In a previous post I wrote about a JCMC article dealing with the concept of third places. Now I want to highlight another paper on this topic: Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: building Oldenburg’s great good places on the world wide web, written by Charles Soukup in New Media and Society.
The paper by Soukup does not include a comparison of any specific online environment and the generic model of a third place. Instead, this paper deals with the broader question of whether or not Oldenburg’s concept is appropriate when trying to understand computer-mediated communication (CMC).
I especially appreciate the section on how CMC contexts are unlike third places. It is argued that as third places emphasize localized community, are easily accessible, and function as social levellers, their virtual counterparts do not – at least not in the same way or to the same extent.
For the most part I find these arguments reasonable and I have since long advocated that online third places differ fundamentally from the ones depicted by Oldenburg. But as I understand the solution presented in this paper, we should still aim towards a perfect match with the characteristics of a physical third place – and I do not buy into that. Since online environments are indeed different than physical settings I don’t fancy the idea of trying to design online spaces using offline experiences as a design ideal. Instead, I want to study how the third place is mediated and experienced online – without assuming that it must be similar to offline experiences. It is not a goal in itself to find generic third places online. If the perfect third place does not exist online we should try to find a more appropriate concept instead of stubbornly holding on to something that only exist offline.
(Parts of this text has been posted earlier in my previous, since long discarded, blog.)
For several years I’ve been interested in the notion of third places online. Sociologist Ray Oldenburg introduced the third place as a concept. In his book The Great Good Place he argues that every society is in need of third places, separate from home and work (first and second place), that can serve as informal public gathering places. Oldenburg declares that the occurrences of third places have decreased in western society in recent years. As these public meeting places disappears, the community dependent on them also is weakened. Many of the arguments made by Oldenburg are also echoed by Putnam, when describing the threats against social capital in American society.
Many scholars have suggested that virtual community spaces could be regarded as being similar to the third places as described by Oldenburg – and one example of such an attempt is a paper from 2006 by Steinkuehler & Williams; Where everybody knows your (screen) name: online games as “Third places”. I recently reread this article and remembered writing about it on my old blog (no longer online), so here comes some new thoughts for my new blog…
The paper by Steinkuehler & Williams is well-written and the authors basically map the characteristics of Oldenburg’s third place on MMOGs (massively multiplayer online games). The arguments are that 1) the MMOG’s under study can be viewed as third places, and 2) the participation in such virtual places generates the formation of bridging social capital rather than bonding capital.
The first argument is perhaps what you would expect from this kind of study. The second one is more novel since it implies that as relationships associated with bridging over time develops into deeper relationships, the function of MMOG‘s as third places fades. The authors write:
“It is worth noting, however, that as gamers become more involved in long-term social networks such as guilds and their activities become more “hardcore” (e.g., marked by participation in large-scale collaborative problem-solving endeavors such as “raids” into difficult territories or castle sieges), the function of MMOs as “third places” begins to wane. Not all MMO players make this transition, but those who do are likely to experience relationships closer to bonding ones than bridging ones. It may be, then, that the structure and function of MMOs as third places is one part of the “life cycle” for some gamers in a given title. As complex, long-term collaborative activities become increasingly prevalent, the game becomes increasingly more entangling, time-consuming, and work-like.”
For me, highlighting this pattern appears to be the main contribution of this paper. I think it is a relevant observation that to some extent also is valid in the context of my own work.
Every year the Association for Internet Researchers (AoIR) organize an Internet Research conference, and this year the conference (IR 9.0) will be held in Copenhagen, October 16-18. I’ve been attending the IR conference three times before and I am really looking forward to go there again.
This year I will chair a roundtable on social network sites and online communities together with Lewis Goodings. Other panelists include Nancy Baym, Malene Charlotte Larsen, Amanda Lenhart, Raquel Recuero and Jan Schmidt. I am happy that we have been able to gather these great people and hope for an interesting discussion during the roundtable session.
Here is an extract from the roundtable description:
Life On The Move: Social network sites and online communities
Social network sites (SNSs) like Facebook, Bebo and MySpace are rapidly becoming a popular area of research investigating online ‘communities’. This immediately raises the question of how new SNSs can be understood as a descendent of the ‘virtual community’ that was popularized in the 1980′s (Rheingold, 1993). [...] The purpose of this roundtable is to further discussions on the present shapes of online communities in light of the current trajectory of social network popularity. In particular, to what extent are online communities tied to a particular site? And consequently, how can we rethink notions of community in line with recent trends in SNSs?
[…] The underlying premise is that ‘life on the move’ produces a certain problem for academic researchers as to how we locate the individual (or the community) in such a dispersed social landscape. Therefore, how can we understand community involvement when users are members of a number of different community sites and SNSs and move regularly from one site to another? A further problem here is how we as researchers resist the mundane assumption that inherently complex online communities are only recognisable in terms of the users movement in and out of them, surely there is much more to it than that.