I'd like to add that Edward Casey's *Fate of Place* is also a stimulating set of reflections and history of the concepts involved, Kevin Tharp <k.tharp@cqu.edu.au> writes:
Regarding the place - space conversation, a question comes to my mind. When we invest of ourselves in cyberspaces or cyberplaces, are we investing in the space/place, or are we investing in the people that occupy that space/place.
I'd say we are investing in what we can do as well. That clearly involves the people, but it also involves the demands of offline life, the way it fits in with our online activities and so on. It is possible certain structures of online forums might facilitate different kinds of actions, different kinds of interactions etc. They m ight also attract different kinds of people. Thus giving the feel of different kinds of space or place. And it would be the ability to make the comparisons between forums, and sites and what they enable, which make them seem like different kinds of 'locale' (to use the term I prefer :), to an extent which is not the case with 'phone space' or 'TV space' where only a limited set of relatively uniform actitons are possible.
As a researcher/practitioner in the development of cyber**aces that can encourage and support the interaction between the people of a geographic locality, it seems to me that an understanding of such things lies in the perceptions of the people that appropriate them as part of their lives.
So yes, if its a community forum that we are thinking of, then the way this enables actions in the community is really important. otherwise people will continue to use the old channels for many things - if not everything. The old channels will support old power networks for one. If the community computer network becomes a local business spam channel for example it will probably be abandoned pretty quickly - at least more quickly than a bushfire or flood alert channel might be. So there are issues of power to begin with. The network is never 'pure'.
Similar to the concept of community (dare I use such word in educated company), it is not the infrastructure that makes the community, it is the people that make the community. The community is then supported by the infrastructure.
I'd suggest that the infrastructure is not quite that passive. The infra structure allows certain types of community to form, and is in turn shaped by the politics of that community and may reinforce those politics. The more permanent the structure the more it enstructures. But even a permanent shifting structure enables certain behaviours more than others. These structures can then largely determine who interacts with who and thus which people ally with each other, which people compete with each other, which people become the pivital points of communication, which people get defined as outsiders, criminals or heretics and so on. jon UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F DISCLAIMER ======================================================================== This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views the University of Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects. ========================================================================