Abstract

Digital technologies, in particular social media, have changed the way people communicate, and some argue that it has caused a decline in relationships. Emerging technologies have changed the way people communicate, but it has also improved on shortcomings that were previously experienced by members of a community. Social media has given individuals the opportunity to express their personal opinions and views, instead of only the views of the collective community. Community relationships have not declined as a result of social media, they have simply evolved and will continue to do so.

Introduction

Digital technologies, in particular social media, have changed the way people communicate, and some argue that it has caused a decline in relationships. Emerging technologies have changed the way people communicate, but it has also improved on shortcomings that were previously experienced by members of a community. Social media has not caused a decline in relationships within our community – our community has never been perfect and is always a work in progress, as technological change has always changed the way we communicate, and it has encouraged the building of communities, rather than damaged them. Technological change, most recently social media, has created bigger circles of contacts for community members, with focus moving from the community (larger group as a whole),to the interests of the individual, which has allowed community members to foster relationships within those interests (Hampton, 2016). Individuals can have a greater awareness of the world and events that occur outside of their immediate community while maintaining relationships with close ties (such as family) and looser ties (such as colleagues and teammates). The American philosopher Josiah Royce wrote about a concept called provincialism, where a community or province can possess its own traditions and beliefs that were driven and created by individual members of the community (2013), which Titangos (2013) describes has only been able to be realized in an era of social media. Pre-industrial communities tended to crush individualism and reject change or difference, and modern technologies have seen a shift where communities have a bigger focus on the individual and how one can have a voice within their community.

Pre-industrial and urban industrial communities – a history

Pre-industrial communities consisted of small (often rural) groups with strong ties to each other, a core purpose or activity at the heart of the group. The concentration of relations within a group left little room for diversity, with regards to religion, occupation, mobility, and upbringing (Hampton, 2016). Compliance with established standards was expected and non-conformance would be disciplined by central authority figures. Major technological change in the industrial era saw a transition where communities became more urban than rural. Individual’s occupations became more specialized, and individuals were more likely to move between communities (Hampton, 2016). Historically, when a community member left a community – due to a life event such as getting married or commencing new employment – their tie to that community would be severed, due to geography, time and lack of mobility (Hampton & Wellman, 2018). Free from the sanctions and obligations of their previous small, tight-knit communities, individuals were free to explore new interests, hobbies, ideas, and beliefs, with several different points of activity defining one’s sense of lifestyle and community (as opposed to a central activity in a pre-industrial community). In an urban industrial community, community members could find, as Johnston described, not a place where one can fit in, but where one feels a true sense of inclusion (2013). Mobility was another major factor that impacted a community – in early, rural communities, one would often be disconnected from their community once they were physically removed from it and establish ties in their “new” community (Hampton, 2016). As technology advanced, it became easier to travel and communicate with contacts and community members that became geographically removed. While greater mobility and improved communication technology made it easier to maintain these connections, a person-to-person method of communication was still a very time and resource intensive method of communication to maintain for an individual. Digital technologies allowed for one to maintain ties, but it was resource intensive. Advances in digital technologies, especially social media, saw a shift take place from a person-to-person communication model to a person-to-network communication model (Hampton, 2016), which required fewer resources for an individual to maintain.

