Content uploaded by Heather Douglas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Heather Douglas on Jan 20, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
1
In H. Anheier & S. Toepler (eds), 2010, International Encyclopedia of Civil Society,
pp. 539-544. Springer.
TYPES OF COMMUNITY
Heather Douglas*
INTRODUCTION
The notion of community suggests positive aspects of society, a ‘good thing’ that will
improve individual well being. Community has emotional overtones, implying
familiarity, social and emotional cohesion, and commitment. It implies a degree of
attachment and belonging which offers a common sense of identity. Community is
anticipated to offer beneficial contributions to build a strong and vibrant society.
Although difficult to identify precisely what a community is, it is recognized that
many different kinds of community exist. Different communities are based on diverse
arrangements of associations and types of connections. Relationships may be personal
or at a group level. Interactions may be physical, ideological or virtual. The degree of
commitment and involvement may be strong or weak. The feeling of community
among members may be positive or negative. Clearly there are different types, and the
variety means it is important to have a clear understanding of which type of
community is being discussed.
DEFINITION
Community can be considered as a theoretical concept and a philosophy, such as
‘community spirit’ or ‘connected community’. Alternatively community may be
considered as a practice of engaging and connecting with others for instance ‘creating
community’ or ‘building community’. No agreed definition exists of exactly what
constitutes a community. It is often used as a substitute term for locality, but
community exists well beyond physical places, indeed Hillery (1955) identified 94
different types. Brint (2001) suggests communities are connected primarily through
common emotions and personal interests in one another. He defines communities as
‘aggregates of people who share common activities and/or beliefs and who are bound
together principally by relations of affect, loyalty, common values, and/or personal
concern (i.e. interest in the personalities and life events of one another).’ This
definition is, however, a little romantic by not attending adequately to negative
communities. Community is not always positive, proactive and committed. Not all
community interactions are friendly; yet strong communities can exist even if
relations are not amicable, or the aim is not to benefit others, or the motivation for
interaction is not moral.
A community may be defined as a set of meaningful social connections in a group of
any size where members have something in common. A community is social. It is a
web of some kind of relationships. A community operates within certain boundaries
that are agreed among members either tacitly or explicitly. Each community
establishes traditions and patterns of behavior which may be implied or written as
rules. Members of a community share some kind of a bond such as location, interests,
background or identity, situations or experiences. Thus a community is a social
2
2
institution, that is, a stable structure and agreed set of procedures and conventions that
provides social order and meaning (Scott, 2001 p. 34).
An alternative definition of community is more functional and focused on the purpose
of the activity. For instance Porter (2006) defines a virtual community as an
‘aggregation of individuals or business partners who interact around a shared interest,
where the interaction is at least partially supported and/or mediated by technology and
guided by some protocols or norms’. This definition has some merit. It considers the
special nature of the shared interests along with protocol and norms, and as in Brint’s
definition above, it implies aspects of a relationship. Many virtual communities are
social exchanges shared between people who may, or may not, be able to identify
respondents. Porter’s definition, however, has some limitations in that not all virtual
communities are connected to business.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The notion of ‘community’ usually is credited to Ferdinand Tönnies ([1897] 1951).
Tönnies compared and described modern life and proposed modern society was in
transition from village to urban settings. Since educated people of this time were
expected to know English, French and German, there was a lot of interaction and
transfer of information between scholars, and other early sociologists extended this
notion of community. Karl Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim investigated the
social transformation of traditional communities associated with industrialization and
urbanization. Durkheim scrutinized modern social relations in organizations such as
the church and care institutions. He proposed community as sophisticated and
complex interactions with religion as a bonding mechanism that sets norms of
behavioral interactions and ties communities together. Weber also examined religion
although he is better known for his work describing the internal communities
entrenched within large bureaucracies. Marx concentrated on the emergence of
capitalism and examined the divisions in society and disruptions to social traditions
and relationships during urbanization. The hub of sociology moved to the US as the
two World Wars interrupted academic life in Europe.
In general, the early community researchers in the US undertook place based studies,
with the Chicago School leading the way in urban ecology techniques. Studies such as
those by Gans (1962) and Young and Wilmott (1960) provided rich descriptions of
community life. These studies painted rich, in depth understandings of activities,
functions and rhythms of life in villages, small towns and rural communities. Warmth
and supportive social connections are described as a core part of small community
life, but studies also identified a variety of divisions, conflicts and social stratification
in communities that on the surface appeared cohesive. In general these studies are less
concerned to categorize different types of communities than to describe the
functioning and relationships among community members. Later studies commenced
during the expansion of sociology in the 1970s examined fringe communities, such as
gays, street dwellers and community activists.
