DTC #4

In Zygmunt Bauman’s theory of web communities as “pegs” and David Bell’s critique, one sentence stood out to me:

(Peg communities are) sites where people can hang their interests or obsessions, their enthusiasms or worries, and around which they can – or might – try to build up something collective, albeit instrumentally and ephemerally.

(Bell, 257)

Bell finds Bauman’s opinion of web communities to be gloomy and looks for a rebuttal, but I focus rather on the word “can” in his description of Bauman. And, frankly, I agree with Bauman: a web community indeed can be a place we temporarily hang a superficial aspect of ourselves, only to take it down when we want to go elsewhere.

On (extreme) example is that of the Internet troll. Consider the posting history of PumbasNakasak of the WDW Magic message boards. An very open troll, his entire purpose the forum is to get reactions out of posters by post intentional controversial – and only occasionally rational – opinions. He reveals very little of himself or his personal life and creates no deep connections with the community. If he ever becomes board, like most trolls, he can leave with likely little if any emotional ties being severed.

The peg concept doesn’t only extend to trolls, of course. Anyone can be who and what they want to be – their partial selves or something completely new – in a web community and then take that off the peg and leave whenever they want. The superficial and transient bonds mentioned from Bauman can apply.

That said, Bell’s arguments against Bauman that online communities are not necessarily “a togetherness of loners” also hold water (258). His belief they can be like Anthony Giddens’ “pure relationships,” where social relation exists for the sake of both (or all) parties to deliver enough satisfaction for both (or all) to stay in can apply, as well. I am a member of many communities where I consider the others dear and close friends on par with those in Real Life, and this is despite having a healthy Real Life social life. Not all use their communities as peg boards, but that doesn’t mean Bauman is incorrect in saying it’s an aspect of web communities. It all depends on what you’re there for.

As far as the web communities I’ll be using for Assignment #2, I’ve chosen Lone Star Ball (www.lonestarball.com), Baseball Time in Arlington (www.bbtia.com), and the Dallas Morning News Texas Rangers blog (rangersblog.dallasnews.com); three different Texas Rangers blogs. I choose these three communities because I have extensive experience with all three, including a very deep understanding of the first as a frequent contributor and writer for other websites from its same network. Their format, style, communities and topic have dominated my recent Internet experiences, making for an easier topic than picking three communities I know little about. Further, while each covers the same topic and have many face-value similarities, they become very different websites and communities as one dives deeper in to their content.


Works Cited

1. Baseball Time in Arlington. 9/15/2010. Web. 16 Sep 2010. .
2. Bell, David. "Webs As Pegs." The Cybercultures Reader. Ed. David Bell and Barbara M. Kennedy. New York, NY: Routledge, 2007. Print.
3. Lone Star Ball. SB Nation, 9/15/2010. Web. 16 Sep 2010. .
4. "Posting History of Pumbas Nakasak." 9/15/2010. Online Posting to WDW Magic. Web. 16 Sep 2010.
5. Texas Rangers Blog. Dallas Morning News, 9/15/2010. Web. 16 Sep 2010. .