Jan 9 Wellman 2001

Community is defined as a network of relations rather than a bounded neighborhood. Community is now less bounded by distance. Thanks in part to computer networks, community is now practiced at the individual-to-individual level. (This is the result of a variety of factors, not just the growth of computer networks.)

Seems to argue that the Internet does have a positive impact on community ties, but complicates the mechanisms and the various contexts. For example, Wellman points out that computer-mediated contact often is used to set up face-to-face meetings and is more common between individuals who are geographically close. In his words, "Cyberspace does not vanquish the importance of physical space" (p. 2033). 

Wellman asserts that looking at groupware is less useful than looking at how computer networks support social networks, and I tend to agree with him. However, he goes on to say that, "Work, community and domestic life have largely moved from hierarchically arranged...groups to social networks" (p. 2031). I love this idea, but I wonder to what extent it is actually true. Do new models of interaction actually change social structures? What do you all think? At the level of the nuclear family, I feel like mothers are still mothers and as such can still pull rank when their children are chatting or playing MMORPGs excessively. But at the level of the extended family, this idea of flatter networked relations seems plausible. Similarly in workplace and in community, do new models of on- and offline interactions mean that social hierarchies are flattening? We continue to face grossly excessive inequalities of wealth, which directly affect our interactions. We still relate in hierarchies within the workplace. What is Wellman actually trying to say here? That our social interactions are flattening? Even though my boss is still my boss, we are both still individuals pursuing individual utility in the world, and the power dynamic between us is somehow less impactful? I don't quite see it. (Also, I may be pushing his statement farther than he intended it.) He recognizes in the last paragraph that "technology...only affords possibilities for change" in society (p. 2034).