the image and the effervescence of large populations. Echoing Lakoff’s
charge that the interactivity of on-line communities is not genuine is the
concept of ‘pseudo-communities’ (see Beninger, 1987; Jones, 1995; Slouka,
1996; Stoll, 1995).^26
What is missing in the critique of virtual community as ‘pseudo-
community’ is a basic but important understanding of the fact that ‘virtual
community’ can seldom be separated from physical community. Too
often, attempts are made to conduct isolated analyses of Net interaction
in isolation from other interactions without considering that ‘[t]he Net is
only one of many ways in which the same people may interact’ (Wellman
and Gulia, 1999: 170). The empirical research of Wellman and Gulia and
the analyses of Castells (2001) are particularly concerned to dispel the
dichotomy between an idealized past of parochial community and the
narcissistic future of physical isolation overcome by virtual association.
Castells wants to show that uses of the Internet are ‘overwhelmingly
instrumental’ and ‘closely connected to the work, family and everyday
life of Internet users’ (118). He is at pains to demonstrate that on-line
activity does not detract from off-line life, and selectively reviews surveys
which show ‘that internet users have larger social networks than non-
users’ (121). Of course, what Castells reinstates is precisely the dichotomy
between real/virtual that he says he wants to overcome. In repeating
what is a commonplace habit in conceptualizing virtual communication,
Castells does not consider use of the Internet to itself be alreadypart of
‘everyday life’ or already ‘social’; rather, it is seen to be simply compati-
ble with, or to enhance, such life and not be a threat to it. In arguing that
email, for example, is predominantly used for ‘work purposes, to [do]
specific tasks, and to keep in touch with family and friends in real life’ (118),
Castells’ actual object is not virtual community or the Internet, but insti-
tutional and face-to-face ‘real life’, defined as ‘real’, in relation to which
communication technology provides a service. Such an approach is inca-
pable of anticipating precisely what is sui generisabout virtual commu-
nity, or that new forms of electronic assembly may exist which enable
forms of interaction not previously practised. To focus on such novelties
of interaction is not to inflate them to the status of a Zeitgeist, but to estab-
lish methodologies to analyse the nature of a new kind of social bond.
Overcoming this recurring dualism between real and virtual,
Kumiko Aoki makes a useful but regularly overlooked distinction
between three domains of virtual community:1 those which totally overlap with physical communities
2 those that overlap with these ‘real-life’ communities to some degree
3 those that are totally separated from physical communities (cited in Foster,
1997: 24).In his review of empirical research discussed above, Castells (2001)
claims that most Net interactions fall into category 1 or 2. Based on this204 COMMUNICATION THEORYHolmes-06.qxd 2/15/2005 1:03 PM Page 204