TYPES OF COMMUNITY

Heather Douglas*

INTRODUCTION

With the urbanization, industrialization and globalization of contemporary society,

nostalgia for the traditions of community is recognized (Delanty, 2008). Community
is a vital dimension in modern society and a key element of social organization. The
notion of community suggests positive aspects of society, ‘good things’ that will
improve individual well being by connecting with others, and bring benefits to society
as a whole. Community has emotional overtones, implying familiarity, social and
emotional cohesion, and commitment. It implies a degree of attachment and belonging
and a common sense of identity. Community is anticipated to offer beneficial
contributions to build a strong and vibrant society.

Although difficult to identify precisely what a community is, it is recognized that

many different kinds of community exist. Different communities are based on diverse
arrangements of associations and types of connections. Relationships may be personal
or at a group level. Interactions may be physical, ideological or virtual. The degree of
commitment and involvement may be strong or weak. The feelings of connection
among community members may be positive or negative. Clearly there are different
types of community, and the variety means it is important to have a clear
understanding of which type of community is being discussed.

DEFINITION

No agreed definition exists of exactly what constitutes a community. Community can

be considered as a theoretical concept and a philosophy, such as ‘community spirit’ or
‘connected community’. Alternatively community may be considered as a practice of
engaging and connecting with others for instance ‘creating community’ or ‘building
community’. Often community is used as a substitute term for locality, but
community exists well beyond physical places. Indeed, Hillery (1955) identified 94
different types. Brint (2001) suggests communities are connected primarily through
common emotions and personal interests in one another. He defines communities as
‘aggregates of people who share common activities and/or beliefs and who are bound
together principally by relations of affect, loyalty, common values, and/or personal
concern (i.e. interest in the personalities and life events of one another).’ This
definition is, however, a little romantic by not attending adequately to negative
communities. Community is not always positive, proactive and committed. Not all
community interactions are friendly; yet strong communities can exist even if
relations are not amicable, or the aim is not to benefit others, or the motivation for
interaction is not moral.

A community may be defined as a set of meaningful social connections in a group of

any size where members have something in common. A community is social. It is a
web of some kind of relationships. A community operates within certain boundaries
that are agreed among members either tacitly or explicitly. Each community
establishes traditions and patterns of behavior which may be implied or written as
rules. Members of a community share some kind of a bond such as location, interests,
background or identity, situations or experiences. Thus a community is a social
institution, that is, a stable structure and agreed set of procedures and conventions that
provides social order and meaning (Scott, 2001 p. 34).

An alternative definition of community is more functional and focused on the purpose

of the activity. For instance Porter (2006) defines a virtual community as an
‘aggregation of individuals or business partners who interact around a shared interest,
where the interaction is at least partially supported and/or mediated by technology and
guided by some protocols or norms’. This definition has some merit. It considers the
special nature of the shared interests along with protocol and norms, and as in Brint’s
definition above, it implies aspects of a relationship. Many virtual communities are
social exchanges shared between people who may, or may not, be able to identify
respondents. Porter’s definition, however, has some limitations in that not all virtual
communities are connected to business.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The notion of ‘community’ can be traced to Aristotle’s concept of polis. This was the
public arena in which debates could occur to refine concepts of higher qualities, such
as happiness, virtue and the common good. During the Enlightenment vigorous
debates and reviews of social systems reemerged. Ferdinand Tönnies ([1897] 1951)
usually is credited with articulating the concept of community as a system of social
interactions occurring in an identifiable space. Tönnies compared and described 19th
Century life, and proposed modern society was in transition from village to urban
settings. Since educated people of this time were expected to know English, French
and German, there was considerable interaction and transfer of information between
scholars, enabling other early sociologists to extend the notion of community. Karl
Marx, Max Weber and Emile Durkheim investigated the social transformation of
traditional communities associated with industrialization and urbanization. Durkheim
scrutinized modern social relations in organizations such as the church and care
institutions. He proposed community as sophisticated and complex interactions with
religion as a bonding mechanism that sets norms of behavioral interactions and ties
communities together. Weber also examined religion although he is better known for
his work describing the internal communities entrenched within large bureaucracies.
Marx concentrated on the emergence of capitalism and examined the divisions in
society and disruptions to social traditions and relationships during urbanization. The
hub of sociology moved to the US as the two World Wars interrupted academic life in
Europe.