COMMUNITY TYPOLOGIES
3
3
Many different types of community exist. Each type has different characteristics,
purpose, membership requirements, and traditions of interactions. Each community
institutes accepted arrangements of engaging with other members, establishes
customary forms of relationships, and determines particular conventions for
interactions and ways of maintaining contact. Researchers, policy makers and
practitioners have a clearer understanding of different types of communities if they
are systematically and precisely defined, however, few typologies of communities
have been published. This is quite surprising given the lack of consensus regarding
appropriate definitions, or agreement on categorization.
Tönnies distinguished two types of communities. On the one hand was the simplicity
of village life (community or Gemeinschaft), then there were complex social
relationships in urban environments (society or Gesellschaft). In Tönnies’ view, these
two kinds of communities had alternative and opposing characteristics. Community is
relatively childlike, where interactions are close and frequent among small numbers of
familiar residents and members have a common way of life and beliefs. In
community, traditions and systems of interactions are relatively stable. In contrast,
[urban] society is proposed as mature social relations where interactions are more
distant and infrequent among a large number of relatively unknown citizens whose
lifestyles and beliefs are different and change constantly. This view has some merit as
an analysis of the rapidly changing urban culture of the time. It still offers a useful
starting point to study rural and urban populations, but it is less relevant to distinguish
among the many and varied types of communities that exist in urban and rural areas.
By the middle of the 20th Century, different types of communities were classified
according to rituals, density of relationships, and involvement with organized
activities particularly in small groups (Brint, 2001). Less tangible cultural elements
also categorized different types of communities, particularly common belief systems
and the perception of similarities among the population. Hillery (1955) identified
elements that characterized communities as geographic area, kinship, self sufficiency
or separateness, common lifestyle and type of social interactions(Marshall, 1998 pp.
97-8).
Worsley (1987) organized Hillery’s elements into an early typology of three different
community types. Locality forms the foundation of the first kind of community.
Neighborhoods, villages and some bounded urban areas can be identified by residents
and outsiders as a community, thus they have a ‘sense of place’ (Stedman, 2002). In a
second type of community, members share some common features and have some
sense of collective identity. This is sometimes called a ‘sense of community’ (Kim &
Kaplan, 2004). This may be based on an identifiable characteristic such as ethnicity,
or a common experience of disadvantage, or to those who belong to a particular
profession. The third type of community is established by common feelings,
understandings and sense of belonging among members who establish a ‘community
spirit’ (Etzioni, 1993; Rovai, 2002). Members have a sense of connection based on a
network of relationships and interactions which may or may not be through physical
interactions. The relationships are mostly positive and reciprocal, but not always. For
example, this type of community is evident among those who have a strong
commitment to a cause.
4
4
Worsley’s typology extends earlier concepts and the two types of communities
proposed by Tönnies, but it is still very general. Others have proposed typologies of
specific types of communities. For instance, Schubert and Borkman (1991) outline an
organizational typology based on organizational structures. While this is only
intended to apply to self-help groups, it offers some helpful concepts to consider a
broader range of types of communities. The two dimensions of this typology (internal
power and authority systems and external dependence on resources) result in five
types: Unaffiliated, Federated, Affiliated, Hybrid and Managed. This typology is
helpful to understand the different organizational systems, but it relates more to
communities of organizations than to other types of communities, for instance, it has
limited applicability to virtual communities.
Wellman (2002) describes three iterations of modern community. The first is
traditional, closely knit communities that Wellman describes as ‘Little Boxes’. These
traditionally place based communities have tight, dense ties among members, the
community is tightly bounded, and regular interactions among residents provide a
wide range of social support and companionship (1999 p. xiii). In essence, these
traditional communities are similar to Tönnies Gemeinschaft. These traditional
communities have transformed into ‘Glocalized’ networks in which clusters of
households are linked both locally and globally. In Wellman’s view, modern
community now has become ‘Networked Individualism’ where individual members
are sparsely linked without regard to physical space. These contemporary networked
communities are loosely bounded, that is most ties are not within a single locality.
Interaction occurs between a minority of members, and communities provide a limited
range of social support and companionship to members. Although the interactions
among members of contemporary communities are not visible, they are no less
important in the contribution they offer to the well being of individual members.
