Communities of Practice and
Communities of Trust: global culture and information technology
Anthropology
Ireland; 4
(1); 1994; pp. 33-45
©Lee Komito
Department of Library and Information Studies
University College Dublin.
Let me begin by noting what will soon be obvious in any event -- the
paper that follows has a strong polemic element. Anthropologists in Ireland are
dispersed thinly, and this journal provides an opportunity to encourage debate
and discussion of issues that might concern anthropologists who either study
Ireland or reside in Ireland. Hopefully, this working paper will spark further
discussion; it is certainly intended to do so!
In recent decades, the study of complex societies has become a
legitimate and almost respected project for social and cultural
anthropologists, with the number of anthropologists studying complex societies
increasing dramatically. In most cases, the preferred method has been to focus
on geographically-bounded communities. Aside from occasional forays into the
cognitive maps of drunks or other occupational groups, most ethnographic studies
have been of rural communities or encapsulated urban ones (e.g., ethnic
enclaves). That is to say, face-to-face communities where individuals reside in
the same locale, and where social relations tend to be multiplex and
overlapping. There has been very little research on other aspects of complex
societies. For instance, the areas of inquiry described as the 'anthropology of
work' or `industrial anthropology' have existed for many decades, but have
remained marginal, vis-à-vis mainstream anthropology. Anthropologists continue
to visualise their work as describing cultural units, even though the
communities which constitute such units are becoming small segments of much
larger systems.
The interest in complex societies has rarely extended to the larger system
-- that is, the culture of complex societies. There was a brief foray into
national culture which derived from personality and culture studies (e.g.,
Mead, Benedict); but little else. This lack is ironic since, outside
anthropology, the rise of cultural studies has been meteoric. These cultural
studies address both complex societies and organisations within complex
societies. One can not pick up a management book without reading long about
organisational culture. Historians and political scientists discuss `imagined
communities', and sociologists examine `global culture'. Anthropology has been
marginalized, it seems, in this new industry of culture as an academic
commodity.
The paucity of such studies in anthropology, and the marginalization,
within anthropology, of those who are interested in either the culture of
organisations or the culture of large scale groups (e.g. "states" or
"nations"), is linked to another issue: the current unease about the
concept of culture. In the `good old days', anthropologists presumed that
cultural uniformity existed in the societies they described. All members of the
group knew one another, could predict each other's behaviour and shared a sense
of belonging to the same moral community. Even though this was unjustified, in
retrospect, anthropologists described (or constructed) societies with a
homogeneous culture. The class, regional, ethnic, and occupational distinctions
of industrial society make such an intellectual stance untenable when studying
modern societies. Many social relations in complex societies are not face to
face, and they would be described as single-stranded, rather than
multi-stranded. Such relations may form the basis for social interaction, but
do not foster the same 'community' that anthropologists have felt comfortable
with. Substituting `part-culture' for `culture' provided a quasi-solution, and
enabled anthropologists to study rural communities and urban enclaves. Here,
uniformity could still be found, or, as necessary, constructed. Outside these
areas, anthropology has not been very successful in talking about culture. Even
within these safe havens, the extent of uniformity is fast diminishing; if
anthropologists aren't careful, they will run out of objects to study.
It has been left to others to apply culture to complex societies
because, once anthropologists leave the safe haven of holistic unities of
culture and society, the whole enterprise becomes fraught. The use of
sub-culture to describe smaller segments of an overall culture (e.g., working-class
culture or rural culture) is not satisfactory, as it does not incorporate
cross-cutting identifications such as class and ethnicity. Nor does it give
sufficient recognition of the way individuals opt in and out of various social
groups and collective identifications. In complex societies, the shift from
multiplex or many stranded role relations to uniplex, single stranded role
relations, as well as the increased importance of non-formal social networks,
has altered the way individuals participate in society as well as the way they
share values and perceptions. If anthropologists are going to venture beyond
the ghetto of local communities, part-cultures, sub-cultures and encapsulated
communities, they must either abandon the culture concept or rework it
significantly to include such variability.
Attempts at reworking `culture' have been going on for over a decade,
but have produced less than satisfactory results. One post-modernist solution
has been to argue that all descriptions are particularist, and an authoritative
descriptions of any culture is difficult, if not impossible (see Marcus and
Fischer 1986). Such descriptions are projections of Western mind-sets, imposed
on other cultures. Such a solution is a `solution' only because it denies the relevance
of any model of generalizable culture, and thus disposes of the problem.