How community relationships have changed through social media

As technology advanced and community structures moved from small, stationary and insular groups to more diverse and loose-knit groups, it can be argued that this change did not have negative outcomes (Hampton & Wellman, 2018) for communities. Pre-industrial communities did offer support to community members (and community members could always expect to receive support if it was needed) due to their small and insular nature, although any members who did not conform to the group’s central values and beliefs would be subject to informal controls, surveillance, and repression. The move from a rural to urban setting expanded one’s network from few to many, and allowed an individual to connect with a community that shared similar beliefs, ideals and interests (Johnston, 2013). The rise of digital technologies, and particularly, social media, has made it easier to connect and maintain community ties, but it has also made the maintenance of these connections more efficient and less resource intensive, meaning communities are larger, more loosely populated and with many points of focus and activity. The increase in use of social media technologies has yielded what Hampton describes as “persistent contact” and “pervasive awareness” (2016). By broadcasting to an entire network via social media, persistent contact with the community is maintained by an individual community member where previously, these ties would have been cut if a community member failed to make person-to-person contact, moved house, or changed employment. Pervasive awareness refers to the knowledge gained through short and frequent exchanges on social media regarding to activities, hobbies, interests, life events and convictions of the broadcaster (Hampton, 2016). Pervasive awareness is important and can help an individual know how to respond to their audience (network). Social media is a broadcast, but the broadcast is not submissively consumed by the recipient, it is engaging in nature, and by being aware of the audience, the author can communicate in a way that they know will be seen, understood and encourage a response (boyd, 2010). These affordances of social media mean that an individual can easily maintain bonds with family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances. Hampton describes the linking of close bonds (such as family) and loose bonds (such as colleagues or teammates) as something of a hybrid between pre-industrial and urban industrial communities (2016).

How social media benefits the individual within a community

Social media can empower individuals in a community to make changes and become active participants within a community. Individuals can become active players in the political system, as described by Papacharissi and Taylor-Trevey (2018). In a democratic society, one cannot realistically expect to be heard or to be involved in a political movement by showing up at Parliament House and expecting to see the leader of your political party. Before technological advances and social media, there were political groups, but barriers to entry were high – considerable resources and connections would be needed to be able to form, join, and then enact any political change. Organizations would have to first establish themselves and their organizing capabilities to deal with any logistical concerns before they could begin campaigning and enact change. Network affordances of social media allow movements to develop as they go. Papcharissi and Taylor-Trevey (2018) go on to explain that individuals can use social media (such as Twitter) to connect with each other and form their own groups that have the power to change the political narrative of certain issues. This is sometimes referred to as “hashtag activism” and includes examples such as #BlackLivesMatter, which highlights unjust deaths to black people by authorities in America; or #YouAintNoMuslimBruv, a hashtag of the phrase shouted by a bystander at the scene of an attack of a knife-wielding terrorist (Hitching-Hales & Calderwood, 2017). Some critics of the effect of digital technologies, such as Dotson, argue that social media contributes to a decline in relationships (2017). However, social media allows an individual to make and maintain visible networks, resulting in connections that otherwise would not have been made (boyd & Ellison, 2007). While social media can broadcast to a broad audience, it also affords the individual the opportunity to find a smaller, niche group or community, specifically suited to a particular interest or hobby (boyd & Ellison, 2007), forming new communities, that would have been difficult to achieve in a pre-modern era due to the small, insular nature of premodern communities, where an individual would have been unlikely to find someone to share this particular niche interest or hobby with. Social media also allows individuals to maintain relationships that span generations. Mobility of an individual meant that familial links would not be maintained when they physically left their community, with increases in technology, and also with social media, it has become easier and easier to maintain links with several generations of family members (Hampton, 2016). Conversely, Hampton does mention that there is a downside to this, the “cost of caring,” (p. 117)where the awareness of so many life events can cause stress to an individual. There can also be a tendency for social media users to refrain from communicating their thoughts and ideas if they know their family members or close networks do not agree with their point of view, reminiscent of pre-industrial communities (Hampton, 2016).

