Herbert Kubicek
|
Rose MM Wagner
|
Most publications about community networks are more or less success stories describing shining examples. One might get the impression that it is only a matter of time that these locally rooted information and communications systems will spring up practically everywhere. Their growing number is
being interpreted as having already reached the critical mass beyond which a steady increase is most likely. This discussion takes place in the so called community networking movement which can be characterized as a community in its own right with a particular set of commonly shared ideological and political views and beliefs. Within this group community networks are often referred to as a succession of generations, all stemming from the same ancestor and thus all belonging to the same family. Though it is acknowledged that the current systems differ from their predecessors with regard to technology and content, aspects like continuity and commonality are being stressed. It is assumed that all community networks, old and new ones, are connected by shared visions and values.
We suggest a differentiated approach towards the concept of generations of community networks in order to reach a more realistic picture of the present and the future of these systems. The work of sociologist Karl Mannheim can contribute to a theoretical framework which helps to analyze the evolution of community networks so far and allows a better founded anticipation of their future prospects in a changing environment.
The term community network refers to quite different systems with regard to their organization, technology, applications and usage (Maciuszko 1990; Cisler 1993; Morino 1994; Schuler 1996). In general, information and communication systems can provide the functions information, communication and transaction (Dutton 1992). Community networks until now focus mainly on the information and communication functions. There is a widely shared view that community networks are such publicly accessible information and communications systems that:
However, the above definition might be questioned, since more and more local newspapers and other commercial entities like on-line services such as AOL or Microsoft Network have discovered the local community as a lucrative market for information and communications services. It is no longer easy to draw a clear dividing line between the traditional community networks and their commercial counterparts. This development has repercussions on the concept of generations of community networks.
The idea of community networking via electronic means has its origins in the American counterculture. The first community network to become known was the Community Memory system which has been developed in the early sixties in San Francisco by a group of hackers (Findley 1974; Felsenstein 1975 u. 1993; Athanasiou 1984; Wagner 1998). It is common in the community networking movement to refer to Community Memory as the grandmother of today's community networks, and the Free-Nets, which arose in the eighties, are described as their father (Morino 1994). In this view the newly established community networks on the web are children and grandchildren of the Free-Nets and Community Memory, respectively. As is normal with biological and social generations there is a coexistence of varied generations at the same time. However, it is also normal that family ties weaken over time and that later generations might even totally differ from their progenitors. It is not uncommon then, to ask which bonds and commonalities st ill remain and if they outnumber possible fractions and discontinuities. With regard to the view of community networks as succession of generations it might be asked:
In order to answer these questions it might be fruitful to first take a closer look at Karl Mannheim's "The Problem of Generations" (1964) in which he introduced generations as a social category. Mannheim's work is widely regarded as the most systematic treatment of social generations (Esler 1984; Pilcher 1994). He firmly locates generations within socio-historical contexts. "Certain definite modes of behavior, feeling and thought", influenced by the particular zeitgeist, together with the formative experiences during the time of youth are highlighted as the key period in which social generations are formed. The formative influences which a social generation has experienced in its youth normally serves as a kind of filter through which all new developments during later years are viewed, thus allowing only for a limited range of change and new insights which might be contradictory to those beheld in the youth. Social change is made possible by the arrival of new generations. However, the dynamic of social cha
nge and its characteristic and particular features can only be explained, according to Mannheim, by the combination of generational change and the specific socio-historical context and its distinctive empirical settings.
Each social generation develops its distinctive consciousness and is insofar unique. This allows to delineate one social generation from the next in a continuum of generations, though sometimes a certain ambiguity remains, and it is only possible to mark the divisions precisely from a time distance. The differences and distinctions between social generations are expressed for example by new modes of association and organization as well as in art, science, technology, and patterns of using this technology. By analogy to this concept of social generations community networks can be viewed as expression of certain technological and cultural settings which lead to new practices of computing.
Within the framework of social science research of technology it is not yet common to regard technical systems from the perspective of generations. Mayntz (1988), for instance, suggests the shaping of videotext systems - this view might also be applied to community networks - as the result of interactional strategies of a certain set of actors within a certain political and socio-economic context and the existence of a "technological pool". We suggest to combine the concept of Mayntz with the concept of social generations in the Mannheim tradition as described before.
Looking at the history of community networks one could easily get the impression that there have been three generations so far which emerged in the sixties, the eighties, and nineties, respectively.
Community networks combine three different traditions:
As mentioned before, the Community Memory system was, as far as we know, the first community network which came into being. It consisted of two terminals in Berkeley connected to a time-sharing computer which was located in San Francisco. Computer and terminals were sponsored by the business establishment of San Francisco. Community Memory was conceptualized as a system of publication in that sense that every message was public. It was meant to be a cultural and political memory and depository of the local community. The content of the database was entirely provided by the users themselves. There was no central authority to collect, select or edit information.
