Are virtualized communities real communities?

Virtual communities and digital spaces are frequently discussed topics today. They exist in many forms: interest groups on social networks, fandoms of bands and celebrities, forums on technical topics, and even brand communities that are constantly clashing (Apple vs. Samsung, PlayStation vs. Xbox).

But are we really talking about communities when we refer to these groups?

The most classical definition of community, introduced in German sociology by Ferdinand Tönnies, contrasts the term with the concept of society: while communities (Gemeinschaft) are characterized by strong, primary, emotional bonds and tradition, like families and rural villages, societies (Gesellschaft) are defined by relationships based on interests and contracts, more typical of large modern cities¹. With differences not particularly relevant to our discussion, this definition persists, albeit sometimes under other terms, such as mechanical solidarity (for community) and organic solidarity (for modern societies) in Durkheim’s sociology².

It is already apparent that reconciling this classical definition with what we now call digital communities is challenging. It is highly debatable to assert that any of these virtual environments can be described as traditional, based on strong primary ties. They are, in fact, first and foremost characterized by ephemeral relationships, often even anonymous.

But if we can state that virtual communities do not fit the classical definition of the term, we must ask an even more important question: so, what are they? Are we talking about something entirely different or a new version of that old concept?

The Virtualization of Ephemeral Bonds

When classical sociology discussed this theme, the size of communities was relevant to their definition: strong bonds existed because the number of people was small. There is an inherent difficulty in expanding social groups without making relationships more ephemeral through the division of social labor. Similarly, weak ties were characteristic of societies; there was no possibility of a small, all-encompassing group with such fragile relationships. This changed with the internet.

The first step in the modernization of social relations led to the transition from traditional communities to large societies with a division of labor. The weakening of ties occurred in local relationships, but also in individuals’ bonds with their work and neighborhood.

Today, we can say that the internet has taken an additional step: the virtualization of social relations has allowed for the creation of small groups, united by shared passions, which we have become accustomed to calling communities. Much of what we see in them contradicts the classical definition of the term:

• They lack physical proximity. Proximities are emotional, intellectual, hedonic, etc.
• The relationships are fragmented: users do not live within the community but access it. Some do frequently, others only once (like someone solving a Linux question in a forum, for instance); some are active, others merely observe. The bonds between members last as long as the interests and passions for those topics last. It could be an hour, it could be decades.
• Relationships often have a metrified superficiality. The status of community members may be indirectly measured by likes, posts, shares. Truth be told, any community, even traditional ones, had prestige as a central point—but here it becomes metrified, and even more transparent, but in a simplistic way.
• They are inclusive and exclusive. Most are easy to join, but many may have frequent symbolic exclusions through algorithms or cancellations.

The above points demonstrate aspects in which virtualized communities are more fragile than traditional ones. However, as Mark Granovetter pointed out³, there is strength even in networks of weak ties. Paradoxically, this type of social organization is more effective in spreading new information. This is because weak ties connect many different groups: it is easy to move to another forum, another social network, collect information, return, and stay connected. In traditional communities with strong ties, the social circle of those people is more closed, meaning they already share the same knowledge and opinions. As a result, information overlaps.

Much of the early internet optimism, especially with the creation of a marketplace of ideas, was born precisely from the view that weak ties can be highly aggregative in terms of information. Pierre Lévy even called this phenomenon collective intelligence—when, through collaboration, individuals aggregate knowledge that is originally dispersed⁴. Open source projects embody this spirit well.

The Superior Force

Communities of the past were highly traditional, with religion playing a central role in their structure. Belief in a higher power was common ground among quite distinct groups.

Although religion is not a relevant theme for shaping virtualized communities, they certainly have a higher force. Effective, even when ignored. When we talk about X/Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, Bluesky, Threads, and Reddit, we are not merely talking about social spaces but, above all, interfaces mediated by algorithms. The community relationships will be limited by rules created by forces external to them: behaviors that may lead to bans, availability of functionalities, character limits, among many possibilities. They may even have their own legal regime, but they are subject, first and foremost, to the legal order of a superior force that can ban them entirely.