Many early community researchers in the USA undertook place based studies, with
the Chicago School leading the way in urban ecology techniques. Studies such as
those by Gans (1962) and Young and Wilmott (1960) provided rich descriptions of
community life. These studies painted rich, in depth understandings of activities,
functions and rhythms of life in villages, small towns and rural communities. Warmth
and supportive social connections are described as a core part of small community
life, but studies also identified a variety of divisions, conflicts and social stratification
in communities that on the surface appeared cohesive. In general these studies are less
concerned to categorize different types of communities than to describe the
functioning and relationships among community members. Later studies commenced
during the expansion of sociology in the 1970s examined fringe communities, such as
gays, street dwellers and community activists.

The nature of community continues to be debated. Contemporary community is

shaped by cognitive and symbolic structures that are not necessarily underpinned by
interactive spaces and social intimacy. Community may result from imaged or virtual
connections as described by Benedict Anderson (Anderson, 1991). Contemporary
liberal democratic societies are organized within particular political structures and
economic conditions which influence societal arrangements. The qualities of civil
society and social organization, meaningful relationships and moral life,
communitarianism, liberalism and economic exchange, are proposed by authors such
as Amitai Etzioni, John Rawls, Francis Fukuyama and Robert Putnam. Communities
are recognized as not being homogenous in social or economic arrangements, but
rather vary in specific practices and different arrangements of behaviors (Little, 2002).
Communities may be havens of citizen commitment to the common good, but they
exhibit vices as well as virtues. There is growing recognition that each community is
unique and organic, and that fostering and developing structures and systems relevant
to each particular situation can be beneficial.

COMMUNITY TYPOLOGIES

Many different types of community exist. Each type has different characteristics,
purpose, membership requirements, and traditions of interactions. Each community
institutes accepted arrangements of engaging with other members, establishes
customary forms of relationships, and determines particular conventions for
interactions and ways of maintaining contact. Researchers, policy makers and
practitioners have a clearer understanding of different types of communities if they
are systematically and precisely defined, however, few typologies of communities
have been published. This is quite surprising given the lack of consensus regarding
appropriate definitions, or agreement on categorization.

Tönnies distinguished two types of communities. On the one hand was the simplicity
of village life (community or Gemeinschaft), then there were complex social
relationships in urban environments (society or Gesellschaft). In Tönnies’ view, these
two kinds of communities had alternative and opposing characteristics. Community is
relatively childlike, where interactions are close and frequent among small numbers of
familiar residents and members have a common way of life and beliefs. In
community, traditions and systems of interactions are relatively stable. In contrast,
[urban] society is proposed as mature social relations where interactions are more
distant and infrequent among a large number of relatively unknown citizens whose
lifestyles and beliefs are different and change constantly. This view has some merit as
an analysis of the rapidly changing urban culture of the time. It still offers a useful
starting point to study rural and urban populations, but it is less relevant to distinguish
among the many and varied types of communities that exist in urban and rural areas.

By the middle of the 20th Century, different types of communities were classified
according to rituals, density of relationships, and involvement with organized
activities particularly in small groups (Brint, 2001). Less tangible cultural elements
also categorized different types of communities, particularly common belief systems
and the perception of similarities among the population. Hillery (1955) identified
elements that characterized communities as geographic area, kinship, self sufficiency
or separateness, common lifestyle and type of social interactions(Marshall, 1998 pp.
97-8).

Worsley (1987) organized Hillery’s elements into an early typology of three different
community types. Locality forms the foundation of the first kind of community.
Neighborhoods, villages and some bounded urban areas can be identified by residents
and outsiders as a community, thus they have a ‘sense of place’ (Stedman, 2002). In a
second type of community, members share some common features and have some
sense of collective identity. This is sometimes called a ‘sense of community’ (Kim &
Kaplan, 2004). The sense of community may be based on an identifiable characteristic
such as ethnicity, or a common experience of disadvantage, or to those who belong to
a particular profession. The third type of community is established by common
feelings, understandings and sense of belonging among members who establish a
‘community spirit’ (Etzioni, 1993; Rovai, 2002). Members have a sense of connection
based on a network of relationships and interactions which may or may not be through
physical interactions. The relationships are mostly positive and reciprocal, but not
always. For example, this type of community is evident among those who have a
strong commitment to a cause.