The developers of Community Memory had their political roots in the Free Speech movement and in the movement against the war in Vietnam. They were also close to the movement for Appropriate Technology, which aimed at ecological, low-cost, decentralized and convivial technology (Illich 1973; Schumacher 1973; Rybczynski 1980; Pursell 1993). Further, they were influenced by the concept of the information utility which arose at the MIT in the sixties envisioning access for everyone to a wealth of centrally stored information via computer networks and home terminals, very much like the public utilities providing water and electricity via pipes to every home (Sackman u. Nie 1970). The Community Memory group pictured their system as a means for community organizing, thus supporting a concept of political activism which has its origins in the American labor and civil rights movement (Alinsky 1973; Delgado 1982; Brager u.a. 1987; Knoepfle 1990). The Community Memory system embodies values and visions of the political
counterculture of the sixties and seventies with a strong emphasis on the use of computers in public and not in the seclusion of the private home.
For a long time, Community Memory remained the only community network since it was not easy for grass-roots-initiatives in the seventies to get access to computers. It was not until 1986 when with the Cleveland Free-Net in Ohio a new generation of community networks came into being. Since 1989 the Cleveland Free-Net provided free e-mail and Internet access for its users. It was the first publicly accessible information and communications network offering these services for free (Grundner 1989; Swift 1989; NPTN 1993). At that time commercial Internet providers did not yet exist and Internet access was still limited to faculty members, network administrators and students of computer science. Free-Nets soon drew thousands of new users, new systems were established in dozens of cities, predominately in the Middle West. The Free-Net computers are mostly hosted by universities, volunteers take care of the other tasks. The first equipment was donated by AT&T. In contrast to the Community Memory system the Free-Nets
can be accessed from a private computer at home. They provide a wide range of centrally collected community information. However, the main focus is on communication bringing people together to share views and resources. The founders of the Free-Net envisioned their system as a cost free counterpart to the rising commercial providers of on-line services like CompuServe, offering a true public computer utility for the common people and helping them to build electronic neighborhoods.
The rise of the Free-Nets must be seen from the background of the "telecommunications explosion" of the eighties, which is characterized by the AT&T break-up, the emergence of a variety of new telecommunications services and the successful diffusion of the personal computer in the American middle class (Forester 1990; Jensen 1993; Shields 1995). While the sixties and seventies are distinguished by cultural and political turmoils opposing prevailing values and lifestyles, the eighties are marked by a certain political roll-back and an emphasis on virtues like individual success and professional advancement (Raiethel 1989; Gans 1993; Guggisberg 1993; Shields 1995). The Free-Nets very much promoted computing and networking as a means of personal and professional advancement and took care that especially blue collar workers and low income groups had access to their system.
The Boulder Community Network (BCN) in Colorado started in 1994 as one of the first community networks on the world wide web. The BCN was awarded a grant from the Department of Commerce (DoC) and it is widely acknowledged as a model for the National Information Infrastructure (NII). The developers of the BCN studied Community Memory and the Free-Nets and decided to take a different path. They assume that sooner or later practically everybody will have Internet access and that it is not the business of a community network to provide e-mail accounts and Internet access and thus compete with commercial Internet providers. Therefore, the BCN operates a number of public access terminals which are supposed to serve as "safety nets" for less privileged groups. The BCN puts an emphasis on offering a big variety of local information and on integrating the information of other local information providers into the community network. The BCN meets high quality standards and has developed a rather professional management
and organization structure. Recently, the BCN has shifted its focus on information about social services in order to have a stake in the restructuring of the American social system which is currently taking place. This earned the BCN another grant from the DoC.
The community networks described above served a particular and important purpose in the time of their coming into being. Community Memory's historical relevance lies in its promoting the computer as a "multi-purpose medium" and demonstrating a whole range of new applications and usage, including communication. The persistence of the Community Memory group in exclusively public access terminals was justified at a time when the personal computer was not even invented and computers were kept in computer centers far away from the general public. However, with the event and the diffusion of the PC the world changed. But the Community Memory group stubbornly insisted on their public access terminals. Hobby computerists with their PCs were not allowed to dial in. The Community Memory group was not capable of learning and adopting to the new environment. The Free-Nets lost some of their significance and importance with the advent of commercial Internet providers and the success of the WWW, which let the traditional
Free-Net interface with its text design look rather pale. More importantly, commercial services are often better and more reliable than the Free-Nets and offer a bigger variety of information for little money. The Boulder Community Network was launched at a time when the volume of information and the number of users had increased. More and more of those users act like customers expecting and demanding professional services as for instance with regard to content. Instead of contributing themselves, many users expect a kind of "program".
This division of labor between producers and consumers is typical for the evolution of new media (Kubicek, Schmid, Wagner 1997). In some respect the diffusion of commercial services sets new standards which have an impact on the traditional community networks, too, thus pushing them towards more professionalization. Therefore, more money is needed and the community networks have to look out for new sources and modes of financing.