Thus, it is easy to question the authenticity of some communities. They may grow through artificial boosts or interactions that literally occur between bots. Is a community full of bots still a human community? In the classical definition, these groups were based on the generation of social cohesion; but do they are still communities when their foundation is driven by a system architected to generate profit and, often, conflict?

The superior force of virtualized communities is not a belief; it is a reality. There is little room to negotiate with these deities; they do not hear the group’s prayers or fulfill their wishes. This is not even considered, as futile as the attempt might seem.

The Technical Cure (Pharmakon)

Even though they are ephemeral, communities exist as spaces of belonging. It is not uncommon for someone to identify or describe themselves through their group—geek, swiftie, open sourcerer, Marvel fan, among many others.

Bernard Stiegler coined the concept of Pharmakon to address possible paths of healing through the use of technique. Here, the feeling of belonging can be applied in this way⁵. As we mentioned earlier, the modern world weakened bonds and turned relationships into ephemerality. The internet virtualizes this ephemerality and breaks geographical barriers to bring together people who share passions and interests. Thus, they create networks that support each other psychologically and sometimes even materially, through resource exchanges. This act of belonging to something can fill existential voids left by the weakening of bonds. However, the use of the Greek term Pharmakon is intentional due to its ambiguity: it can be translated as both remedy and poison, reinforcing an uncertainty that seems to haunt any moral analysis of the recent virtual world.

The world remains fragmented, but at least now each fragment of the self, though shattered, belongs to something. The problem arises when it ends up belonging to something even more harmful than the void.

Communities as Shared Meanings

So, we return to the first question: are we talking about communities here? In a classic book called Imagined Communities, Benedict Anderson describes how the community sense of entire nations can arise from a sense of belonging generated by shared symbols, narratives, and institutions: this is present in a national flag, the anthem, shared local myths⁶. One person knows a very small part of the nation they live in but shares with it myths and beliefs that everyone knows and venerates. You can recognize someone from your nation without ever having seen them before.

Virtualized communities are not as vast and have no geographical boundaries. But they are, above all, defined by the meanings they share: they have their own language, their internal jokes, their prestigious references. Geertz sees communities in general as cultural and symbolic phenomena⁷. When dealing with these digital groups, we are talking about symbols often understood only by their members. An outsider who parachutes into a Python community will not understand what is being debated in that place. And make no mistake, this doesn’t just happen in epistemic groups. The same would happen with an outsider in a Kpop community or listening to gamers talking while playing. Understanding the symbols depends on the initiation of its members.

We are indeed talking about communities, but of a specific kind—new and temporally located. They are not the communities Tönnies and Durkheim described in classical sociology. If in the modern era humanity moved from a community of strong ties to a society of ephemeral relations, the contemporary era, with the advent of the internet, has blended the two realities. On one hand, it is as if we are seeking to return to that sense of belonging that existed in traditional communities, virtually filling a collective void. On the other hand, we maintain modern freedom, shifting between interests and passions in a fragmented manner.

Virtualized communities are real communities, just different. Previously, community belonging was total and as eternal as one’s life. Today, we find new ways to belong communally, and we belong to many of them simultaneously, but we also live with renunciations, distancing ourselves as easily as we come closer.

1. TÖNNIES, Ferdinand. Community and Society. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1957.  ↩︎
2. DURKHEIM, Émile. De la division du travail social. Paris: Félix Alcan, 1893. Tradução para o inglês: The Division of Labor in Society. New York: The Free Press, 1997.  ↩︎
3. GRANOVETTER, Mark. “The Strength of Weak Ties”. American Journal of Sociology, v. 78, n. 6, 1973, p. 1360-1380.  ↩︎
4. LÉVY, Pierre. Cibercultura. Tradução de Carlos Irineu da Costa. São Paulo: Editora 34, 1999. ↩︎
5. STIEGLER, Bernard. Technics and Time, 2: Disorientation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2008.  ↩︎
6. ANDERSON, Benedict. Comunidades imaginadas: reflexões sobre a origem e a expansão do nacionalismo. Tradução de Denise Bottmann. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2008.  ↩︎
7. GEERTZ, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1973.  ↩︎