Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Neighborhoods and whole cities are increasingly being designed with a telecommunications infrastructure that provides access to the Internet and other information and communication technologies (ICTs). These communities have been referred to by a variety of names, including digital cities, wired suburbs, electronic villages, community networks, freenets, smart communities, and community technology centers. These “wired communities” vary in terms of size, socioeconomic status, the extent of their telecommunications infrastructure, and the intent of the available technologies. Their common feature is a focus on providing geographic communities with access to ICTs. Their origins are twofold, a reaction to a perceived decline in neighboring and community involvement, and an effort to bridge the “digital divide” (a term that originated in the early 1990s to describe the gap that exists between those who have access to new technologies and those who do not).

Despite the intended purposes of these communities, considerable debate exists as to whether wired communities actually bridge the digital divide or expand and create new divides. Community scholars also disagree about whether technologies employed in wired communities build local social ties or further disconnect people from family and community relations. As a result, wired communities have become an important area of focus in the study of community.

The Decline of Community

Since at least the mid-1850s, scholars have debated about a decline in community. Early community theorists worried about the effects of a complex division of labor, urbanization, and industrialization on community, predicting that people would become disenfranchised, impersonal, and self-motivated. The social network view of community, which came into prominence in the late 1970s, successfully demonstrated that supportive social relations continue to exist in the modern urban environment. They are not the folk-type community relations idealized from the past, and research has shown that modern supportive social ties, while present, tend to be dispersed throughout the urban environment and not grouped into neighborhood settings. The development of the automobile, the telephone, and other transportation and communication technologies has facilitated the formation and maintenance of social relationships at a distance. These technological changes have contributed to a decentralization of social relations. Indeed, most people usually have more friends outside their neighborhood than in it.

Even with the recognition that support social ties continue to exist in the modern urban setting, there is empirical support for the notion that neighborhood “social capital,” community involvement, and neighborliness have declined during the past few decades. American sociologist Robert Putnam suggested that during the last third of the twentieth century, there was a significant decline in America's social capital. People now spend less time with friends, relatives, and neighbors; they are more cynical and less trusting; and they are involved in fewer clubs and organizations. Those involved in the development of wired communities highlight the potential for ICTs to reconnect people and bring attention back to the neighborhood setting. At the same time, although not associated with the trend observed by Putnam, many community scholars fear that the growth of new ICTs may increase the trend toward home-centeredness and privatization, further undermining people's connections to one another and to their communities.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading