Most of the concepts that you’ll find here, still need further development. In upcoming posts we’ll elaborate more on them.
Community defined
We’ve started off with formulating what ‘community’ to us is. As we believe that ‘community’ is a dynamic process our sense is that a community is the action taken towards the experience of oneness. It is the interconnection to one another that defines that experience.
The composition of a community consists of several characteristics. Key factors that seem to determine the experience of oneness have to do with connection, passion, interaction, codes, language and signals.
Those characteristics focus around that what the ‘members’ have in common: the values they share. These shared values are about identity, feelings, interests, practices, purposes (in life), culture and responsibility.
Scaling a community
To be able to say something about the value of a community we believe that a community can be scaled on the strength of the relationships (or connections) it has. There can either be no ties between the individuals that draw up a community, or the ties are weak or strong. When the ties are weak, the actions taken by the individuals are passive. The actions become more active or even interactive in communities that are strongly interconnected.
While communities can’t be created (they are merely facilitated or nurtured) several tools can be used to either increase or decrease the strength of a community. These tools have to do with trust, choice, fear, shared experiences, folklore and history.
From the individuals perspective the value of a community derives from the struggle of every human being to avoid isolation. Everybody wants to be part of something that is bigger than the self. By joining forces in a community things can be accomplished that couldn’t have been accomplished by the individual members themselves.
There are still some interesting questions to be answered, for instance: can you be part of a community that you don’t want to be part of or that you’re unaware of, can communities ‘die’? And maybe you have some interesting questions as well. If you do, share them in the comments…
My answer to your letter question would be YES.. you can be part of a community you don’t want to (soccerfans vs hooligans) or that you are unaware of (like all anti-conformists… wear black cloths). This has a lot todo with the question, is community the ‘idenity’ of the group. I mean that we deal with the word ‘community’ like we deal with the word ‘an identity’. It is extremely hard to have an identity without the acception or definition of ‘the others’. So one can’t have an identity (ME) without a WE. Is it still clear…
Are communties able to define oneselves… do can you be a community if ‘the Others or non-in-crowd’ don’t perceive you as a community? The guy who is a Ajax-fan probably distincts himself from the hooligans while to the others het is a fanatic soccer-fan and thereby stigamtized by the actions of the hooligans since ‘the others’ perceive this community as soccer-fans without the disctinction.
Such an approach would explain why communities are hard to create…
So, a question back to you? Why can’t we create communities?
I think a lot has to do with the perspective from which we look at a community. Is a community ‘defined’ by its members or by the environment of which it is part? And what is the value of each of these perspectives? With that I mean: what is the benefit and to whom is it a benefit?
Let me try to explain. If everybody who is not heavily involved in soccer says that the die hard Ajax-fan is a hooligan, what value (judgement) do we derive from that? And what is the value of that same Ajax-fan saying he belongs to the Ajax-community. I would say that the latter is much more valuable in multiple perspectives: both to the individual himself as to the ‘brand’ who wants to facilitate that community. That’s why I would say that there is no value in communities that consist of people that don’t feel they are connected. Take for instance the people who have a KLM frequent-flyer card. KLM would probably say that they have a ‘Flying Dutchman’ community. But is that really a community? I for one, in possession of such a card don’t feel like I am a member. Do I feel a stronger connection to the KLM brand? Not really. It touches on the concept of loyalty. What is the role of that in communities? Question back at you, before I answer yours: isn’t ‘all anti-conformists’ just a group of people and not a community?
