hey ppl,
Because I study Culture and sciences I ve written an essay on PF. Now Im wondering what you flockers thin about it...
Reactions plz!! also, suggestions for a better title are very welcome!!!
PARTYFLOCK: THE THIRD SPACE FOR HOUSE LOVERS
Nowadays, when you meet people at a house party anywhere in the Netherlands, they don’t ask you for your phone number or email address when they want to keep in touch. Instead, they ask you for your Partyflock name. Partyflock is an online community that only has gained popularity since it emerged. Now, it is the most popular dance community website of the Netherlands. Monthly, the site has around 80 million page views (which is about as many as the website of the Telegraaf, a very popular daily newspaper). Partyflock has 115 000 active members and attracts almost 500 000 unique visitors per month. (http://3voor12.vpro.nl/3voor12/magazines/news/index.jsp?portals=2534202&magazines=10719222&news=21884014). In total, PF has had 213 000 registrations. Those visitors get online to check out forthcoming parties, discuss previous parties and get in touch with other house music aficionados. Also, they can discuss whatever subject they are interested in the numerous forums. The forum database is said to be the fourth largest of the world (Wikipedia).
In this essay, I want to defend the thesis that Partyflock is not ‘just another website’. Partyflock, the largest Dutch online community, is not only of importance to the Dutch dance community but for society as a whole: although Partyflock is a virtual community site, it presents real-life benefits. This value is what I want to make clear in this essay.
The concept of the Internet Community
Over the past centuries, there have been numerous debates about the concept of ‘community’. Now, with the emergence of Internet communities, everybody seems to talk about them without having a clear picture of what exactly such a community is. For this reason, I will try to clarify the concept. First of all, several factors are needed for an Internet community to exist: people, a purpose, policies and computer systems. People are needed to interact socially while they pursue their own needs and goals. They need to have a shared purpose, for example information exchange. This provides them with a reason to join, and stay, in the community. Further, policies, such as (unwritten) laws, protocols and rituals are needed to guide people’s interactions. And, obviously, computer systems are needed to support and mediate interaction. (Preece, p. 10).
‘Cyberspace guru Howard Rheingold’ says:
“Virtual communities are cultural aggregations that emerge when enough people bump into each other often enough in cyberspace. A virtual community is a group of people who may or may not meet each other face to face, and who exchange words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks” (Rheingold in: Preece, p. 11).
The primary goals of any community are the exchange of information, the provision of support (as opposed to the exchange of information in that it involves expressing empathy and emotion), the possibility for people to chat and socialize informally and the discussion of ideas (Preece, p. 114).
As far back as 1887, Tönnies wrote about the negative effects of modernization on community life, using the concept of Gemeinschaft, that refer to pre-industrial communally organized societies, and Gesellschaft, that explains the contemporary post-industrial societies that are organised by contract. Gemeinschaft is based on proximity, solidarity and tradition. The icon of Gemeinschaft is the small village where everybody knows everybody. The Gesellschaft, in contrast, is a “machine of instrumentality, rationality and anonymity” (Boomen, 1999). The shift started with the industrialisation in the 19th century and the schisms that occurred with it: the socio-political rupture between church and state and the geographical economic division between house and work (Boomen, 2000, p. 76). Now, there is a renewed yearning for social cohesion. The small Gemeinschaften have disappeared and the contemporary Gesellschaft is too heavily based on mass communication. There is a need for a form of public domain in which communication is not massive and anonymous, nor individual and privatised. Jörgen Habermas sees the 17th century English coffee house as an important factor in the communication infrastructure, or even “prototypical locations of the public domain” (Boomen, 1999). For Habermas, “the public sphere embodies the idea of a forum, constituted by a community of individuals, coming together as equals, capable of producing and reproducing a public opinion through critical discussion, argument and reasoned debate” (Slevin, p. 76). In these public places, there was communication between all classes of society, poor and rich could discuss their matters with each other. Of course, this was not entirely true. Only men went to these cafes, and apart from that, the labourers and the well-to-do had their own bars. Internet communities, in contrast, are freely accessible to everyone. The internet community is the ideal public space for discussion and for the development of public opinion.
Ray Oldenburg is another sociologist who discussed the decline of public domain. He pleas for the resurrection of ‘third places’, public places that exist apart from home, the first place, and work, the second place. Third places are fundamental for every society since these are the places where people can gather informally and where conversation is the main activity. There are some criteria for these places: they are as neutral as possible, which means that they are as non-commercial as possible and not linked to any religious or political organization. Also, all people have to be able to talk with each other, regardless of income, education or gender. Also, there has to be a lively atmosphere and there should be regulars, people that often come to this place and are known by the visitors (Boomen, 1999). The third place is: “people’s own remedy for stress, loneliness, and alienation. (…) It contributes to a healthy perspective by combining pleasure with association in a wide group and affording the collective wisdom of its members” (Boomen, 2000, p. 29).
