatrix for the collection, as well as the recollection, of
all that occurs in the lives of sentient beings, and even for the trajectories
of inanimate things. Its power consists in gathering these lives and things,
each with its own space and time, into one arena of common engagement.'
(1996:26)
However, place is only important if we, as 'sentient beings' give it
importance. For the inanimate pew it matters not whether it resides in a place
with a liberal or a conservative religious past. For the person on the pew it
can matter intensely:
' . . . the significance of locality lies in its capacity to be meaningful for
those within it, to be important for individual and group identity, and to be a
practical working environment.' (Knott 2000:95.)
If we consider place as being defined by, and given significance by, those who
are there, it becomes possible to see place as not
necessarily
bounded by
physical location. For the religious adherent heaven may be a 'place' but it
isn't one that is geographically constructed. The Internet provides a more
accessible example. Unless we consider the Internet to be emplaced in the
terminal where we interact with it, we can not describe the Internet as being
bound by a place, yet in the use of terms such as 'cyberspace' we would seem to
imply a tangible existence for it. If this existence also evidences the
'holding' ability and has personal significance, it might be considered a
place. However, despite these possible ramifications of the word, 'place' is
most commonly used to indicate a physical location that might be pinpointed on
a map, or identified in some other concrete, geographical way, from the very
small scale (a secret place at the back of the wardrobe), to the very large
scale (our planet's place in the galaxy). In general, 'place' indicates
groundedness or connection, as in the phrase 'a place of my own' to describe
home, as well as a physical identification.
Within the NUF we have seen that for some the lack of 'place' prevents the NUF
being seen as a community. At Westgate Chapel, although five of the eight
respondents at some point and in some way identified locality as significant in
understandings of community, three respondents viewed the specific 'place',
namely the Chapel building, as a problem for the community they recognised. For
one respondent the Chapel was ' . . . more of a hindrance than a help.' It
failed to meet the needs of a 'contemporary religious community', and was
impractical as well as a diversion. This was specifically related to the
historical preoccupations of the Chapel, which he considered to render the
community 'sterile', and identified that the community:
' . . . shouldn't be in the business of preserving a historical past, it
arrests energy which should be focussed elsewhere.'
Another participant identified that the physical layout of the building may in
itself divide the community. The place becomes the divider of community rather
than the home:
'The building encourages physical separation, people sit dotted all over the
Chapel.'
For all the respondents there was a sense that
the
specific building was not
necessary to the sense of community, although
a
building may be in order to
provide a unifying factor for the community. As one participant observed,
despite the Chapel providing a 'focal point', being 'a positive architectural
feature' and 'something to be proud of' the building
' . . . isn't essential, the community holds the building together, not the
other way around. Could exist without
that
building, but not without
a
building. More difficult to keep it going without a physical place because the
group is not homogenous. The motivation would not be as strong without the
building.'
The respondent who was most positive about the role of the building in the life
of the community felt that although the community may be able to survive
without a building it would be 'considerably less rich'. The building was a
store of history and personal associations, a 'connection to a shared, liberal,
past.' In a more concrete sense he felt that the building:
' . . . provides the circumstance in which our religious expressions are
performed.'
One participant specifically identified the 'holding' capacity of place which
Casey identifies, seeing the Chapel building as 'our place', 'where we belong',
she felt that the community was in a state of ' . . . both belonging to the
building and belonged by the building.' However, she did go on to express that
the specific Chapel that exists now may not be required in order to fulfil this
role, although there ' . . . would need to be a building, the community is
building based.'
There was a sense among those interviewed at Westgate Chapel that although the
present building has many qualities it is not, of itself, what makes the people
who meet there a community. However, a building would be needed for the
community to exist; alternatives such as a house fellowship did not receive any
mention. Except for the last quoted respondent the reasons why a building would
be needed were as much practical as symbolic, the community being sufficiently
small and geographically dispersed that a central location would be needed in
order to make it accessible. Place is important because of what it allows to
happen, not because it is intrinsically linked to community.
