---

Volume 11 Number 2, 2001

---

COMMUNITY NETWORKING VERSUS COMMUNITY NETWORKS:   A SHORT NOTE ON THEIR INTERRELATIONSHIPS

Doug Schuler
The Evergreen State College

Abstract. The author presents a two-by-two matrix that differentiates the activity of community networking from the institutionalized phenomenon of community networks, either of which may or may not be enabled through telecommunications technology. He further discusses how telecommunications enabled community networks address some important social problems.

For several years I've been involved in the development and management of public computer network-based, geographic community-oriented communication and information systems (Schuler, 1996). People who are involved in this movement (numbering in the tens or hundreds of thousands) have to a large degree tacitly agreed on the term "community networks" to describe the systems they're working on. >From a descriptive point of view they have (wisely, in my opinion) refrained from fighting over or attempting to establish any quasi legalistic definition that would unambiguously designate one system as a "community network" and another as not a "community network."

Nevertheless, the need remains for some clarification. The analysis which follows is intended to remove some of the confusion that results from the multiplicity of efforts (and corresponding verbiage). It also explores and hopefully stimulates some of the motivation for current and future community network work.

This analysis rests upon a 2 by 2 matrix. The two rows of the matrix are "without telecommunications support" and " with telecommunications support." The two columns are "community networking," an activity, and "community networks," an institutionalization of the community networking activity. Those people who are presently involved in the development of "community networks" mostly deal with quadrant #4. The rest of this paper will discuss the contents of each quadrant, how they relate to each other, and why this is a useful way to look at the field.

The first quadrant of the matrix corresponds to "community networking" in a traditional sense; the networks constitute patterns of interrelationships that are composed of community members interacting with other community members (Wellman, 1999). These networks are mostly informal (and non-institutionalized) and don't rely upon modern electronic communications in any special way. The network relationships are also "free" insofar as they are not coerced by the state and there are negligible or no direct costs associated with their use.

Here is an example which may help illustrate the concept of community networking in the first quadrant. Jay, a family friend, was recently the victim of a hit-and-run driver while cycling to work. JayÆs pelvis was shattered and he will probably be away from work for six months or more. When I stopped by their house, I observed the process of community networking in full swing. Mary's (Jay's wife) mother and sister had both come over and were helping with domestic affairs. At the same time, offers of food and other assistance were pouring in from work, church, neighborhood associates and friends.

When community networking patterns are formalized or institutionalized in various ways this phenomenon fits in the second quadrant. We can further define institutionalization to have taken place when any aspects of the patterns of interaction, including the mission, the roles and responsibilities, or the organizational framework, have been explicitly determined and agreed upon. For example, when I stopped by at Jay's house, Mary informed me that people from their church would be bringing food over for the family on a regular basis. Although I don't know the details, I'm assuming that there is some type of committee that assumes these responsibilities in case of an accident or illness in the home of a fellow church member. Institutionalization of community networking is generally developed and maintained through a not-for-profit entity which may or may not be associated with the government. It may be associated with a for-profit entity although the primary goal of profit making can detract or nullify the goals of community networking.

If people who are interested in helping Jay and his family conducted any of their conversations with telecommunications, that would be an example of community networking in quadrant three. This type of community networking includes "virtual communities" of all types, including (but not limited to) those whose interests or focal point is the geographical community. The specific technological support could be chat groups, electronic distribution lists, news groups, or any type of web-based forum.

To a large degree quadrant three, community networking, using computer networks represents a direct outgrowth, largely subconscious, of people's natural instincts (honed over centuries) towards group activities. In this quadrant new media fosters traditional goals and desires of individuals to interact with others who share interests. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of examples of this type of community networking.

Lastly we look at quadrant four, community networks supported by telecommunications technology. These efforts are usually called community networks by their advocates and developers. They are intended to institutionalize community networking, the process through which community members exercise patterns of relationships in their community to get information or to address problems. Part of this intention includes legitimizing and promoting community networks by providing opportunities for meeting each other and participating more effectively in community and civic affairs.