Worsley’s typology extends earlier concepts and the two types of communities
proposed by Tönnies, but it is still very general. Delanty (2008) suggests four ways of
conceptualizing community. First, community may be viewed as social connections,
identity, and a sense of belonging. A second approach may imply social and spatial
disadvantage that requires recognition and a response from government. Third,
community may be envisaged as organized political and collective action for change
and improvement for an identified group of disadvantaged people. Finally,
community may be conceptualized beyond traditional concepts of place, and positions
social relationships within imagined ideological or technological environments.

Others have proposed typologies of specific types of communities. For instance,

Schubert and Borkman (1991) outline a typology based on organizational structures.
While this is only intended to apply to self-help groups, it offers some helpful
concepts to consider a broader range of types of communities. The two dimensions of
this typology (internal power and authority systems and external dependence on
resources) result in five types: Unaffiliated, Federated, Affiliated, Hybrid and
Managed. This typology is helpful to understand the different organizational systems,
but it relates more to communities of organizations than to other types of
communities, for instance, it has limited applicability to virtual communities.

Wellman (2002) describes three iterations of modern community. The first is

traditional, closely knit communities that Wellman describes as ‘Little Boxes’. These
traditionally place based communities have tight, dense ties among members, the
community is tightly bounded, and regular interactions among residents provide a
wide range of social support and companionship (1999 p. xiii). In essence, these
traditional communities are similar to Tönnies Gemeinschaft. These traditional
communities have transformed into ‘Glocalized’ networks in which clusters of
households are linked both locally and globally. In Wellman’s view, modern
community now has become ‘Networked Individualism’ where individual members
are sparsely linked without regard to physical space. These contemporary networked
communities are loosely bounded, that is most ties are not within a single locality.
Interaction occurs between a minority of members, and communities provide a limited
range of social support and companionship to members. Although the interactions
among members of contemporary communities are not visible, they are no less
important in the contribution they offer to the well being of individual members.

Brint’s (2001) typology is one of the few available to classify distinctly different types
of contemporary communities. The foundations of his community typology are 1)
physical interactions among members, 2) the frequency and priority placed on
interactions among members, and 3) the primary motivation for interaction. Brint’s
typology has four levels of variables with alternative options at each level:

Basis of relationship: geographic or choice

Reason for interaction: activity or belief
Location of other members: concentrated or dispersed in space
Amount of interaction: frequent or infrequent

Eight community types emerge from these alternatives:

Geographic communities:
1. small scale communities of place and neighborhood groups
2. local friendship networks, primarily activity based
3. communes and collectives
4. local friendship networks, primarily cultural
Choice based communities:
5. activity based elective communities
6. belief based elective communities
7. imagined communities
8. virtual communities

Brint’s typology attempts to provide a systematic process to organize communities. It

assists to understand some of the varieties evident in contemporary communities,
however there are some limitations. This classification system does no explain
different types of membership systems. It does not cover many contemporary
communities, such as the specialized community of education and learning practice
(Barton & Tusting, 2005; Wenger, 1998). Likewise the dark side of community does
not fit readily into this framework, for instance crime syndicates which have strong,
bounded connections that are not necessarily based on friendships, activities or
beliefs. In addition, socially oppressed or excluded communities – such as the
homeless or slavery – are not easily accommodated into Brint’s typology. The
addition of some of these concepts into a new typology would assist to further clarify
different types of communities.

In essence, the characteristics of the community members and system of interactions

differentiate different types of communities. These structural and intangible cultural
characteristics are equally applicable to distinguish various types of modern
communities, for instance virtual communities; however they are insufficient to
classify the many different types of modern virtual communities.
KEY ISSUES

A community implies a sense of belonging, connection, communication and

interaction. Community can be understood to as the life people live in dense networks
of relationships. Community is not a place or an aggregation of population, but a
mode of relating (Calhoun, 1998). Communities institutionalize arrangements for
individual actions, and provide measures for conflicts to be resolved (Habermas,
1998). It can be considered as a system for change: structure, problems, development,
and action (Sussman, 1978).