The limited evidence seems therefore to indicate that 'place' is significant to
community, though that place can be differently constructed. Practicality has
as much a role as meaning in the relationship between community and place. If
we then link this to the experience of the NUF, it may be possible to draw out
some ways in which place can be differently constructed. Despite those who felt
the lack of 'place' prevented the NUF being defined as a community, five out of
eight respondents did see it as a community, even if not as effective as they
may have liked. Within the NUF it is possible to see that substitutes for a
physical place such as a building have been developed in order to create an
environment for community. Links are maintained by post, telephone or the
Internet, with occasional gatherings such as at the Annual General Meeting. It
is these links that then become the 'place' of the NUF community. Perhaps the
most significant of these links for the future of the NUF is the Internet.
What role does the Internet play in modern communities?
The Internet challenges our concept of community in a way that no previous
technology has been able to do. Unlike other communication technologies, such
as the telephone, it is a medium that provides opportunities for a wide range
of interactions, both considered and immediate, as well as being a repository
for a seemingly endless amount of information. Rheingold points out that:
'Communication technologies, from alphabets to Internets, have been changing
the nature of communities for nearly ten thousand years.' (2000:345)
Each new technology has had a significant impact, but not, it would seem, on
the same scale as the Internet. The ability for many people to interact at the
same time, despite distance and other barriers, has given rise to the phrase
'virtual communities', which we expect to exist entirely in 'cyberspace'. This
impression seems to be considerably misguided. For Rheingold, one of the first
writers to describe and analyse these groups through his experience of a
community called the WELL:
'The WELL felt like an authentic community to me from the start because
it was
grounded in my everyday physical world.
' (2000:xvi) (my emphasis)
This was a group of people with whom he had contact in 'real' as well as
'cyber' space. The example of the NUF's email book discussion group also fits
this description. Members have contact through postal, and sometimes telephone
contact as well as occasional face to face meeting. Their virtual community,
like Rheingold's WELL, is rooted in a real world community, even if that
'real-world' community is not 'face-to-face'. Interestingly, Rheingold in his
original work (1994) felt there was more to virtual community then an extension
of real world community. Following Ray Oldenburg, he considers that the 'chat'
of such groups means more than its content,
' . . . such places are where communities can come into being and continue to
hold together. These are the unacknowledged agorae of modern life.' (1994:9)
The 'chatroom' or other place of communication on the Internet is more than the
exchanges that occur there. It is also a place of community. These descriptions
and assumptions in Rheingold's work led to a great deal of debate over the
concept and the content of community, and how they might relate to use of the
Internet.
Two examples of this discussion concerning the nature of virtual community are
provided by Lockard and Willson. Lockard (1996) argues that the description of
the Internet as 'community' may demonstrate the confusion over definition that
we identified previously:
'That cyberspace can even be mistaken for "community" testifies to the
attenuated sense of community that prevails in too many quarters of American
society.' (1996:224)
He sees the Internet as purely a means for communication, not a definable space
for community to develop. Although certainly very advanced communications, he
argues that that communications are an aspect of community, communications
alone can not constitute a community (1996:224). Further to this, he
concentrates on the centrality of the material or 'real', to individual and
community relations (1996:225). These concerns about the centrality of the
material to community, and that there is more to community than communication,
are significant in terms of whether we can consider the Internet a place, and
whether therefore 'virtual community' is possible.
