community
fragment b: virtual community as a solution
Whether equal or not, what comes of the circumstance where a
community can only exist in the digital realm? Many virtual
communities exist where no physical counterpart can. For
example, a community of collectors specializing in nineteenth century
medical utensils might find their very few members scattered across
the globe. Whether or not physical human interaction would
be preferred, such a group could never exist without forming in
a digital context. In a way, this may be seen as sad and
unfortunate, as the members of a group are not given a choice but
rather forced into what may as well be a "virtual refuge".
Participation in a virtual community can be compared to living
in a college dormitory. A resident has all of the privileges
of living on their own with nearly none of the responsibility.
In an online community, a participant has no responsibility to the members of
the community but is free to reap the benefits of the community nonetheless.
Albert Borgmann argues, however, that virtual communities thrive as a free entity
if they can remain free.
If a pasture becomes a commons open to all, the right of
each to use it may not be matched by a corresponding responsibility
to protect it. Asking everyone to use it with discretion
will hardly do, for the considerate herdsman who refrains from
overloading the commons suffers more than a selfish one who says
his needs are greater. If everyone would restrain himself,
all would be well; but it takes only one less than everyone to
ruin a system of voluntary restraint. In a crowded world
of less than perfect human beings, mutual ruin is inevitable
if there are no controls. This is the tragedy of the commons
(Abelson 334).
A virtual community still is, essentially, a commons and can
escape tragedy via moderation. While Borgmann feels a virtual community thrives on its escape from private
ownership, it is in fact that private ownership that allows it to survive. |
