Categories
culture

Communities Are a Subset of Networks

Build Community
Photo by Niall Kennedy

I have long been interested in the need for and value of communities and the fact that we have lost the value and sense of communities to a large degree in our modern society. I have said many times in private and even in public that most of our problems in society would be improved if not altogether eliminated by a revival of community life. Prior to reading Communities vs Networks however, I had never really paid attention to the specific similarities between networks and communities. After pondering the post however I would suggest that rather than networks and communities being on different ends of a continuum the reality is that communities are networks by definition even if most networks don’t rise to the level of community. Allow me to support that claim by sharing tweaked versions of the statements from that post which contract networks and communities:

  • Networks May Be Artificial, Top-Down; Communities Are Organic, Bottom-Up (originally “Networks Are…”)
  • Networks Allow Passivity and Consumption; Communities Require Action and Contribution (originally “Networks Encourage…”)
  • Networks Can Be Location Independent; Communities Are Usually Attached to a Place (added “Usually”)
  • Networks Often Divide a Person Into Parts; Communities Nurture the Whole Person (added “Often”)

Based on those statements a community would be defined as a network that functions organically, requires action and contribution, and nurtures the whole person and that such groups are usually attached to a place. The question in distinguising communities then isn’t whether the group is more like a community or more like a network. Rather, it is how much the particular network fits the definition of community.