The Bridging and Bonding Role of Online Communities

A long tradition in sociological theory among writers such as Durkheim, Marx, Weber, Tonnies and Simmel has been concerned about the loss of community and the weakening of the face-to-face relations of Gemeinschaft, a theme revived recently in the work of Robert Putnam (2000). The role of new communication technologies, especially the Internet, has often been regarded as important for this phenomenon by either exacerbating social isolation or by reviving communities ties virtually. Contemporary debates about social capital have noted that many local networks and associations strengthen social cohesion, but another darker downside exists in community life (Portess and Landholt 1996; Edwards and Foley 1998). To understand this phenomena Putnam (2000, 2002) has drawn an important distinction between ‘bridging’ groups that function to bring together disparate members of the community, exemplified by mixed-race youth sports clubs in South Africa or the Civic Forum in Northern Ireland, and ‘bonding' groups that reinforce close-knit networks among people sharing similar backgrounds and beliefs. In Putnam’s words: “Bridging social capital refers to social networks that bring together people of different sorts, and bonding social capital brings together people of a similar sort. This is an important distinction because the externalities of groups that are bridging are likely to be positive, while networks that are bonding (limited within particular social niches) are at greater risk of producing externalities that are negative.” This conceptual distinction should be seen as a continuum rather than a dichotomy, since in practice many groups serve both bridging and bonding functions, but networks can be classified as falling closer to one end of this spectrum or the other. Heterogeneous local associations (such as PTAs and the Red Cross) are believed to have beneficial consequences for building social capital, generating interpersonal trust, and reinforcing community ties. Homogeneous bonding organizations can also serve these positive functions, but the danger is that they can also exacerbate and widen existing social cleavages, especially in pluralist societies splintered by deep-rooted ethno-national, ethno-religious or racial conflict. The dysfunctional types of bonding networks are exemplified by the Ku Klux Klan in Mississipi, La Cosa Nostra in Sicily, or the IRA in Belfast. This distinction raises important questions about how best to promote inclusive networks to foster crosscutting cleavages in divided societies. One problem is that if cities like Belfast, Johannesburg or LA are deeply divided, but local neighborhoods are socially homogeneous, then associations within each area are likely to reflect the background, beliefs, and interests of the predominant group within each community. Fragmented pluralism exacerbates the challenges facing aggregating institutions. Many believe that one important way to overcome these limitations could lie through the transition from territorial communities of place towards online