A further example of the type of criticism to be levelled at understandings of
community that are based on the Internet is that of Willson who argues that
without a material dimension community becomes morally impotent. Interestingly,
she also links this to the definitional analysis of community:
'What I want to suggest is that, through the withdrawal of community from an
embodied, political and social arena - either to lodge within a philosophical
abstraction or to become a disembodied, technologically enabled interaction -
an ethical or political concern for the Other is rendered impotent and
unrealizable. 'Community' is then produced as an ideal rather than as a
reality, or else it is abandoned altogether.' (1997:146)
She rejects the argument that virtual communities overcome isolation by arguing
that conversely, they encourage such isolation because it is only the mind that
is 'extended into the mutual interaction' (1997:149), and that there is no
requirement for any physical, moral, political or social involvement
(1997:153). She argues that it not so much the Internet and the interactions on
the Internet which
create
these problems of moral, social and political
dis-involvement, but rather the understandings of community which are chosen to
work with, encouraging a concentration on the individual rather than the
'embodied relations' and thus, possibly, 'accentuating the very
compartmentalization against which we could be striving.' (1997:159)
In the afterword to the 2000 edition of Rheingold's 'Virtual Communities', he
recognises the debate that his original work caused, and the criticisms (such
as those of Lockard and Willson) which were levelled. His response is to accept
many of those criticisms, but principally on the basis that he was mistakenly
using the word 'community'. Instead, he identifies 'online social networks' as
a more accurate term than 'virtual communities (2000:359).
These debates over virtual communities occur in large part because of the
contested definition of the word 'community', and it is significant that
Rheingold chose to withdraw his use of the word. Within the NUF there is no
general expectation at present of the Internet replacing the other forms of
communication that are involved. Instead, debate very much exists around
whether the Internet is a constructive avenue for the NUF to be exploring.
Within the eight responses received both extremes of opinion were expressed.
One respondent stated that:
'I seriously consider these radical innovations in communication to belong to
the secular world of business, commerce, education and liesure [sic].
Accordingly, I regard it an intrusion into the dignified domain of religion . .
. The inherently postal character of the organisation, and the high proportion
of over-55's in membership, suggests the imperitive [sic] for a cautous [sic]
approach.'
Another respondent felt that the development of Internet use would split the
congregation:
'It will divide the membership between those WITH computer/internet resources
and those WITHOUT. It will take off as a second phase NUF and cast the original
letter-communicating concept aside.'
Concern over the issue of access to these resources was also expressed,
although in a more positive light, by a further respondent:
'A good idea provided the skills deficiency of older members can be overcome.
Fine for those who can use the medium. Worth pursuing now.'
The only other concern about the growth in the Internet dimension of the
community was over the responsibility that those using and managing these
resources have ' . . . to give a just idea of the rest of us.' More positive
attitudes were expressed by those who considered the Internet to be 'Widening
the community's thinking and knowledge', and making ' . . . NUF more accessible
to younger people'. In broadening access in this way a problem may be
encountered as the younger Internet-using generation:
' . . . will be another strand as not all members will be in a position to
join, or want to join, these activities. NUF should be able to absorb that and
be enriched. It may make members fee[l] less isolated and help people to feel
NUF is up to the moment.'
The most positive response was received from one of the key members of the NUF
in terms of developing the Internet resources:
'The Internet resources can deepen community and also offer opportunities for
growth beyond any 'national' boundaries. Unlike the regular contact through
existing activities which take time . . . the Internet can be available for
people at their very moment of need. It enables 'FREEDOM' to develop.'
It is interesting that no concerns were expressed which echoed those of Willson
regarding the disembodied nature of Internet communication. It is likely that
this is because disembodied communication is an accepted norm within the NUF,
where the majority of members do not meet with each other or share a physically
emplaced community. This may offer a new perspective on these critiques of
disembodied communication. It is not the lack of face to face interaction that
may lead to the problems identified but the relative anonymity. None of the NUF
respondents identified concerns about anonymous 'troublemakers', or impersonal
relationships on the Internet, perhaps because these problems have already been
experienced and dealt with or accepted in the community as it has always
existed, or because these have not yet become serious issues for the NUF to
deal with. In a postal fellowship it is possible for an individual to invent a
persona and therefore create problems, but it would appear that little of this
happens. Complete anonymity is of course, relatively difficult as in becoming a
member one submits information such as an address. Beyond this, active members
both on the Internet and in the NUF more widely, do seem to genuinely care
about each other, and act to support one another. As one respondent expressed:
'Members care what happens to each other and encouragement is never far away.'