Until 1994 the traditional community networks were practically the only ones offering local information via electronic networks. This changed considerably, when in the mid-nineties commercial on-line services quickly doubled or even tripled their number of subscribers hitting the 10.000 in some cities or regional areas. AOL was the first to offer tailor-made information services for particular cities naming this program "Digital Cities". Other big companies followed suit offering electronic city information systems, among them Microsoft Network with "Sidewalk", the telephone company US West with "DiveIn", the newspaper chain Knight Rider with "Real Cities", and last but not least the New York Times with "New York Today". Microsoft's "Sidewalk" is being perceived by the others as the most dangerous competitor in the emerging market for locally focused electronic advertising (Outing 1997; Sullivan 1998). A survey by the magazine "Business Week" states that Americans spend 80% of their income in their local com
munity (Cortese 1997). This "hot local market" is the target of all the aforementioned providers of electronic information services. They expect that sooner or later ticketing and other transactional services will be integrated, thus opening new channels for lucrative business.
But, is it justified to address these new city information systems as community networks? With regard to the definition of community networks given before, some of the criteria apply to these commercial systems, too. They are local in focus, they are available at little or no cost, since even AOL now offer their "Digital Cities" via the WWW. They also address everyday information needs, since most of them provide information about not-for-profit organizations, education, health care and the like. However, one must also concede that the main focus of the commercial systems is on entertainment and business information, since this proves to be most profitable.
Most of the traditional community networks have currently to cope with serious problems due to a lack of financial resources, a shortage of trained staff and the necessity to keep up with the speed of technical change. Some even find themselves in a sort of crisis with regard to their identity since so many commercial systems have sprung up drawing users from the old community networks. It does no longer suffice to be full of pioneering spirit, committed to the local community and having lots of motivated volunteers available. Nowadays, it rather needs professional staff and management as well as a division of labor to run a system and meet the rising expectations of the users with regard to content, design, technical proficiency and service. Community networks are at the crossroads. If they are to survive in the future they have to develop new strategies and business plans and have to find new means of support. State money will not be available on the long run. Traditional sources like funds and grants are
currently being cut. This means that community networks have to look out for partners to cooperate with. It is mainly the following which offer cooperation:
Universities have already played an important role for the second generation of community networks, when for instance they housed many of the Free-Nets. Now, more and more public libraries take their place, offering not only technical and organizational assistance but, even more important, offering content and help to structure it. Sometimes the information system of a library and the community network even merge. Foundations help with research and consulting, sometimes with seed money. They play an important role in the current discussions about the future of community networks encouraging the movement to increase the cooperation with the commercial sector. Companies, especially from the hardware, software or telecommunications sector, act as sponsors for a considerable number of community networks. The community networks in return comment this support gratefully on their web pages, thus sometimes giving the impression of serving as advertising boards for those companies. The outlined strategies, especially
the cooperation with the commercial sector, are not without risk for the community networks, since they might affect their independence on the long run. Another survival strategy of community networks is to look out for special niches and focus on particular information services or dedicated target groups. This is for instance the case with the Boulder Community Network which specializes on information about social services and targets at welfare recipients and social service agencies, hoping thus to become eligible for government funds.
Though the traditional community networks serve an important social function one must conclude, that they have not yet reached the critical mass and that it does not seem very likely that this will happen in the near future, if at all. However, it was them who helped to popularize a new medium which is now, with the backing of the commercial sector on its way to become a mass medium.
Not everyone in the community networking movement welcomes the sketched developments. There are complaints about commercialization, now and then even lamentation that old ideals have been given up. Some even refer to the Community Memory system as embodiment of all the virtues of community networking (Mitchell 1995). However, the outlined concept of generations shows that this idealization does not take into account the changes and modifications which already took place in the second generation of community networks, not to speak of the third generation. Insofar today's developments are no violation of a cherished tradition but rather a gradual change, an acculturation and adaptation of the influences of the prevailing zeitgeist. Each new generation has to survive in its own time. Form and content of new media are not necessarily determined by the zeitgeist, just as values and lifestyles of a whole generation of mankind are not. However, those who strive to reach a mass audience are well advised to fully ada
pt the prevailing zeitgeist than staying in their niches addressing only small selected publics (Kubicek, Schmid, Wagner 1997).
From such a perspective of generations it seems justified to view the new systems as the upcoming fourth generation of community networks. That they do not have very much in common with the first generation does not come as a surprise. It seems rather pointless to keep complaining about their commercialization, instead it would make more sense to discuss and develop strategies how to survive and to cope with today's challenges. Given the outlined concept of generations it is not surprising that some community networks take a different path than others. On the contrary, it seems rather "natural" that the generation of great-grandchildren develops a big variety of taste, shape and approaches. A snapshot of a "family meeting" would certainly display a multicolored picture. A differentiation between black and white sheep, e.g. between good and bad members of the family, would discredit the original idea and finally jeopardize those commonalities which are still left.