Discussion leader/summarizer: PaulResnick

Key Points/Claims

There are three modes of belonging: engagement, imagination, and alignment. The various types of communities (of practice, of affinity, of taste, of interest, of geography, etc.) can be understood as combinations of these three modes of belonging.

Belonging (identity) through engagement has been the main theme of the book. But the limits of time and space make it impossible to have belonging through engagement in very large groupings (entire universities, countries, ethnic groups, etc.)

Belonging through imagination is when you envision some common characteristic or history or future trajectory that unifies a group of people. It is in this sense that I am a member of the "community of scholars". I imagine some commonality with other members of this community.

Belonging through alignment occurs when our actions align with that of others to get something done. The university can't function without custodians and people playing many other roles. All of our actions align to make the university function as it does. Belonging through imagination (M Go Blue) may be one important source of alignment, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient for alignment. Where imagination is about commonality, alignment is about coalitions.

The work of belonging

There are nice lists of what kind of work is involved in belonging through engagement, imagination, and alignment. I call out just a few that struck me.

For imagination:

• putting yourself in someone else's shoes
• locating our engagement in broader systems at larger geographic or social aggregation, or extending across time.
• excusions to distant practices: visiting, talking, observing, meeting
• generating and using reifications (scenarios, stories, etc.)

For alignment:

• using power and authority
• convincing, inspiring, uniting (the latter two create alignment by invoking imagination of others)
• defining broad visions and aspirations (again invoking imagination)
• devising procedures and control structures
• creating boundary practices
• using boundary objects to create fixed points to coordinate around

Critique

It's not always easy to think of alignment without imagination, but he does provide enough examples that I'm convinced they're separable. I really like having the three building blocks out with which to think about all kinds of groupings (communities of...)

Connections with other readings, ideas, etc.

Belonging through imagination is most closely connected with the social identity theories we saw earlier in the semester in Walther2002, Sassenberg2002 and especially Hogg2001. The group prototype, whether explicitly articulated or not, defines the imagined commonality of the people in the group. SIDE (Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects) theory even emphasizes that learning more about the individuals in the group detract from people's identification with (feeling of belonging to) the group, since it makes it harder to maintain the imagined commonality.

Discussion

LaurieBuis: Like PaulResnick, I enjoyed this chapter quite a bit... it just made sense to me. It provided an interesting way of looking at communities that I hadn't necessarily thought about before.

LindaYu: A rather frightening example of imagination being unnecessary for alignment in offline situations would be that of torturers. They express the authority of the group, but have completely cut off some aspect of imagination due to their work. Being able to put yourself in someone else’s shoes is not advisable in hurting others. Yet they can still believe that their work is of benefit to their group. Lack of imagination can also be associated with less dramatic but still unpleasant behavior online, where one is unwilling or has not enough time or energy to imagine the other as someone with feelings.