Brint’s (2001) typology is one of the few available to classify distinctly different types
of contemporary communities. The foundations of his community typology are 1)
physical interactions among members, 2) the frequency and priority placed on
interactions among members, and 3) the primary motivation for interaction. Brint’s
typology has four levels of variables with alternative options at each level:
Basis of relationship: geographic or choice
Reason for interaction: activity or belief
Location of other members: concentrated or dispersed in space
Amount of interaction: frequent or infrequent
Eight community types emerge from these alternatives:
Geographic communities:
1. small scale communities of place and neighborhood groups
2. local friendship networks, primarily activity based
3. communes and collectives
4. local friendship networks, primarily cultural
Choice based communities:
5. activity based elective communities
6. belief based elective communities
7. imagined communities
8. virtual communities
5
5
Brint’s typology attempts to provide a systematic process to organize communities. It
assists to understand some of the varieties evident in contemporary communities,
however there are some limitations. This classification system does no explain
different types of membership systems. It does not cover many contemporary
communities, such as the specialized community of education and learning practice
(Barton & Tusting, 2005; Wenger, 1998). Likewise the dark side of community does
not fit readily into this framework, for instance crime syndicates which have strong,
bounded connections that are not necessarily based on friendships, activities or
beliefs. In addition, socially oppressed or excluded communities – such as the
homeless or slavery – are not easily accommodated into Brint’s typology. The
addition of some of these concepts into a new typology would assist to further clarify
different types of communities.
In essence, the characteristics of the community members and system of interactions
differentiate different types of communities. These structural and intangible cultural
characteristics are equally applicable to distinguish various types of modern
communities, for instance virtual communities; however they are insufficient to
classify the many different types of modern virtual communities.
KEY ISSUES
A community implies a sense of belonging, connection, communication and
interaction. Attachment to a community is known to confer benefits and improve well
being. Belonging to community is viewed almost a necessity to have a meaningful
life. For example, Kegley (1997) writes about engaging with ‘genuine community’ as
a means of improving individual well being by strengthening knowledge,
intentionality and enlightenment. In this sense, community is a substitute for
spirituality, a way of engaging in and understanding a greater force for good that
offers guidance and personal philosophy for living. In general this is proposed as an
individual benefit, however the ‘health’ of different types of communities also varies
(Kawachi, Kennedy, & Wilkinson, 1999).
The process of engaging and building connections within a community is described as
‘building community’. A sense of community connection can be built among
members either accidentally, or via a deliberate and informed process. Systematic and
deliberate community building involves thinking, feeling and doing. Kelly and Sewell
(1998) describe this method of community building as using ‘head, heart or hand’.
Head is a capacity for knowing: a logical, rational, thinking connection based on a
judgment of anticipated benefit to the person or others for whom there is a close
attachment. Heart is a facility for feeling: enacted with a sense of purpose,
commitment and emotion. Hand is a competence of doing: a service based on various
techniques to achieve a result. While these may be combined as pairs of actions,
combining as all three is much more powerful and successful to form a strong and
stable attachment to a community of choice. The process can be applied to build all
types of contemporary communities, even those that may have no physical
interactions, or those without a positive goal.
Some types of communities function well and have good connections among
members. Other types build connections among members aimed not to accomplish
social cohesion, but rather have negative anti social goals and aim to achieve social
6
6
disruption. Dark types of communities are strongly oppressive or exploitive and result
in systematic social exclusion of those who do not conform to an expected behavior or
condition. The foundation of exclusionary types of communities may be class, race or
nationality, gender, sexuality, disability or possessions. Anderson (1991) expands on
‘imagined communities’ formed around nationality that build a sense of purpose, and
then may engage in nationalistic endeavors such as invasions or ethnic cleansing.
Weiss and Friedman (1995) provide a comprehensive overview of exclusionary
community based on gender. Likewise Paoli (2003) describes the mafia crime
brotherhood as an exploitive community. When oppression is not considered
legitimate, however, the oppressed may bond into their own tight knit community to
offer mutual support or engage in counter actions.
Over time, communities change. The activities, membership and ways of interacting
may alter. Communities may falter and fold, or evolve into new forms. Many lament
that community is disappearing in modern, industrialized western societies. For
instance, Brock (2008) insists modern communities are fragmented and at odds people
living in their ‘own worlds’. The loss of community is tied to a supposed depletion of
social capital where fewer citizens now belong to civil society organizations (Putnam,
1995). There is no doubt physical interactions occur less regularly among residents,
especially in modern cities, however others are less despondent that community is in
decline, but suggest instead that new types of community are emerging.