Clearly the sacrilized voice of the anthropologist, as the authoritative author
of ethnography, needs both demystifying and problematising, however there must
still be agreed procedures for describing and comparing the collective sharing
of beliefs and values that most anthropologists articulate as `culture'
A different strategy for reworking `culture' has been to focus on
emergent trans-cultural forms, using terms such as global and national culture.
Anthropologists such as Hannerz (1992) and Appadurai (1989), for instance,
distinguish aspects of global culture and analyse each aspect or segment. This
approach is akin to Lowie's `shreds and patches' approach to culture, except at
the international level. Culture, defined as communal practices and shared
values characteristic of social collectivities, disappears in this sort of
analysis. It is replaced by cultural traditions: practices in which individuals
participate. Cultures are the emergent properties of these practices, but, in
the move from individual to culture, the 'social group', so crucial in earlier
anthropological studies, disappears. Individuals participate in a variety of
cultural themes and commodities, creating, voluntarily, their own unique mix of
cultural elements. This is an `a la carte' model of culture, in which
individual participation in a common practice is sufficient to make that
practice the object of description and study. Such an assumption is not unlike
one made in linguistics, when a shared language practice defines a common
linguistic community. In linguistics, the individual's commitment to that
particular language is irrelevant. In the context of culture, such a model begs
the question of the individual's participation in, and commitment to, that
practice. Early studies of mass communication assumed that all people who
viewed a television programme participated in the same experience. In actual
fact, people make quite different things of the same television viewing
experience. Similarly, one must wonder whether communal practice of global
traditions is sufficient for the creation and maintenance of shared cultural
forms. If culture is a common view of social reality, is common practice
sufficient evidence of a common social reality?
As noted, the social group is conspicuous, by its absence, in approaches
such as those of Hannerz and Appadurai, as analysis moves between individuals
and global cultures. Does this mean that social relations are irrelevant for
the study of shared meanings? Anthropologists have previously argued that the
ongoing, and constantly recreated, social group is closely linked with the
shared mental world of culture. Does that collective experience no longer
require social contact to create or sustain it? This issue becomes especially
relevant with changes in communications technologies. One reason for the growth
in 'globalization studies' has been the perception that technology has altered
the nature of human society, due to the reduced costs of communication and
transportation. Whether one looks at movement of individuals, the movement of
cultural artefacts such as clothing, food, music, or movement of information
(via videotape, telephone, or computer), it is now possible for an individual
to live in one physical location and be surrounded by all the paraphernalia of
another milieu. One can live in Germany, for instance, and listen to Irish
news, eat food imported from Ireland, wear clothes produced in Ireland, read
Irish newspapers, communication relatively cheaply with friends in Ireland, and
so on. Previously, this would have, at the very least, required the presence of
other Irish expatriates, which would have given rise to an 'encapsulated
community' for anthropologists to study. Now, however, individuals may maintain
such identifications and associations without the assistance of other
like-minded individuals. Or, if such like-minded individuals do get together in
a pub to watch an Irish sports match, they don't necessarily have much else to
do with one another. Do these constitute the shared meanings and experiences
which anthropologists label as 'culture'? Do they constitute social groups? Are
the motivations and perceptions of the individuals who participate in these
shared meanings relevant? Although culture is the shared beliefs of a society
or community, it emerges out of the process of interaction between individuals.
If we take this seriously, then the development of electronic communication
must alter our ideas about how culture is shared and who may share it.
A return to social groups might be necessary, as the culture concept is
reworked for application to modern societies. I don't mean social groups as
enduring and stable structures studied as a normative systems, but rather as
contested and created systems emerging out of interactions between individuals.
In modern society, people interact on the basis of status attribution, and a
sense of participation in a community is difficult to sustain. People are
intuitively aware of this, and often attempt to recreate that community. One
strategy has been to transform single-stranded or instrumental role relations
into multiplex ones by altering the content and context of relations, or, in
some cases, simply by attributing personal motivations to other participants
(projecting a shared morality that doesn't necessarily exist). The `imagined
communities' of solidarity based on ethnicity or nationalism also fit in here.
These are all to be placed on a continuum of social interactions, from
single-stranded, narrowly defined, instrumental exchanges at one end, to
multi-faceted solidarities (`communities') at the other end. When such
solidarities emerge out of instrumental and single-stranded relations, there is
often a tension between those who wish to maintain instrumental relations and
those who wish to create moral bonds amongst participants. It is here, as moral
communities are created and maintained through interactions that one might
combine studies of global culture with studies of social groups.
