Article Preview
TopIntroduction
Amidst a widespread concern over the loss of social capital and “place” in America, sociologists Oldenburg and Brissett (1982) provided the third place as a solution. Defined as social venues that provide a support network developed through friendships where individuals socialize primarily through conversation, the concept of third place developed as part of a larger dialogue surrounding issues of social structure in postwar twentieth-century America (Oldenburg & Brissett, 1982; Putnam, 2000; Vaux, 2015). Looking to social venues successful in past generations as models, Oldenburg (1989) argues that creating third places mediates perceived losses of social connection. More than thirty years later, as “a new generation creates virtual communities and home (pages) in cyberspace” (Lawson, 2004, p. 125), researchers continue to study third places, including literature on virtual environments. However, many of these researchers continue to measure third places based on characteristics defined by Oldenburg for physical environments, even though some studies have shown the incongruence of these criteria for virtual environments (Memarovic et al., 2014; McArthur & White, 2016; Soukup, 2006; Wright, 2012). A need exists to recognize and address current socializing trends occurring on the internet in order to update third places to represent the way people connect in twenty-first century culture. Therefore, the goal of this study is to provide revised third place characteristics representative of evolving socialization based on criteria identified in the literature on third place environments. Evolving third place characteristics are inclusive of those defined by Oldenburg as well as criteria generally accepted in the literature of both virtual and physical third place environments. Additionally, these new characteristics extend the criteria to include evolving socializing trends already identified in the literature on virtual third places.
The discussion of whether physical or virtual environments can support human interaction and social capital is not new. Originally, scholars debated about whether environments reliant upon technology could provide the benefits of social capital available in physical third places. For example, sociologist Robert Putnam (2000) largely attributed the loss of social capital in America to urban sprawl and the rise of late twentieth-century materialism. Putman’s primary target of blame for the alarming rate of attrition was the rise of “television and other forms of electronic entertainment” (p. 246). Putnam was not alone in his concern over the role of technology in the apparent loss of community in American social life.
Sociologists Oldenburg and Brissett (1982) also argue that technology is a deterrent to socialization. As with Putnam, they attributed technology as a contributor to social decline. However, they argued that American socializing had not so much disappeared but evolved with societal changes. They proposed the third place as an opportunity to develop social relationships beyond the constraints of the American two-stop model of work and home. Oldenburg (1999) defined eight characteristics that contribute to the sociability of third places. These include: (1) neutral ground, (2) leveler, (3) conversation, (4) accessibility and accommodation, (5) regulars, (6) low profile, (7) playful mood, and (8) home away from home. Based on these characteristics, past cultures were replete with physical third places, including environments such as pubs and coffee houses, where individuals built community and sustained social capital. Oldenburg defines third places as ordinary physical environments, which he refers to as “low-profile” settings. The physical locale and easy access–preferably in route between work and home–facilitates the playful conversation of regulars. Even though Oldenburg specifically argues against access to technology in third places, more recent studies associate virtual environments with third places.