Now to your question about the creation of communities. I believe the ‘feeling’ of interconnection between the individuals of a community is somehow an important factor: they need to have a sense of WE. I think such an interconnection can not be ‘forced’ upon a person. So it is within the interaction between people that a community can emerge, or that its ties can be strengthened. Communities are out there, you can not say: I’m putting these people together and that will form a community. Somehow that feels more like ‘creating’ the segmentation of a target group of people. Now, I do believe that you can ‘attract’ a community. Content will probably play an ever more increasing role in that. As a brand you will almost always be at the mercy of the community. If you really want to strengthen its ties you should indeed facilitate and nurture it…
Two comments:
1. The question was, can you belong to a community without having to do so. My answer would still be yes, since communities are often defined by the exterior. I totally agree that a chosen interaction is far more valueable than a non-self-community… but the value of a community is something completely different… also nice topic =)
2. For me creation is not perse force. A DJ is creating a party, but not by forcing you to dance… but by attracting you. Yep, producers can use the magic of pull =) I agree that you can’t force a community to be or become, although many people who were drafted for the army grew friends for ever, but let’s say… it is very in general to force a community, but I’m still confident that you can create one.
I think you can only indirectly ‘create’ a community, through a symbol/icon/brand whcih communicates its value to to which people are willing to connect. Thinking of Britney Sprears here: she doesn’t create a community, she’s the symbol of one.
I think you can only be part of a community when you take some form of action towards and aligned with the community. I think you can be assigned to a community when more than one community specific properties are aligned and where the taken action is the trigger. Therefore I think can’t be in a community you don’t want to be in.
In the example of soccer and hooligans I wouldn’t look at a nicely dressed family attending a Sundaymorning soccergame and go “oops there goes a group of hooligans”. I might look at a spitting drunk who is blathering fanatically about soccer in an Ajax shirt and who is punching someone and label him “hooligan!”. Although in both examples still not sure wether I am labeling right or not, I think for being a hooligan you have to punch somebody. That would be the activating trigger in all the other community aligned properties.
Another example. I live in Amsterdam. When visiting New York, people who would see me wouldn’t go “Hey, a New Yorker”. If I would yell at and kick a taxicab, I might actually be seen as a New Yorker. That could be the trigger.
So are you saying that it is the actions taken by people that define of what community they’re a part of?
no, I’m saying that besides the alignment of properties of the individuals in the community, there has to be an action taken towards the group before he/she is a member of the community. You can not accidentally join a community.
Now, I know this remark is a bit obsolete after the huge discussion we and the Coburn’s were having this afternoon
Think there is going to be a new post on our definition on communities soon 
Let’s tackle the last bit tomorrow, looking forward to it.
Sorry Stefan… I guess that you would be seen as an European in NY… ever felt actively involved in the community or Europeans?
Yes, since I voted for the European Constitution I feel more European, I have a stronger tie with it. (I voted “yes”). But are you saying I was embodied as an European without my choice or without having an active part in it?
interesting discussion (now i am even sorry that holidays are part of life:P)
one thing i miss from the discussion is the ‘doing’. you touch the subject by calling them ‘actions’ or something similar. if you have a group of people with nothing to do (together) what do you have? a community with strength 0? i have difficulty in regarding the concept of community without ‘doing’ something similar.
if you look at what google comes up with you see the examples all have something to do with ‘doing’.
if the ‘doing’ is something with longevity, the likelihood a community collapses is small (example of the community of a physical neighbourhood.) if the ‘doing’ is something not very strong, or something easily disregarded or changed, the community changes quickly or vanishes completely. the strength, as you define it, encompasses this notion of ‘doing’, i think.
if you get back to arjan’s notion of identity i think the ‘doing’ plays a major role. if the ‘doing’ is something cooperative the WE identity is much more likely to be strong. and if the ‘doing’ is something you can’t easily get out of (living in a neighbourhood) the sense of responsibility of creating an identity is higher. and people will start to find something to ‘do’ together.
reading the post i was not comfortable with ‘community is the action taken towards the experience of oneness’. now i understand a bit better why. i don’t think a community is the action, though action is an important part. but, most importantly, i don’t think the action needs to be directed towards becoming ‘one’, or oneness. the action might be individually rewarding (collecting and sharing stamps) without the conscious drive to be ‘one’, and still result into something that might be called a community. something like ‘community exists around the action that creates the experience of oneness’? (in the concrete physical sense.)