It may be useful to characterise those people who interact on an
instrumental or habitual basis, as constituting a community of practice. In
contrast, those who also share a common moral system constitute a community of
trust. While both can be characterised as a community, the basis of the
community differs; one is cognitive, while the other is affective. There has
been a long debate between cognitive versus value-based criteria for cultural
unity. Wallace (1970) argued that people can have quite different values, yet,
since they share a similar cognitive framework, they are members of the same
culture. The distinction helps resolve some important ambiguities and
inappropriate formulations when talking about personality and culture, especially
in multicultural societies. However, the focus on shared cognitive systems may
not be so useful in the context of global culture. As this level, talking about
shared meanings reifies symbols and reduces the significance of individual
perceptions. Employees of multi-national corporations who send email messages
to each across the world constitute a community of practice. Is this, however,
an organisational 'culture'? If those practices foster a common identity (e.g.,
a corporate identity), or create links of affinity and trust between
individuals, then something more than common practice is emerging. At the very
least, a unique set of perceptions and understandings, and, at the most,
individuals are maintaining, or developing, an emotional commitment to other
individuals with whom they rarely, if ever, interact on a face-to-face basis.
Whether such groups meet the anthropological criteria of 'community' is
arguable, but there can be no doubt that people can, and do, extend trust and
commitment to individuals that they rarely, if ever, see in person. It is the
sense of trust that is part of most people's 'folk' definition of community. In
this formulation, shared practice is not sufficient; there also had to be some
evidence of affective or emotional commonalties.
Integral to such an approach is a focus on the interactions between
individuals, out of which derives the emergent qualities of community and
culture. Such a emphasis might get beyond the earlier geographical limitations
of the culture concept, while at the same time, providing an alternative to the
'shreds and patches' or 'a la carte' approach to cultural practices that seems
characteristic of 'global culture' discussions. The key concern is to look
beyond cognitive similarities, and include emotional affinities as well. It
also includes, within the scope of anthropological inquiry, communities which
may not be geographically bounded and which may have shifting, as well as
non-exclusive, memberships. It takes in account the desire, by so many people,
to create a sense of commonality and community by any means available. The
'imagined community' of nationalism and ethnic identity are examples of such
creations. This is an emphasis on the process by which perceptions of trust and
mutual understanding develops. It is this process that is to be studied.
The major advantage of such a formulation lies is that evidence can be
obtained for assertions. The 'authoritative voice' of the anthropologist is no
longer legitimate; where, however, does one obtain the evidence in order to
offer the ethnographic descriptions that are at the core of anthropological
inquiry? In many discussions of `global culture', one can refer to the shared
practices, but there is little empirical evidence available regarding
individuals who participate in such practices. In focusing on the process of
interaction, one can also provide evidence from individual behaviour. Such a
method does have its critics. Studying the interactions of individuals smacks
of the reductionist simplifications of early sociometry. After all, many
believe that social relations can not be straight-jacketed into the rigidities
of numeric formula (although the popularity of binary opposition in structural
analysis a decade or two ago seems an exception). However, the significance of
dyads and social networks in modern society has been accepted. The challenge is
to use such interactions as evidence regarding shared beliefs and meanings; in
that context, measurement problems can be overcome. Social network analysis and
consensus analysis are just two methods now available which, in conjunction
with traditional ethnographic description, can provide empirical data on these
issues. It is not a case of multivalent symbols being reduced to numeric
categories; rather such methods are used in conjunction with other means of
data collection, to produce more complex, rather than more simple,
descriptions.
I have argued that communities of practices and communities of trust are
two useful formulations, describing the individual's participation in global
society. The use to which new communications technologies are put, in efforts
to re-create community, is particularly interesting, as it addresses the
general issue of affective versus cognitive discussions of 'global culture'.
Are new communications technologies being used to create communities of trust
out of communities of interest, or maintain a sense of participation in
communities that are geographically remote? To put this at its most concrete,
what is the impact of frequent airline travel, cheap distribution of video
tapes, inexpensive international telephone charges on the communities of trust
that individuals create for themselves?
