Facebook as the new “Third Place”?
In his book The Great Good Place, written almost twenty years ago, Ray Oldenburg wrote about the great “third place” in our lives — not home, not work, but a third place where we relax and socialize with others– barbershops, coffee houses, parks, etc. A place to have civil discourse with others in our locale — talking and shooting the breeze both with those who think like us but also with those who do not share our perspective on all things. Oldenburg laments that these third places are diminishing in popularity.
At the same time, some have suggested that maybe we should not call for coffee shops to return but perhaps it is churches who ought to re-create this third space – that besides work and home the person ought to be deeply connected to a faith community. The characteristics of the third place: a source of renewal, banter, serious discussion, all happening within walking distance from the home, ought to characterize the church — not just the secular third place.
No doubt, we must agree with Oldenburg — our participation has diminished in third places. Where are we spending our time? We are not just bowling alone, as some would say. Many are finding a sense of community online. They are spending their free time catching up with their friends and acquaintances on social networking sites, and increasingly that is Facebook. Has Facebook become this third place? Quite possibly, with some major tweaks. Although it is a place of deep connection and identity formation, it is definitely a different kind of space than the barbership or the physical church building.
As danah boyd (intentionally lowercase) has said, “networked publics” differ from physical communities in at least four ways: persistence, searchability, replicability, and invisible audiences. Persistence – people have access to you 24/7. Searchability — people can find you and what you are up to. Replicability – what you write/say/photograph/video can be copied again and again. Invisible Audiences — you have no sense of who is staring at you – who is reading your wall – is it your friend, boss, or grandma?
Clearly, these four aspects of online social networking offer a different understanding of community than Oldenburg — they limit some aspects and augment others. Could it be that we are seeing not a poorer sense of community, just a different kind of community emerging?
Just as some envisioned the church as Oldenburg’s type of community offline, what about envisioning what the church can be through boyd’s categories? Clearly, to dream of Oldenburg’s community in an online environment is nostalgic and misses the mark. How about dreaming about what God might be doing in these four new aspects of ‘networked publics’: cultures of persistence, searchability, replicability, and invisible audiences?
To compare online community to offline community has limited benefit. Online community will always be significantly different than its offline counterparts. But might we see God’s goodness there, might we see practices of forgiveness, service, love of of the other? Of course, redemption is possible in any culture. Better than holding up online community to an arbitrary standard, perhaps we need to spend some time re-imagining what the reign of God might look like in these new virtual cultures.
10 comments »
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
“perhaps we need to spend some time re-imagining what the reign of God might look like in these new virtual cultures.” To me, this is the money quote. It seems that so many devalue the kind of community that is being developed virtually (usually without giving it much thought and or reflection)…and as a result will not take the time and spend the creative energy “re-imaging what the reign of God might look like in these new virtual cultures.” People must be opened up to the possibility of virtual space functioning as this third place in order for this re-imaging to begin.
Comment by Kevin Sweeney — February 12, 2010 @ 11:54 pm
Kevin, thanks for responding. I agree – debating whether our social networks are community or not is pointless. It is what we have to work with — let’s not pretend we can wish them out of existence. Instead, let’s throw our imagination at it and maybe we’ll see see some pretty wonderful things…peace
Comment by Ryan Bolger — February 13, 2010 @ 12:15 am
Youare spot on with this, Ryan. I argued similarly about this and other digital cultures and vidoegames in my chapter contribution to the new book Halos & Avatars (Westminster John Knox, 2010), and that this is a demonstration of humanity as homo faber, the maker of cultures as an expression of the imago dei. Thanks for probing this topic.
Comment by John W. Morehead — February 14, 2010 @ 10:15 am
Ryan
I like your comments but I’m not sure FB is an actual 3rd space in the sense that Oldenburg outlines. He laments the loss of these spaces – I have seen the massive growth of FB in the UK in the last couple of months, but I have also seen the massive growth of 3rd spaces, such as coffee shops and gyms where the same people hang out at the same times.
I wonder if FB actually helps to structure the awareness of those 3rd spaces. They were diminishing, but I wonder if the growth spurt of social networking sites allowing friends to invite each other to things may actually be helping a growth in the type of space that Oldenburg was lamenting.
Thanks – you’ve got me thinking
Comment by Rob — February 16, 2010 @ 2:17 am
I agree that more people are, what Faith Popcorn’s folks call, cocooning — essentially, staying home. And that Facebook can become their non-work, non-family social life.
What I’m seeing is the same as Rob – 3rd spaces are on the rise.