Contemporary communities are qualitatively different from traditional place based
communities. Contemporary communities rely less on regular physical interactions,
than on virtual contact that informs the member and fulfills a need for information or
interaction. A sense of community may be established among members even when
contact is irregular and members never meet. The need for meaningful relationships is
now provided by virtual friendship communities rather than from regular interaction
with a close knit family. Virtual communities offer members a sense of belonging,
communication media, and personal benefits. Members who belong to social network
systems, virtual dating and chat communities are as much involved in their
communities as residents of traditional neighborhood communities. Virtual
communities exist around common interests without members ever needing to meet
physically. The common interests are diverse, for instance ham radio operators, world
wide book crossing exchange groups, or professional communities of practice
connected via the Internet.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
There is a clear need to develop a new typology of communities to help organize and
understand the variation evident in different kinds of communities. Modern
communities are a network of relationships which form around an interest or other
aspect members have in common. Each community evolves particular conventions of
behavior and actions. This concept helps to understand the variation in connections
among members of different types of contemporary communities, but offers little to
help appreciate the differences that distinguish one type of community from another.
Membership of each type of community varies: it may be established by voluntary
association, or conferred by existing members. Communities may be established by
geography or choice; they may be based on activities or beliefs. Different kinds of
community result in various arrangements of interactions, exchanges and
7
7
relationships, and the various kinds of community offer different kinds of
contributions to daily life. With so many iterations of community types, an agreed
typology would be very useful to assist researchers and practitioners alike to extend
understanding of how various types of communities form, function and fold.
SEE ALSO
Civil society and social inequality
Civil society, early and mid 20th Century
Collective action
Communitarianism
Community development
Community development organizations
Community based organization
Empowerment
Social cohesion
Uncivil society
Voluntary and community sector
*Heather Douglas is a PhD Candidate at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Heather has been a community practitioner for 30 years. She has researched
community networks, facilitated community building projects, engaged in community
activities, and written on issues.
REFERENCES/READINGS
Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. London: Verso.
Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond communities of practice: language
power and social context. Learning in doing: social, cognitive and
computational perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brint, S. (2001). Gemeinschaft revisited: A critique and reconstruction of the
community concept. Sociological Theory, 19(1), 1-23.
Brock, P. (2008). Community: the structure of belonging. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community: rights, responsibilities, and the
communitarian agenda. New York: Crown.
Gans, H. (1962). The urban villagers: groups and class in the life of Italian
Americans. New York: Free Press.
8
8
Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: areas of agreement. Rural Sociology,
20 (2), 111–123.
Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., & Wilkinson, R. G. (1999). Crime: social
disorganization and relative deprivation. Social Science & Medicine, 48(6),
719-731.
Kegley, J. A. K. (1997). Genuine individuals and genuine communities. Nashville,
Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press.
Kelly, A., & Sewell, S. (1998). With head heart and hand: dimensions of community
building. Bowen Hills, Brisbane: Boolerong Publications.
Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of
community - New urbanist Kentlands and nearby orchard village.
Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 313-340.
Marshall, G. (Ed.). (1998). Oxford dictionary of sociology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Paoli, L. (2003). Mafia brotherhoods: organized crime, Italian style. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Porter, C. E. (2006). A typology of virtual communities: a multi-disciplinary
foundation for future research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
10 (1), 631-5171.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1).
Schubert, M. A., & Borkman, T. J. (1991). An organizational typology for self-help
groups. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(5), 769-787.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place - Predicting behavior
from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and
Behavior, 34(5), 561-581.
Toennies, F. ([1897] 1951). Gemeinschaft und gesellschaft (community and
society).Translated by Charles P. Loomis. New York: Harper.
Weiss, P. A., & Friedman, M. (Eds.). (1995). Feminism and community. Philadephia:
Temple University Press.
Wellman, B. (1999). Networks in the global village: life in comtenporary
communities. 1999: Westview Press.
Wellman, B. (2002). Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism. In
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2362, pp. 337-343).
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Worsley, P. (1987). New introductory sociology. London: Penguin.
Young, M., & Wilmott, P. (1960). Family and kinship in East London. London:
Harmondsworth.