Unfortunately, the third place has been in a decline. It has been replaced by nonplaces: places that are privatised public places, such as bars, discotheques, malls, festivals and Luna parks. These places are built around consumption, not around conversation. Oldenburg:
“In real places the human being is a person. He or she is an individual, unique and possessing a character. In nonplaces, individuality disappears. In nonplaces, character is irrelevant and one is only the customer or shopper, client or patient, a body to be seated, an address to be billed, a car to be parked.” (Oldenburg, in: Boomen, 2000, p. 81).
The decline of the third place seems to have come to a halt by the arrival of the internet community. It is able to offer the ideal middle between the individual private communication of the Gemeinschaft and the anonymous mass communication of the Gesellschaft. It is the quintessential medium for individuals to reach a large ad broad public. Moreover, this new medium has made it extremely easy to reach exactly the public you want to reach. Now, if someone wants to buy a professional camera, he goes to a photographers’ community and posts a question in a forum. He could also google it, but then he would get numerous suggestions, often even sponsored by the manufacturer. At a forum, you can be pretty sure to get honest suggestions by people who have prior experience.
Partyflock as a community
Rustema identifies four characteristics of Community Networks: social cohesion, third places, freedom of information and communication and democracy. All four concepts are manifest in the Partyflock website. First, there is social cohesion because the visitors have a common background and interest: they are all into house music. At Partyflock, they feel strengthened in relation to their way of life. Social isolation in real life could be compensated by acceptation on the web.
Social cohesion
Social cohesion is strengthened by the ‘buddy system’. At Partyflock, every member has his or her (39% of all members are female) own profile page, giving details such as name, city, age, gender, a party agenda and a list of buddies. These buddies can be met at parties or at Partyflock itself. By sending one-to-one messages to other members, friendships can be generated. Also, social cohesion is supported by the substantial forum area, on which any topic can be discussed. It is not a coincidence that these two functions of Partyflock, the forum and the private messages (‘Pb’tjes) are the most popular. 32% of all visitors likes the Pb’tjes best. The forum scores second place with 23%. (The chat function, interestingly, only scores 2%, this is probably due to the fact that the software of the chat function uses is not very practical, and because buddies meet each other at MSN messenger or ICQ, not at the chat of Partyflock itself).
Another factor that strengthens the social cohesion at Partyflock is that the community is formed bottom-up. The site was originally developed as a hobby by a student at the Technische Universiteit of Twente. It has grown from the inside, there have never been any ads for Partyflock. 80% of all flockers say that they first heard of Partyflock through friends. This is important since this means that there is a real life basis for Partyflock. It means that the community is not just virtual but has an IRL (In Real Life) background.
For the flockers the site is of great importance since it offers a place to form a Gemeinschaft. Since the house scene has become vastly fragmented over the years, the scenes have multiplied but have also become smaller. For this reason, many people who enjoy this music have few friends who enjoy the same kind of music and have the same lifestyle. At Partyflock, they have a place to get in touch with each other and enlarge and enhance their virtual as well as their real life community. Partyflock can be seen as a safe haven for house music fans that feel lost in the anonymity of our Gesellschaft (i.e. society as a whole).
Third place
Apart from the fact that Partyflock will not attract many people who don’t like house music (which immediately excludes almost everyone over 35), Partyflock has many characteristics of a third place. Oldenburg hands us eight different features of a third place. I will now discuss these. The first feature is that the place has to be on neutral ground. It is of great importance that one is free to come and go, and that there is no hidden agenda. Partyflock has long been a hobby of a student, and as such was a not-for-profit activity. Now, this is no longer completely true. The student always used to use the servers of his university. Now that he has graduated he can o longer make use of the facilities of this university. This means that Partyflock now displays banners on its site, which, fortunately, are subject to certain rules. They have to be in line with what flockers want. Most banners are thus ads for parties such as Sensation White or for mobile phones. Also, members can make donations to keep the site online. Other than that, nothing has changed on the site.