Attachment to a community is known to confer benefits and improve well being

(Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003). Belonging to community is viewed almost as a
necessity to have a meaningful life. For example, Kegley (1997) writes about
engaging with ‘genuine community’ as a means of improving individual well being
by strengthening knowledge, intentionality and enlightenment. In this sense,
community is a substitute for spirituality, a way of engaging in and understanding a
greater force for good that offers guidance and personal philosophy for living. In
general this is proposed as an individual benefit, however the ‘health’ of different
types of communities also varies (Kawachi, Kennedy, & Wilkinson, 1999).

Communication is suggested as the core element that binds a community (Miller,

1992). The process of engaging and building connections within a community is
described as ‘building community’. A sense of community connection can be built
among members either accidentally, or via a deliberate and informed process.
Systematic and deliberate community building involves thinking, feeling and doing.
Kelly and Sewell (1998) describe this method of community building as using ‘head,
heart or hand’. Head is a capacity for knowing: a logical, rational, thinking connection
based on a judgment of anticipated benefit to the person or others for whom there is a
close attachment. Heart is a facility for feeling: enacted with a sense of purpose,
commitment and emotion. Hand is a competence of doing: a service based on various
techniques to achieve a result. While these may be combined as pairs of actions,
combining as all three is much more powerful and successful to form a strong and
stable attachment to a community of choice. The process can be applied to build all
types of contemporary communities, even those that may have no physical
interactions, or those without a positive goal.

Some types of communities function well and have good connections among
members. Other types build connections among members aimed not to accomplish
social cohesion, but rather have negative anti social goals and aim to achieve social
disruption. Dark types of communities are strongly oppressive or exploitive and result
in systematic social exclusion of those who do not conform to an expected behavior or
condition. The foundation of exclusionary types of communities may be class, race or
nationality, gender, sexuality, disability or possessions. Anderson (1991) expands on
‘imagined communities’ formed around nationality that build a sense of purpose, and
then may engage in nationalistic endeavors such as invasions or ethnic cleansing.
Weiss and Friedman (1995) provide a comprehensive overview of exclusionary
community based on gender. Likewise Paoli (2003) describes the mafia crime
brotherhood as an exploitive community. When oppression is not considered
legitimate, however, the oppressed may bond into their own tight knit community to
offer mutual support or engage in counter actions.
Over time, communities change. The activities, membership and ways of interacting
may alter. Communities may falter and fold, or evolve into new forms. Many lament
that community is disappearing in modern, industrialized western societies. For
instance, Brock (2008) insists modern communities are fragmented and at odds, with
people living in their ‘own worlds’. The loss of community is tied to a supposed
depletion of social capital where fewer citizens now belong to civil society
organizations (Putnam, 1995). There is no doubt physical interactions occur less
regularly among residents, especially in modern cities, however others are less
despondent that community is in decline, but suggest instead that new types of
community are emerging. Contemporary communities are qualitatively different from
traditional place based communities. Contemporary communities rely less on regular
physical interactions, than on virtual contact that informs the member and fulfills a
need for information or interaction. A sense of community may be established among
members even when contact is irregular and members never meet. The need for
meaningful relationships is now provided by virtual friendship communities rather
than from regular interaction with a close knit family. Virtual communities offer
members a sense of belonging, communication media, and personal benefits.
Members who belong to social network systems, virtual dating and chat communities
are as much involved in their communities as residents of traditional neighborhood
communities. Virtual communities exist around common interests without members
ever needing to meet physically. The common interests are diverse, for instance ham
radio operators, world wide book crossing exchange groups, or professional
communities of practice connected via the Internet.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

A gap is apparent between understanding community as a practice of physical and

social interactions, and considering community as a political philosophy. Frequently
the extent of diversity and pluralism in communities is neglected. There is a clear
need to develop a new typology of communities to help organize and understand the
variation evident in different kinds of communities. Modern communities are a
network of relationships which form around an interest or other aspect members have
in common. Each community evolves particular conventions of behavior and actions.
This concept helps to understand the variation in connections among members of
different types of contemporary communities, but offers little to help appreciate the
differences that distinguish one type of community from another. Membership of each
type of community varies: it may be established by voluntary association, or conferred
by existing members. Communities may be established by geography or choice; they
may be based on activities or beliefs. Different kinds of community result in various
arrangements of interactions, exchanges and relationships, and the various kinds of
community offer different kinds of contributions to daily life. With so many iterations
of community types, an agreed typology would be very useful to assist researchers
and practitioners alike to extend understanding of how various types of communities
form, function and fold.