Where the Internet is seen as providing an additional service to an already
existing community it provides a further channel for that community to develop.
When it is viewed (on the whole by those who don't use these technologies) as
attempting to usurp the existing community it is, unsurprisingly, seen as a
threat. There are clearly opportunities in the use of the Internet, to widen
membership of communities as well as develop relationships and knowledge within
communities. However, there are concerns to be overcome and it appears to
remain important that communities exist in the physical world as well.
Conclusion.
The initial research question upon which this study was based concerned how
place and community might be linked. However, it became clear very quickly that
there was a considerable amount of ground that needed to be covered before this
issue could be addressed. Firstly, it was evident that the word 'community'
needed to be more fully explored. In the responses that were gathered the use
of the word 'community' was considerably more contentious, and varied, than I
had expected. In answer to the question 'what is community?' we have seen that
there are no hard and fast definitions but some clear themes. As a word,
'community' is given meaning by those who use it. Definitions share common
language, usually about place, relationships and common interests, but the
individual often uses the word evaluatively as well as descriptively. Religious
congregations can provide examples of community, and attempting to achieve the
positive picture of an evaluative sense of community may be that congregation's
aim. Given these broad conclusions it was possible to begin to consider the
interaction of place and community, an interaction which I believe could
usefully be further explored if space allowed.
The experience of the members of the NUF and Westgate Chapel provide useful
perspectives on the meaning of community and its' relation to place because of
what they share as much as what is different. Community was associated by many
from both groups with physical place, although this need not be a specific
place, but simply a place recognised by all members. For members of Westgate
Chapel this was an issue of practicality as much as philosophy. Without a
'place' it was difficult to see how the community could come together. Within
the NUF a lack of place is seen by some as a considerable barrier to
recognition as a community. It is particularly significant however, that for
some, 'place' is found in the people and the relationships that occur, although
this may not be consciously articulated. It is clear, therefore, that the
growth and development of Internet use may lead to a re-evaluation of the
meaning of community, particularly as it relates to place. If community can be
positively shown to exist for some in the virtual world, despite a lack of
'place' (in its commonly accepted sense), will the popularly held sense of
community as 'emplaced' become more generally eroded?
There are several further questions that might be usefully explored in the area
of place and community interaction. Firstly, as we have seen that 'community'
is an evaluative term, to what extent is the related place (whether physical or
otherwise) given 'value'? Does the conceptualised 'place' become value-laden in
the same way that the conceptualised community so clearly does? Secondly,
particularly when place is found in the non-physical environment, such as the
Internet, to what extent is the place, as the community, 'bounded'? If the
community can be defined by those whom it excludes ('you' or 'them' rather than
'us'), can the place necessarily be located by its boundary with other places?
This may seem straightforward in the physical world, but on the Internet it
could be argued that boundaries cease to exist, except in the sense of access
to the technology. Thirdly, if 'place' and 'community' have become so diffuse
in their definitions, are they still words that have any validity? Does it
affect our experience and appreciation of 'place' and 'community' if the sense
we invest in the word is not shared by those around us?
As was identified in the introduction, the extent to which the results of this
study can be generalised is open to question. However, as well as providing
further evidence for some of the conclusions that have previously been drawn in
this area (for example concerning the contested nature of community) this
small-scale study of two very particular and unusual congregations has provoked
a new set of related questions.
Appendix.
RESEARCH QUESTION.
This small scale research study began with the initial research question of
how, within two very different Unitarian congregations, the sense of community
was linked to having, or not having, a physical place in which to meet. The
questions asked (set out below in 'Research Methodology') sought to draw out
some issues that might pertain to this central question. However, as the study
continued it became clear that the scope of the information from the unexpected
responses and variety of responses, was such that the research question needed
to be broken down into the several related questions with which this assignment
deals. These are:
What do we mean by community?