How social media benefits the community as a whole

Social media can benefit communities in many ways. These can include disaster response and management or mobilizing a community to participate in local initiatives. Kim and Hastak (2018) described one example, regarding the lack of media coverage of the 2016 Louisiana floods in America, despite it being the worst natural disaster to occur since Hurricane Sandy in 2012. National (traditional broadcast) media coverage was focused on reporting on the 2016 US Presidential election and the 2016 Rio Olympic Games. Local authorities used social media to provide real-time updates of the emergency and to disseminate crucial information to those impacted by the floods. Residents also used social media to communicate with and provide updates to loved ones (Kim & Hastak, 2018). There are also examples of communities mobilizing to become active participants in their physical, local community, through neighborhood groups and clean up community groups (Niven, 2011), or during the Australian bushfires of 2019-20, not only to connect people’s stories with the rest of the world, but to provide up-to-date information for emergency services on the ground (Mack, 2020). Niven (2011) describes how people becoming involved in local neighborhood initiatives would make connections with people in their neighbourhood that they otherwise would not have met. Social media encourages participation and building of relationships and Titangos (2013) describes how philosopher Josiah Royce theorized about this when describing provincialism (where a community independently shapes its beliefs and traditions collectively). Royce named three barriers to “provincialism”, these being “1) refusal to be assimilated into a new community, 2) leveling tendency to crush individuality, 3) mob mentality that appeals to emotions”. The concept of bringing a community to the rest of society, and society to the community in question, is able to be realized via the affordances of social media (Titangos, 2013).

Conclusion

Social media has not changed the structure of our community, but it has the potential to do so. As community has evolved over time, there has been a shift from a group focus, as seen in pre-industrial times, to an individual focus, in urban-industrial times, to a hybrid group-individual structure that has been afforded by social media today. There are always strengths and failures within a community, and a community is constantly evolving, and it can be argued, improving. Social media has made it easier to stay connected with our community despite not always being physically present within that community – due to technological advancements, we are always able to discover news and information regarding our community persistently. Participation has become more accessible, and individuals are still forming and maintaining relationships within their communities, while actively participating in these communities. Social media has changed many ways that community members communicate, but the important thing to remember, is that everyone is still conversing with each other, even if the methods employed are different to what they used to be.

References:

boyd, d. m. (2010). Social Network Sites as Networked Publics. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A Networked Self : Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (pp. 39-58). Taylor & Francis Group. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/curtin/detail.action?docID=574608

boyd, d. m., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 13(1), 210-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Dotson, T. (2017). Technically Together: Reconstructing Community in a Networked World. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11001.001.0001

Hampton, K. N. (2016). Persistent and Pervasive Community: New Communication Technologies and the Future of Community. The American behavioral scientist (Beverly Hills), 60(1), 101-124. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215601714

Hampton, K. N., & Wellman, B. (2018). Lost and Saved . . . Again: The Moral Panic about the Loss of Community Takes Hold of Social Media. Contemp Sociol, 47(6), 643-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094306118805415

Hitching-Hales, J., & Calderwood, I. (2017). 8 Massive Moments When Hashtag Activism Really Worked. Global Citizen. Retrieved 03/04/2022 from https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/hashtag-activism-hashtag10-twitter-trends-dresslik/

Johnston, A. (2013). Community and Social Media. In (pp. 26-37). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203407615-8

Kim, J., & Hastak, M. (2018). Social network analysis: Characteristics of online social networks after a disaster. International journal of information management, 38(1), 86-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.08.003

Mack, C. (2020). Social Media: Engaging the World in Australia’s Bushfire Crisis. Paper+Spark. Retrieved 23 April 2022 from https://paperandspark.com.au/social-media-engaging-the-world-in-australias-bushfire-crisis/

Niven, R. (2011, 8/12/2011). The role of social media in community building and development. Community Action Centre. https://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/community-action-blog/2011/dec/08/facebook-social-media-community-development

Papacharissi, Z., & Taylor-Trevey, M. (2018). Affective Publics and Windows of Opportunity

Social Media and the potential for social change. In G. Meikle (Ed.), The Routledge companion to media and activism (1st.. ed., pp. 87-96). London, [England]

New York, New York : Routledge.

Taylor, A. (2018). Mind Your Manners: How Throw-Away Culture is Destroying Our Planet. Retrieved 19 October from https://www.heroine.com/the-editorial/why-sustainable-fashion-matters

Titangos, H.-L. H. (2013). 1 – Local community: a long view. In H.-L. H. Titangos (Ed.), Local Community in the Era of Social Media Technologies (pp. 3-8). Chandos Publishing. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-84334-696-8.50001-2

Lynn_12624201_NETS2002_ConferencePaper_conference upload