What is the relevance of all this for anthropological studies of
Ireland? The Republic of Ireland is a particularly appropriate location for
discussing the impact of new forms of communication and interaction, given its
peripheral location, the mobility of its work force, and the commitment made by
the European Union and Ireland to investment in information and communications
technologies. Policy decisions have been based on the assumption that
geographical distances can be bridged through enhanced communication
technology; thus, the reduced communication and interaction costs which have
given rise to different perspectives on culture are also the basis for
important policy decisions. New information and communications technologies
have, for the past decade, been seen as a partial solution to the problem of
peripherality. Both Irish and European policy have focused on implementing
these technologies in Ireland, because:
"...information and communications technology essentially provide a
means of communicating and processing information, [thus] the economic
constraints imposed by geographical location which have characterised rural
areas will become less significant. This will provide an opportunity for
revitalizing economic activity in rural areas." (Commission of the
European Communities 1989: 2)1
This technology, it is argued, frees organisations and individuals from
the constraints of geography, and so is the perfect cure for peripherality. It
is thus also makes the Republic of Ireland an excellent location to examine
non-territorial manifestations of community and culture.
Interestingly, this investment policy reflects an ideological imperative
as much as a calculated policy decision. To some extent, Irish and European
policy is driven by a set of cultural assumptions common throughout the West:
investment in information and communications technology is, by definition, a
`good thing'. The economic assumptions are now seen as somewhat questionable
(see Lyon, 1988; Forester, 1989; Dunlop and Kling, 1991). From the
anthropological perspective, the cultural corollaries are of interest: does
increased interaction and communication bridge physical distances so that the
term 'culture' can be applied to individuals whose shared experiences are
largely mediated by technology, or are these assumptions also incorrect?
The flow of people out of Ireland, in their search for employment all
over the world, provides an additional example of the relevance of a redefined
concept of culture. In most policy discussions of Information and
Communications Technologies (ICT), one talks about ICT bringing jobs to people.
This is how ICT is supposed to solve problems of peripherality in Ireland.
However, another consequence of ICT could be that, if people go where there are
jobs in Germany, France, Great Britain, the United States, and so on, ICT can
make it affordable for individuals to bring their `culture' with them. Anyone
watching television or listening to radio will see or hear Telecom Éireann
advertisements, aimed at encouraging family members to keep in contact with
those living in the United States. The thrust of the advertisements is that a
phone call is almost as good as actually being there. The salience of this ad
is demonstrated by the telephone bills of most Irish families, with many long
distance phone calls to the U.S., the U.K., or the Continent. Private telephone
companies, such as MCI, find that a market exists for cheaper communication
between the United States and Ireland. Airline companies have also benefited, as
Irish people living abroad return home with far great frequency than previous
generations. Telephone calls and personal visits are an effective, but costly,
way of maintaining emotional ties. However strongly motivated, individuals find
it expensive to continue to participate in distant communities. Suppose these
are supplemented by other, less expensive, modes of electronic communication?
For instance, do video tapes of national events (sports matches, for instance)
as well as personal events (weddings, christenings) enable individuals to
participate simultaneously in the community in which they now live, and the
'community' that they left behind in Ireland?
In the Irish case, this reversal of the expected ICT impact is a real
issue. All modes of electronic communication, whether text based email, or
multi-media, are becoming 'richer' in terms of emotional content. At the same
time, the cost of communicating is decreasing. The cost of fax machines is
decreasing, answering machines are proliferating rapidly, and it is easier and
easier to send audio and video cassettes throughout the world. The result is a
real ability to keep in contact with close kin and friends, and participate in
their daily lives in a way that would never have been possible before. As the
obstacles of cost and technology decrease, the strong motivation to use any
means, whether fax, electronic mail, or voice mail, to maintain family and
friendship links can become an important force.
What are the social consequences of maintaining such links? Compare the
Irish who migrated to the United States even as late as the 1950's with those
who migrate now -- the differences in their participation in family life, in
the cultural life of Ireland and the changes taking place in Ireland.
Irish-Americans of previous generations remained static, vis-à-vis Ireland,
once they left. The Ireland they imagined was different from the changed
Ireland in which they no longer participated. Eventual integration, even if as
an ethnic group, into the United States was inevitable. In contrast, modern
Irish continue to participate in Irish life, wherever they are in the world. If
someone can't return for a wedding, a video cassette of the wedding can be
posted out instead. If they can't be at a ceremony in person, they can phone.
If they want to follow events in Ireland, they can receive audio or tape
cassettes of RTE programmes, phone a number to hear Irish radio news or
programmes, or receive a next day edition of the Irish Times. They can sit in a
pub in the United States and watch Irish sports events on big screens. They can
even receive, free, a weekly summary of news via an electronic newsletter,
world-wide. Over 1400 individuals did so in 1992; in late 1993, the number
soared to over 2500. It is now easier to remain Irish, emotionally, socially,
and culturally, regardless of geographical distance.