What do we mean by place?
How might place and community be linked?
What role has the Internet in developing concepts of community?
It also became clear that the central question was not how community related to
place, but what in fact 'community' means.
The possible reasons behind the unexpected nature of the responses are outlined
below in 'Methodological Issues'.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.
There are two dimensions to the research activity undertaken:
Descriptions of these two communities can be found in the main body of the
assignment.
A. Methods used for data collection.
Westgate Chapel:
The structured interviews of members of Westgate chapel took place over a
period of two weeks, and were conducted either in the homes of the interviewees
or in the Chapel. Interviewees responded to an article in the Newsletter for
the congregation asking for volunteers. All eight volunteers were interviewed.
The interview took the format of a structured interview, although some
discussion was entered into in order to clarify the interviewees answer. Notes
were taken during the interview, and a copy sent to the interviewee in order
for them to check that a proper record had been taken. All the interviewees
were happy with the notes taken. The questions asked were:
Questions 1 and 2 were asked in order to ascertain whether those who were long standing or more involved members of the congregation had different perspectives to those who were newer to, or less involved in the congregation. Questions 3 to 6 directly related to the initial research question. Question 7 was introduced after discussion with participant 1, about belonging to the Chapel community or the wider Unitarian community.
National Unitarian Fellowship (NUF):
The questionnaire of members of the NUF took place over a period of two months,
and was conducted by post. Volunteers responded to an article in the Newsletter
for the congregation (of which I am editor) asking for volunteers. Seven
volunteers were initially identified and a further one was approached directly.
The questions asked were:
Questions 1 and 2 were asked in order to ascertain whether those who were long standing or more involved members of the congregation had different perspectives to those who were newer to, or less involved in the congregation. Questions 3 to 5 and 8 directly related to the initial research question. Questions 6 and 7 were included in order to discover whether the Internet was relevant to the research question.
B. Methodological issues.
Two principal issues may have had a significant effect on the responses received:
Researcher participation:
I am Editor of the NUF Newsletter. This gave me easy access to request
volunteers, but also meant that respondents may have felt I had an ability to
affect change in the congregation as a result of their responses. Others may
have felt constrained in their responses as it was made clear (on the
suggestion of other members) that conclusions from the study may be circulated
in another NUF publication 'Viewpoint'. It would seem from the responses that
neither of these possible problems had a significant effect, although the
former may have influenced respondent 8.
I have attended Westgate Chapel irregularly for some time, and family rites of
passage have occurred at the Chapel. As an outspoken and young member of the
congregation respondents may have felt unwilling to voice concern over central
issues. This does not seem to have been a problem.
Self selecting sample:
In both congregations it was felt fair that volunteers were requested rather
than selected. This may have given rise to significant issues in responses. As
a self selected group, passive members of both congregations are not
represented. Active members of both congregations may have felt this was an
opportunity to raise personal concerns or grievances, and this appears to have
influenced some responses.
However, these unforeseen influences on responses have provided the grounds for
widening the research question. They also provide useful reminders of some of
the pitfalls of this type of research.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
|
Albrow, Martin
|
1997. 'Travelling Beyond Local Cultures'. In Living the Global City. Ed. Eade, John Routledge, London. |
| Anderson, Benedict | 1991. Imagined Communities. Verso, London. |
|
Becker, Penny Edgell
|
1999. Congregations in Conflict. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. |
|
Casey, Edward S.
|
1996. 'How to get from Space to Place in a Fairly Short Stretch of Time'. In A Sense of Place. Eds. Field, S. and Basso, KH. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. |
|
Chryssides, George
|
1998. The Elements of Unitarianism. Element Books Ltd. Dorset. |
|
Chryssides, George (Ed.)
