
Think about a community you're a member of. It could be an online gaming forum, or a bicycling club, or a sports fan group, or an Ingress team. Are you a leader in that group, or one of the members? If you're a leader, are you also a leader in the other groups (if any) you're a part of?
The reason I ask is that I increasingly suspect that the more impact someone has on a specific community or profession or "space," the less likely he/she is to be in a similar role in the other communities he/she is a member of. Why? The time and energy we need to invest to stay on the forefront of any interest -- required for being a prime mover in an interest-based community -- keeps us from doing the same thing in multiple communities. For example, someone who plays a ton of RPGs and keeps up on all the rule changes and expansion sets and community goings on is just not going to have the time and energy to do the same for a rowing club and a woodworking group and a political discussion forum. Interest-based community leadership requires focus, and that precludes serving in that role for multiple communities.
Granted, there are rare individuals who seem to master multiple domains and are natural organizing forces to boot, but they are far more the exception than the rule.
The rest of us end up having to decide: Do I forgo my other interests in order to go deep enough in this one area (obsess over it, if you will) to lead the community, or do I follow along to some extent multiple communities on a more superficial level?
Those of us with broad and varied interests are going to be forced more into the latter role while those with deeper, narrower interests will naturally gravitate towards leadership in the one place they spend all their time. And both modes are totally acceptable -- too many chiefs can be just as much a problem as no chiefs at all.
What do you prefer? Multi-faceted, yet not deep enough to greatly influence the community, or dedicated and influential, but on just one or two topics?
I guess I would say multi-faceted. This may be because I am not terribly interested in being a leader.
ReplyDeleteSerial monogamy ;-)
ReplyDeleteI prefer to the be loyal opposition, or barring that, the adversary.
ReplyDeleteIn communities, I have always been the maverick, independent and advisor of the king.
ReplyDeleteI like this role as it gives me power but leaves me free.
When I was student, I happen to be one of the leaders in the strike committee against one government law.
Students of law university, always very conservative, were not on strike. So, we were sent to convince them. I made the speech, semi improvised. One day before the speech, 20% of the students only wanted to go on strike.
At the end of my speech, 65% voted for the strike.
I felt the change in the theatre when I was speaking. There was like a conversation between me and the group.
I felt the sweetness of directing a crowd, to be a leader or rather a "führer", driver. It's strong, it's a drug.
I felt the sweetness of manipulating a crowd.
At the end of the speech and after a good night, I decided that I will NEVER embrace such a career, politics or being in a power position.
I have a gift of good speaker, I can convince people easily, make them understand what I want.
I prefer to use that for other things than power, I prefer to use it with women, with sales and marketing or in university or adult classes, to pass knowledge.
Power ? Not for me, I know myself: it's too dangerous for me.
Lately I've been leaning to multi-faceted. I feel most comfortable there. I get the sense I'm helping more.
ReplyDeleteThough in my mind I know that if I dedicate on one topic I can go too deep, losing that connection with others. I also fear that at some point I will think my opinion is leading.
I am always amused by this metaphorical use of the word community. I am a leader in my community, the place where I live together with other people. I serve on the Planning Board, as a firefighter/EMT, and as the town's MBI representative. You are correct that being a leader in my community reduces the amount of time I have to spend on hobbies like gaming, hunting, gardening, or hiking.
ReplyDeleteBut, however organized the groups are that I might do those things with, I do not consider them separate communities. They are groups of people within my community. The local rod and gun club is a group within my community. Raspberry Hill Community Garden is a group within my community.
So, just as I decided this year that I don't have time to continue as the town's Wired West delegate or to run for the Selectboard, I also don't have time to volunteer as an officer for the rod and gun club or an organizer for the garden.
I don't see that as competition among communities, but rather just deciding where in my community my time can best be spent.
Brian Holt Hawthorne A "community" is any group of people who choose to associate with each other based on geography, interests, etc., without a formally designated organizational structure or system of leadership. We have a "community" (albeit a rather loose and expansive one) here on G+. The people I interact with most often (yourself included) form a smaller, nuclear community within the larger G+ one. Things that are not communities include prison systems (they aren't voluntary associations) and corporations/businesses (those, like a Boy Scout troop, are organizations, not communities).
ReplyDeleteI'm part of my physical neighborhood community and I'm part of multiple online communities. They're different in their manifestations, but not fundamentally.
Craig Froehle Right. It is that metaphorical extension of that word that always seems off to me, especially when it gets extended to apply to things that are very different from a group of people living together and to apply to things we already have better, more specific words to describe.
ReplyDeleteI don't live in Google+ in any but the most metaphorical of senses, so, no, I don't consider it a community, in any but the most metaphorical of senses. A group of acquaintances and friends? Sure. A forum for exchanging ideas? Yes. I mostly reserve the word community to describe the people who physically live nearby to me.
But, I know I am pretty much alone in this usage, which is why I said I was amused by the metaphorical extension, not opposed to it or offended by it.
As early as 500BC, the Greeks used the word koine, which can translate by community, for the group of people speaking Greek language. That applies to people living in Iberia, Carthage, Alexandria, Athens, Assyria or Crimea.
ReplyDeleteWe had 400 years later the first Christians community, sharing a common religion.
Today, we can say "the biochemist community" or "the Anglican community".
So, there is nothing shocking in Craig Froehle use of community. Community is just people who have things in common , not only physically living near each others. It's not a far fetched or metaphorical definition but, at the contrary, the core of the name. It's the essence of a koine to be scattered.
Olivier Malinur I never described it as shocking. Based on my admittedly iconoclastic ideolect, I referred to it as "amusing".
ReplyDelete