At the same time, it is also easier to distance oneself from the society
one is, geographically, part of, because the psychological need, or even
desire, to integrate into the life of their 'host' culture is diminished. In
effect, individuals are participating in multiple cultures simultaneously. This
is a change from the previous pattern of assimilation/acculturation.
Previously, Irish-Americans formed an encapsulated ethnic group, a sort of
monolithic halfway house. In so far as they clung to 'home' identification, it
had been as an ideological device, to be understood in context of adaptation to
the host culture. Now, however, new communications technologies have the potential
to encourage diversity, by making it easier to maintain the social interactions
and cultural associations of one's home, while also participating one's host,
community. Previously, Irish-Americans moved between a real American experience
and an imaginary re-created vision of Ireland; now, they move between the real
and dynamic experiences of both the United States and Ireland. It is a far more
complex, and constantly shifting, world that they now inhabit.
In addition, if the process by which cultural identifications are
created and maintained is no longer constrained by geography, the voluntary
element of affiliation becomes more important. In geographically bounded
groups; interactions between individuals are involuntary, and conflicts have to
be resolved (or avoided) so that the group can continue to exist. How will
conflicts be settled in non-geographically bounded groups? People can
participate in multiple cultures, or systems of meaning, as cultural
fragmentation increases rather than diminishes, and move from one to another,
as they wish. It can also be argued that individuals not only communicate less
on a face-to-face basis (as compared with mediated communication forms), but
that they communicate less, regardless of mode of communication. The growth of
telephone answering machines partly fulfils the need for asynchronous forms of
communication (i.e., telephone tag); but it is also used to screen phone calls
when the individual is at home, thus permitting them to avoid interaction if they
wish. Some see the advantage of computer mediated communication in the same
way: it is easier to avoid communication because the individual at the
receiving end can simply opt out. If, when there is an interpersonal dispute,
people simply hang up the phone (metaphorically speaking), conflict resolution
will become a misnomer. Indeed, as the freedom to opt in and out of `cultures'
increases, it is arguable that quite new forms of community and collectivity
will emerge: one in which norms can not be imposed and individuals simply leave
when dissatisfied. At one extreme will be local face-to-face groups, at the
other extreme will be the amorphous and shifting collective identifications of
nation and ethnicity. What will be in between?
I would argue, then, that as anthropologists focus on global and
national culture, they must focus on the interactive and communicative aspects
of culture, and especially the creation and maintenance of affective bonds.
With rapid changes in communication tking place, global culture should be of
particular interest to anthropologists who study Ireland. The tools are
becoming available for such studies -- social network analysis, cognitive maps,
consensus analysis are all methods of collecting data that permit researchers
to make general cultural statements from the actions and interactions of
individuals. There are a variety of rich research sites available -- many
organisations have dealings with sister branches throughout the world, others
must maintain contact with national, European and international regulatory
agencies, while others are simply connecting up with similarly autonomous
groups in the Republic and Northern Ireland. Ireland is a good distance away
from becoming a 'wired nation', but that is all the more reason to start such
studies now, and study an emergent process. The material gained from such
studies could make substantial contributions to redefining the concepts of
culture and community, and these redefinitions are necessary as anthropologists
look toward the next millenium.
Bibliography
Appadurai, Arjun
1989 "Global Ethnoscapes: Notes and
Queries for a Transnational Anthropology." In Interventions: Anthropology
of the Present, Ed R. G. Fox.
Commission of the European Communities
1989 Opportunities for Applications of
Information and Communication Technologies in Rural Areas: Draft Specifications
for Priority Research and Technology Development Actions. Draft 4.
Dunlop, Charles, and Rob Kling, eds
1991 Computerization and Controversy: Value
Conflicts and Social Choices. Boston: Academic Press.
Forester, Tom, ed
1989 Computers in the Human Context:
Information Technology, Productivity and People. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hannerz, Ulf
1992 Cultural Complexity: Studies in the
Social Organization of Meaning. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lyon, David
1988 The Information Society: Issues and
Illusions. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Marcus, George E., and Michael M. J. Fischer
1986 Anthropology as Cultural Critique.
Chicago: University of Chicago.
Wallace, Anthony F. C.
1970 Culture and Personality. 2d ed. New York:
Random House.