Classical theories of community
Until recently, conventional usages of the term ‘community’ in the human
sciences had tended to render it as a formalization or deviation from what
Émile Durkheim described as the conscience collective, which he defines
as ‘the set of beliefs and sentiments common to the average members of a
single society [which] forms a determinate system that has its own life’
(cited in Lukes, 1973: 4). This ‘life of its own’ is one which earns it the
status of a ‘social fact’, having an effectivity and role to play in social inte-
gration. Conscience collectivesare typically based on organized core values
such as those exhibited by a religion. In such a case, a social group, or
even entire societal forms, can be enveloped by a system of belief which
becomes an overarching organizing mechanism of association.
Such an overwhelming centralized means of association, which
Durkheim associated with traditional or ‘mechanical’ societies, was becom-
ing attenuated by the advance of modern societies. Religion itself comes
into crisis as the institution of the church becomes just one of a plurality
of institutional sub-systems.
The move to what Durkheim called ‘organic soldarity’ is also marked
by an increasing division of labour that becomes the organizing agent for
social integration. The individualism inherent in specializing in a job
becomes a basis for differentiation, which is itself elevated to a belief and
a basis for a new kind of solidarity. Thus, for Durkheim, there is less stress
on the conscience collectiveas being based on ideas, and more on the recog-
nition of the importance of institutions, from family, to education, to work-
place, and, at the same time, a recognition of the necessity of the division
of labour.
A much neglected aspect of Durkheim’s account of the conscience
collectiveis his emphasis on the importance of material social facts: the
institutions of society, population density, but also ‘the number and
nature of channels of communication’. The material, structural features of
a society radically shape the forms of association which they can facilitate
(Durkheim, 1982: 58).
As populations increase, and the urban architecture which they co-
habit becomes more and more private, the so-called ‘dynamic density’ of
society begins to change. In such conditions, the means of communication
and transportation become vital to maintaining anything like the kind of
community found in pre-industrial, pre-media kinds of societies. The forms
associated with this kind of society – what Tönnies called Gemeinschaft–
have, in media societies, all but hollowed out. Besides Gemeinschaftenof reli-
gion, Tönnies lists Gemeinschaftenof language, and of place, as the most
important basis for such forms of solidarity (Tönnies, 1955). In the modern
era of globalization, these forms are rapidly breaking down.
Gemeinschaftis a form of ‘unity in plurality’, it is close-knit: ‘the inti-
mate, private, exclusive living together – like a family’. This, Tönnies con-
trasts with Gesellschaft, which is a form of plurality in unity. Gesellschaftis168 COMMUNICATION THEORYHolmes-06.qxd 2/15/2005 1:03 PM Page 168