SEE ALSO

Civil society and social inequality

 th
Civil society, early and mid 20 Century

Collective action

Communitarianism

Community development

Community development organizations

Community based organization

Empowerment

Social cohesion

Uncivil society

Voluntary and community sector

*Heather Douglas works as a Lecturer in Management at RMIT in Melbourne,

Australia. Having been a community practitioner for 30 years, she has researched
community networks, facilitated community building projects, engaged in community
activities, and written on various community issues.

REFERENCES/READINGS

Anderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities. London: Verso.

Barton, D., & Tusting, K. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond communities of practice: language
power and social context. Learning in doing: social, cognitive and
computational perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Brint, S. (2001). Gemeinschaft revisited: A critique and reconstruction of the
community concept. Sociological Theory, 19(1), 1-23.
Brock, P. (2008). Community: the structure of belonging. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler Publishers.
Brown, B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing
neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 23(3), 259-271.
Calhoun, C. (1998). Community without propinquity revisited: communications
technology and the transformation of the urban public sphere. Sociological
Inquiry, 68(3), 373-397.
Delanty, G. (2008). Community. Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community: rights, responsibilities, and the
communitarian agenda. New York: Crown.
Gans, H. (1962). The urban villagers: groups and class in the life of Italian
Americans. New York: Free Press.
Habermas, J. (1998). The inclusion of the other: studies in political theory.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hillery, G. A. (1955). Definitions of community: areas of agreement. Rural Sociology,
20 (2), 111–123.
Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., & Wilkinson, R. G. (1999). Crime: social
disorganization and relative deprivation. Social Science & Medicine, 48(6),
719-731.
Kegley, J. A. K. (1997). Genuine individuals and genuine communities. Nashville,
Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press.
Kelly, A., & Sewell, S. (1998). With head heart and hand: dimensions of community
building. Bowen Hills, Brisbane: Boolerong Publications.
Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of
community - New urbanist Kentlands and nearby orchard village.
Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 313-340.
Little, A. (2002). The politics of community: theory and practice. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press.
Marshall, G. (Ed.). (1998). Oxford dictionary of sociology (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Miller, B. (1992). Collective action and rational choice - place, community, and the
limits to individual self-interest. Economic Geography, 68(1), 22-42.
Paoli, L. (2003). Mafia brotherhoods: organized crime, Italian style. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Porter, C. E. (2006). A typology of virtual communities: a multi-disciplinary
foundation for future research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
10 (1), 631-5171.
Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of
Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
Rovai, A. P. (2002). Building sense of community at a distance. The International
Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3(1).
Schubert, M. A., & Borkman, T. J. (1991). An organizational typology for self-help
groups. American Journal of Community Psychology, 19(5), 769-787.
Scott, W. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Stedman, R. C. (2002). Toward a social psychology of place - Predicting behavior
from place-based cognitions, attitude, and identity. Environment and
Behavior, 34(5), 561-581.
Sussman, M. B. (Ed.). (1978). Community structure and analysis. Westport, Conn:
Greenwook Press.
Toennies, F. ([1897] 1951). Gemeinschaft und gesellschaft (community and
society).Translated by Charles P. Loomis. New York: Harper.
Weiss, P. A., & Friedman, M. (Eds.). (1995). Feminism and community. Philadephia:
Temple University Press.
Wellman, B. (1999). Networks in the global village: life in comtenporary
communities. 1999: Westview Press.
Wellman, B. (2002). Little boxes, glocalization, and networked individualism. In
Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 2362, pp. 337-343).
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Worsley, P. (1987). New introductory sociology. London: Penguin.
Young, M., & Wilmott, P. (1960). Family and kinship in East London. London:
Harmondsworth.