These are responses to Guide questions on Ananda Mitra's Virtual commonality.
1.What are some of the assumptions that Mitra makes about the possibility of communities in cyberspace?
Community is not totally defined by the physical proximity of the members of the community. Community can exist where people are separated, and can exist online. Shared interests can bring people together. Some of this sounds familiar.
2.The "spacial scale" of Mitra's dialog is national. Do you believe that in a nation of a billion people an internet community such as soc.culture.indian can have a national presence or impact? what are the conditions for such an impact to take place?
Of course. Many things of great import to a nation or a culture are the product of only a few individuals. But the individuals involved must be highly placed in the culture, either having power or prestige. If it is known in a country that soc.culture.indian is *the* place to go to for new or information about indian culture, then it will have an impact. Of course, there are many such sites and places out thee on he internet; one of the hings about the inene is the sheer number of communities and such that exist. And Usenet groups, at least today, do not have quite that impact. I'm sure they could, but I do see it happening.
3.The phrase "imagined community" is often applied to chat groups such as those studied by Mitra. Is he suggesting an imagined community or a "real" community?
The community is real in that people feel a sense of togetherness in the community. It is only "imagined" becuase the community isn't flesh and blood "Real world" togetherness. The community is more abstract, more virual, more in the mind than a physical one. So the communiy is no reall "imagined" as in make-believe, but imagined as in you have to use your abstract thinkin skills to see the communiy in your head. It is far more mental than physical.
4.David Bell refers to a "'digital diaspora'--people physically, spatially separated but who are making connections and finding commonalities across the internet (and on bulletin boards specifically). For this digital diaspora, 'electronic space is the only common space that they can occupy', meaning that it provides an important cultural resource." What do you think of this description of the power of the internet in a developing culture?
There are few things which could rival the internet in the way that people from all overcan access it and contribute to it. Mass media, such as newspapers and television are "few to many" communicaion- the few dictate what is going on to the many who have access to the information. The internet is moe a "many to many" communication- many people can communicate with many others in a more democratic sense. This can be seen as unique to the internet in many ways. Other forms of communication do not have the versatility of the internet. The "Real time" communication with many people adds to the development of community on the internet. Of course, this depends on people actually accessing the internet. It may seem to us that the internet is ubiquituous.But only about 8% of the world accesses the internet, and 60% in the US. So it does need to be open to more people before tis can truly be realized, but I do see the potential.