I’d suggest this: Facebook is a Parallel Third Space — Facebook allows ‘me’ to see pictures, catch updates, etc. of ‘you’ so that when we DO connect face-to-face, ‘I’ already know what’s going on in ‘your’ life. A conversation that bounces across parallel tracks.
My take on a subject that I’m glad you got me thinking about, Ryan!
David
Seattle, WA
Comment by David M — February 16, 2010 @ 10:31 pm
Facebook is definitely a 3rd space for me, especially since I live in a very rural, New England setting. Although, it is a very unwieldy format, or it could just be operator error. Having 500 friends makes me feel awkward. The distance or lack of being person seems to afford people both a chance to connect with people they ordinarily wouldn’t have a chance to, but also to speak with friends of friends, or have family conversations (sometimes messy or embarrassing) in front of “the world,” and so on. But the semi-permanence of the words on screen makes for different conversation as well. It’s so easy to say things you probably don’t want people to have a record of. For all its weirdness to me, I’ve had rich conversations (mostly through messaging) that I wouldn’t have had otherwise. But I don’t live on Facebook. Rather, I move to/away from it, depending.
Comment by ConnectiNick — February 16, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
I can see Facebook as “a” third place but struggle to see it as “the” third place. But with family and work people joining up, can’t it be said to be a first and second place as well?
Comment by Matt Stone — March 8, 2010 @ 4:42 am
I think folks are too spread out these days. We drive a half hour to church. Facebook does “kind of” bring us together… but cyber presence just isn’t the same as the physical. But it does help us stay connected. Sometimes we need to really be there. To help out that widow or single mom with things around the house. You know what I mean. Spontaneous helping and daily interaction is lost when we are not in close proximity to one another. Today’s world has spread us all out. I miss not being geographically close to one another in the church. Makes it more difficult to really BE the church IMHO.
Comment by David Lingner — March 14, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
I dont know about the term ‘Third Place’. Sounds all very post modern.
For me Facebook has become a place for authentic fellowship. I notice that it also attracts many other chritians who are so desperately seeking authentic christian fellowship but all they can find is church.
Even a cycber community seems better than no community at all and FB also provides group contact for those on mission or who are seperated geographically from friendship and close fellowship.
Cyber church or community has a very empowering benefit because theology can be discussed by all and all can PARTICIPATE in learning.
Often an individual church or denomination has prevailing doctrine which is prescriptive rather than allowing pilgrims to develop an understanding. Such strong doctrinal or directional control does not leave room for spiritual development in a natural way of journeying in truth, but is rather more prescriptive. You are expected to fall into line with this or leave.
Cyber communities do not feel the need to exercise this control so long as people are not being abusive or derogatory but patient and respectful. They are not trying to build or maintain empires and they can be overseen passivlely most of the time. The group IQ (understanding and experience) when shared, along with with accurate understanding of scripture, brings greater understanding and revelation. Leadership are not threatened by differences, there jobs are not at stake, they wont loose their pension and they are not trying to get bums on seats or increase the offering.
All genuine participatants can share their undertstanding, hopes, fears, concerns and the congregation are allowed to question and challenge. People can be in error without being judged. Scriptural counsel and inspired counsel are useful for learning, encouraging and rebuking and perhaps anonymity, to whatever degree, aids this.
My observation is that church doctrine or practice is often prescribed and not at all open to true biblical testing or correction or individual liberty.
Jesus journeyed with people in their spiritual development and growth which is key to discipleship. They were all in doctrinal error and of dubious character.
It is my conclusion, that cyber community is an important aid to spiritual growth and discipleship for many. However, it is a shame that for many it has replaced their desperate search for genuine christian community.
It will never replace genuine transformational community. But it does provide a forum to proclaim the good news of the Kingdom.
I say the good news of the Kingdom in preference to the word gospel. There are many gospels out there each aimed to please any amount of itching ears.
Ii is said that when the Kingdom of God comes upon you, there heart is set free….not sure quite what happens when the church comes upon you, but it sure don’t always feel like freedom.
Comment by Ged Stoneman — March 15, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Ryan, stumbled on your site through squidoo. As someone who is relatively new to social networking sites , particularly facebook, it is my observation both internally, and through the interaction I have experienced with freinds, family and associates that indeed these online communities have indeed become the “third place” for many people, and will continue to gain momentum in this direction. May I add a fourth factor, and one I believe to be a major difference and advantage of online communities–convenience. You may also add a fifth factor–money. While I do not foresee christians bailing en masse on physical gatherings, it is my belief we are well under way towards this sea change. The Mayflower has left Plymouth.
Comment by Al Mann — March 24, 2010 @ 9:52 am