Okay, my final definition of community is a group of interactive members with an organized system that differentiates not only between members and non-members but between how interactive members are.
Yes, I believe social capital can exist solely online. Take, for example, people who regularly play online games with other PCs (player characters). In order to play together, they must form trust. You aren't going to go questing with someone who's going to leave you halfway through because that's troublesome. PCs often "get to know" other PCs in games simply because it's easier to participate in higher levels of the game with others. As a result of this purely online interaction, a feeling of reciprocity will emerge whenever one of the players desires aid from the other.
Social networking online is part of the solution. People are very busy, be it with work or school, and they sometimes don't get to spend time with their friends. Online social interaction helps these people to keep in touch when they are unable to meet. It will not replace face-to-face interaction, like the telephone, the interent is merely a way to stay on the "up and up" with your friends.
Putnam's problem is that he uses the word "meet" as a clarifier for social capital. His definition as outlined on the site doesn't exclude online interaction, but some of his examples do. If you'll remember, Lin disagreed with Putnam's method of measuring social capital because of its emphasis on real life "meetings." If Putnam instead used a word like interact, then it wouldn't be an issue that separates real and virtual social capital.
No comments:
Post a Comment