An exchange at the second European conference on community networks (ECN '98) in Barcelona can help us understand the distinction between the contents of quadrants three and four. Amy Borgstrom, the past president of the Association For Community Networks (AFCN) in the US remarked that community network (quadrant four) growth seemed to be stagnant (especially when compared to Internet applications or services whose growth is nearly exponential). On the other hand, Garth Graham of Telecommunities Canada observed that while community network development may be somewhat stagnant community networking (using computer networks -- quadrant three) is extremely popular and continuing to grow.

Graham's observation directly raises a fundamental question. Why would -- or should -- society be interested in the community networks of quadrant four when community networking of quadrant three is so popular? The answer that community network activists would likely provide is that, while quadrant three community networking probably strengthens the "social fabric" insofar as it helps facilitate community problem-solving, there are certain problems that this phenomenon (however lively and expanding it may be) may never address.

There are many problems in our society that are unlikely to "go away on their own", that is, by relying on traditional institutions. These problems, then, are structural problems, and some type of extraordinary effort will be needed to address them. The public library provides a relevant example to help think about these issues. Before the advent of the public library people could and certainly did, lend books to each other (a quadrant one activity). It was only after the public library was conceptualized and institutionalized that anybody, at least in theory, had a right to borrow books for free.

The first problem that community networks address is that of social exclusion, the concept that some people or groups of people may have little or no role to play in today's society. Indeed as Manuel Castells has warned, a large group of people are simply becoming "irrelevant" (Castells, 1997). Also, despite the astronomical growth in community networking (quadrant three), the fact of "social exclusion" in cyberspace remains a reality (U.S. Gov, 1998). The 35 million Americans below the official poverty level are not represented accordingly in cyberspace. Hence they are unable to gain information or communicate with others as readily as those with higher incomes.

The second problem that community networks address by institutionalizing access to telecommunications systems (which includes access to government, information, and to other people) is important from the standpoint of policy and education as well. Institutionalizing these systems is in some sense organizing around a set of issues. Institutionalizing thus accomplishes two main preconditions for social activism, policy work and education: (1) it identifies (as well as constructs) a set of issues that are deemed important and (2) it helps to coalesce a constituency of people who are interested in pursuing those issues.

Finally the idea of building community networks may also be useful for society because it presents an alternative to commercially owned and oriented telecommunications systems. These systems as they are presently realized may not ultimately stand the test of time but their objectives at least may be absorbed by other organizations. Yet for the telecommunications support of community networks (quadrant four) enterprise, many people (myself included) feel a, sense of urgency. As Langdon Winner points out (1986), "Because choices tend to become strongly fixed in material equipment, economic investment, and social habit, the original flexibility vanishes for all practical purposes once the initial commitments are made." For that reason, any activities that enlarge and strengthen quadrant four must be made as soon as possible if they are to have any impact.

I hope this matrix will prove to be useful in at least two ways. The first is that it will provide a framework for exploring and understanding the uses and behavior of community networking and (institutionalized) community networks, both with and without the assistance of telecommunications technology. The second is that if we think about the myriad of modes of "institutionalization" possible along with the social, political, and economic reasons why institutionalization may be necessary, we, hopefully, may consciously begin to devise policies and systems that can help address these needs. Community networks, although vastly different in many ways, nevertheless all share this desire.

AFCN. (1998). Community networking. Telluride, CO: Association for Community Networking.

Castells, M. (1997). The power of identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc., Volume II of The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture.

Schuler, D. (1996). New community networks: Wired for change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1996,

U.S. Government. (1998) Falling Through the Net II: New data on the digital divide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Wellman, B. (Ed.) (1999). Networks in the global village. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Winner, L. (1986). The whale and the reactor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

This file may not be publicly distributed or reproduced without written permission of the Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, P.O. Box 57, Rotterdam Jct., NY 12150 USA (phone: 518-887-2443).