|
1999. Unitarian Perspectives on Contemporary Religious Thought. The Lindsey Press, London. |
|
Cohen, Anthony
|
1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. Ellis Horwood, Chichester. |
| Hill, Andrew | 1994. The Unitarian Path. Lindsey Press, London. |
|
Knott, Kim
|
1998. 'Issues in the Study of Religions and Locality'. In Method and Theory in the Study of Religion. 10, 279-290. |
|
Knott, Kim
|
2000. 'Community and Locality in the Study of Religions'. In Secular Theories on Religion. Eds. Jensen, Tim and Rothstein, Mikael. Museum Tusculanum Press, Denmark. |
|
Lockard, Joseph
|
1996. 'Progressive Politics, electronic individualism and the myth of virtual community.' In Internet Culture. Ed. Porter, David. Routledge, London. |
|
Northcott, Michael
|
1995. 'A place of our own?' In God in the City. Ed. Sedgwick, P. Mowbray, UK |
|
NUF
|
1995. NUF 50: The first half-century of the National Unitarian Fellowship. The Lindsey Press, London. |
|
Plant, Raymond
|
1974. Community and Ideology: an essay in applied social philosophy. Routledge, London. |
| Popple, K | 1995. Analysing Community Work. Oxford University Press, Oxford. |
|
Reed, Cliff
|
2001a. 'The Church as Community'. In The Inquirer 7529, 7. |
| Reed, Cliff | 2001b. 'A Distinctive Ethos'. In The Inquirer 7530, 4. |
| Reed, Cliff | 2001c. 'A Faith Community'. In The Inquirer 7531, 7. |
| Reed, Cliff | 2001d. 'The Liberal Christian Tradition'. In The Inquirer 7532, 6. |
|
Reed, Cliff
|
2001e. 'A Worshipping Community'. In The Inquirer 7533, 9. |
|
Rheingold, Howard
|
1994. The Virtual Community: finding connection in a computerized world. Secker and Warburg, London. |
|
Rheingold, Howard
|
2000. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier (revised edition). The MIT Press, London. |
|
Ward, Keith
|
1999. Religion and Community. Clarendon Press, Oxford. |
|
Willson, Michele
|
1997. 'Community in the Abstract: A Political and Ethical Dilemma?' In Virtual Politics: Identity and Community in Cyberspace. Ed. Holmes, David. SAGE Publications Ltd., London. |
NOTES
1
Books of Fellowship are circulated around approximately six members. Each
participant adds a 'letter' to the book, which is a source of personal and
spiritual fellowship as well as intellectual discussion. After each circuit of
the letter, the organiser removes previous entries and collates them.
2
Some of the evidence gathered in the course of this study, as outlined below
(page 13), demonstrate the 'open texture' of the word community, particularly
in the way in which the word is used evaluatively.
3
This sense of the boundedness of communities was an issue that became
significant in one of the responses, as discussed below (page 16).
4
If time and space allowed, this would be an interesting area of further
analysis. Although only one respondent identified relationships, my own
experience of the NUF indicates that, in fact, relationships are very
significant to many members. Rare meetings between members can be intensely
emotional times. It seems likely that the format of contacts - in this case a
postal questionnaire - may have affected responses, exaggerating the sense of
personal distance.
5
As with community, the word congregation is open to interpretation and debate.
Becker, in her study of American congregations (1999), identifies that
congregations may fit four different 'types', the community, family, leader and
mixed congregation. My use here of the word congregation is not intended to
imply that there is a more specific commonality between these groups (the NUF
and Westgate Chapel) beyond their broad religious nature. Indeed, it is very
likely that the two groups may be seen to fit into very different congregation
'types' to use Becker's descriptions.
6
It can be assumed that the variety here is due to personal experiences. That
such a variety was found in such a small sample highlights one of the potential
problems with using a self-selecting sample; those who feel strongly are most
likely to respond. (See Appendix 'Methodological issues'.)
7
Many members receive the publications of the NUF ('Viewpoint' and the
Newsletter) but do not participate in any of the other activities.