Second, the third place is a leveller. “A place that is a leveller is, by its nature, an inclusive place. (…) Third places counter the tendency to be restrictive in the enjoyment of others by being open to all and by laying emphasis on qualities not confined to status distinctions current in the society”. This is also visible in Partyflock. While it is “een website die gericht is op liefhebbers van dance(muziek)”, everybody is welcome to become a member of Partyflock and “de doelstelling is dat iedereen zich er thuisvoelt” (Algemeen Beleid Partyflock). This levelling becomes evident when we see what kind of education the flockers have had, which is quite diverse. Most of them (33%) have MBO/MEAO as the highest education, followed by HBO/HEAO with 21% and LBO/MAVO/VMBO with 18%. One out of 20 flockers has gone to university. (Bron: Partyflock Poll: Wat is jouw hoogst genoten opleiding?)These figures all point to one direction: Flockers form a very diverse community. This can only enhance the discussions on the site.
This brings us to the third point: conversation. This is the main activity of any third place. At Partyflock, there are several means of communication. There is one-to-one communication through the sending of private messages (‘Pb’tjes), there is a chat room and most importantly, there are the numerous forums. These forums are very lively. Once a forum is opened you can expect to have a lively conversation in half an hour. Flockers can open forums on any topic they like, as long as it does not offend other people. Flockers can be said to be mostly right-wing (although obviously not all of them are). This means that many conversations are about nationalism and foreigners. The forums are sometimes based on what happens in the media (“Het kindje van Willem en Max is geboren!” or “Puma doolt nog steeds rond over de Veluwe”), others are entirely based on personal experience or worries (“Ik ben tienermoeder, wat vind je daarvan?”, “Waarom gaan alcohol en XTC niet samen?”, “Nog steeds teveel nazis toch?). These forums can be very important to these people as a means to gather information and to form an opinion on certain issues. It is a much acknowledged fact that many flockers are right-wing, often even neo-Nazi. The forums can serve as a platform to express as well as suppress dangerous sentiments. Leftwing and rightwing can discuss their points of view here. Partyflock is a very good site where youngsters can discuss politics, simply because it is not meant to discuss political topics. If someone were to build a site for the youth to primarily discuss political issues, it would never reach as many people as Partyflock. Because Partyflock is a site that is based on something else that does attract these people (i.e. music), even youngsters with no interest in politics whatsoever can be drawn into these conversations.
Oldenburg’s fourth point is accessibility and accommodation. “The activity that goes on in third places is largely unplanned, unscheduled, unorganized, and unstructured” (Oldenburg, in Rustema, 2001). Third places must serve people’s needs for sociability and relaxation. This is also the case with most flockers. Many go online, check their Pb’tjes, have a look at the forums or look whether there are any parties they would like to go to. They come and go as they please. There is no pressure from the site itself to visit it (for example, you’re profile will stay online even if you don’t check it for a year).
The fifth feature is to do with the regulars. Oldenburg says about this: “The third place is just so much space unless the right people are there to make it come alive, and they are the regulars” (Oldenburg, in Rustema, 2001). On the Partyflock forums, there are many regulars, who are recognized by other members. Most regular posters only post at particular forums, for example some only post in forums about movies, while others mostly post in political debates or topics about drugs.
The sixth characteristic of third places is that they have a low profile. They are unimpressive looking, not advertised and look plain. This is also the case with Partyflock. Many visitors have complained about the amateurishness of the layout of the site. The site, admittedly, looks like it is very poorly designed. Nevertheless, this simple look made the interface more practical. The poor appearance, thus, leads to good usability (Preece, 2000 p. 133).
A seventh aspect of third places is that the mood has to be playful. “The unmistakable mark of acceptance into the company of third place regulars is not that of being taken seriously, but that of being included in the play form of their associations”. Thus, when in the topic “Wat moet ik doen om erbij te horen?” someone responds by saying “met VageJetje naar bed gaan”, then that makes it clear that VageJetje is a well-known person on the site and a well appreciated regular.
Last of all, a third place is a ‘home away from home’. Although most people probably come online when they are in their own homes, Partyflock can be seen as a second home for some people. They feel at ease there and they feel recognized as a person.
All these aspects of third places can be found in the Partyflock website. But there are two more characteristics that make a community work: the freedom of information and communication and democracy.
Freedom of information and communication and democracy
There is no complete freedom in the Partyflock community. The sites are governed by web hosts, who can close forums and ban members (for restricted periods) when they do not abide by to the rules of Partyflock. “Because information can have such a huge impact on people’s lives, the goal of most Community Networks is to facilitate the distribution of the information for the benefit of the members of the community” (Rustema, 2001). For Partyflock, this means that there are strict rules, most of them related to extreme right expressions. