Digital communities are a new form of social communitization that arises through the digital transformation and mediatization of social relationships [1], [8].
In contrast to traditional communities, whose existence is based on spatial proximity and physical co-presence, the digital transformation has enabled new forms of social interaction since the 1990s at the latest, which are mediated by media and can be described as a form of algorithmic sociality [12]. These are based on the creation of social ties in digital space mediated by algorithmic systems. Digital communities are understood as social aggregates that arise through more or less repeated communication and generate social relationships in the digital space [10]. The concept of the digital community thus represents a counter-concept to the fragmented digital society.
The connection between virtuality and community poses an analytical challenge in this context, as the concept of community inherently presupposes a physical co-presence. Virtual communities, on the other hand, are always also global communities mediated by digital technologies [1]. Another difference to classic forms of community, as described by Ferdinand Tönnies [13], is the voluntary and fleeting nature of virtual communities, which are often referred to as “thin communities” [2], [14]. The lack of physical presence is compensated for by an investment of time in the group, which enables new forms of coexistence and recognition.
Digital communities can thus act as a counterweight to the supposed decline of traditional communities, as they offer longer-term participation and lower barriers to entry. At the same time, algorithmically curated communities are emerging without direct or conscious participation. The mechanisms of social order formation and the associated possibilities for sanctions are changing. On digital platforms in particular, a form of algorithmic governmentality can be observed in which users are no longer addressed directly as acting subjects, but rather the framework conditions of their decisions are influenced by algorithms.
Comparability with analogue phenomena
Both traditional and digital communities are forms of social communitization. Digital communities often mirror existing analog groups (family, religious groups, etc.). Such platform intimacies, as created by shared emotional ties to collective imaginaries, create affective identifications [4]. Digital communities appear in different affective shades, e.g. as digital “positive cultures” [9], i.e. as what Tönnies described as social “relations of mutual affirmation” [13, p. 124].
Just as for digital societies, it can be assumed that digital communities are characterized by fragmentation and heterogeneity [6, p. 42]. Community types can be distinguished, ranging from heterogeneous collaborations and individual self-presentation in social media to ethical connections in post- or neo-communities [9].
Compared to analogue communities, digital communities also have some specific characteristics that are shaped by the technical possibilities. One key difference is the permanence of digital content. While physical encounters and conversations are transient, digital interactions can be permanently documented and archived. This long-term availability not only allows interactions to be traced without gaps, but also enables continuous reference to past events, which is often not available to the same extent in analog communities.
Added to this is the ubiquitous availability of digital communities. As digital networks and platforms are accessible worldwide, members can access their community from almost anywhere and at any time. This ubiquitous accessibility enables flexible and location-independent participation and therefore a significantly higher frequency of interaction and number of members.
The simplified obfuscation in digital spaces allows their users to move around with pseudonyms or anonymously, which makes digital communities both open and ambivalent. In digitally mediated communities, it is possible to try out different identities or move anonymously in the community, which can promote certain lines of conflict and dynamics that are less common in analog communities.
This is offset by the potential possibility of indirect identification of people and processes in digital communities, e.g. through algorithms that analyze user profiles. This facilitation of identification enables continuous monitoring of members’ activities. This can promote the integrity of the community, but also poses a threat to privacy that is not present to the same extent in analog communities.
Social relevance
Digital communities enable democratic and emancipatory forms of solidarity. Contrary to the idea of a loss of communality in favour of abstract and formalized social relationships, traditional forms of social relationships are not being lost in modern societies, but rather new forms are emerging, e.g. forms of community networks and associations based on socio-technical or algorithmically mediated relationships.
However, digital communities also have problematic aspects, as they can provide spaces for standardization, sanctioning, exclusion and violence – issues that were already addressed by Tönnies for traditional forms of community. As digital negative cultures, they are characterized by a particular degree of controversy (shit storms, hate speech, etc.). In this form, they can also be described as “reactive communities” [3, p. 30], whose structural consistency is primarily based on demarcations and reactions to statements made by other communities [11].
In addition, communitization behind the members’ backs should also be noted. Algorithms and platforms play a crucial role in the emergence of digital communities, which can influence the decision-making processes of users within these communities. Furthermore, the sense of belonging and identification can become a means of calculation and exploitation [5].
Sources
- [1] Brint, S. (2001). Gemeinschaft Revisited: A Critique and Reconstruction of the Community Concept. In: Sociological Theory 19 (1), 1–23. DOI:10.1111/0735-2751.00125.
- Delanty, G. (2010). Community. London/New York.
- Deleuze, G. (1979). Nietzsche. Ein Lesebuch von Gilles Deleuze. Berlin.
- Döveling, K./Seyfert, R. (2023). Digitale Affektkulturen. Soziale Medien als affektive Intensitätsmedien. In: G.L. Schiewer G. L./Szczepaniak, J./Pociask, J. (Hg.). Emotionen – Medien – Diskurse: Interdisziplinäre Zugänge zur Emotionsforschung. Wiesbaden, 23–36. DOI: 10.13173/9783447120593.023.
- van Dyk, S./Haubner, T. (2021). Community-Kapitalismus. Hamburg.
- Hepp, A./Berg, M./Roitsch, C. (2022). Mediengeneration und Vergemeinschaftung: Digitale Medien und der Wandel unseres Gemeinschaftslebens. Wiesbaden.
- Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Postsoziale Beziehungen: Theorie der Gesellschaft in einem postsozialen Kontext. In: Bonacker, T./Reckwitz, A. (Hg.). Kulturen der Moderne: Soziologische Perspektiven der Gegenwart. Frankfurt a. M., 267–300.
- Latour, B. (2006). Über technische Vermittlung: Philosophie, Soziologie und Genealogie. In: Belliger, A./Krieger, D. J. (Hg.). ANThology. Ein einführendes Handbuch zur Akteur-Netzwerk-Theorie. Bielefeld, 483–528.
- Reckwitz, A. (2017). Die Gesellschaft der Singularitäten. Berlin.
- Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading (Massachusetts).
- Robinson, S. (2022). Platform Multiverse: Discontent and Disconnection among Alt-Rights. In: Canadian Journal of Communication 47 (1), 197–218. DOI: 10.22230/cjc.2022v47n1a4157.
- Seyfert, R. (2023). Die Theorie algorithmischer Sozialität (TaS). Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 49 (6), 23–46. DOI: 10.1007/s11614-023-00535-1.
- Tönnies, F. (2019). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Bd. 2. Berlin/Boston.
- Turner, B. (2001). Outline of a General Theory of Cultural Citizenship. in: Stevenson, N. (Hg.). Culture and citizenship. London, 11–32. DOI: 10.4236/ce.2019.1012230.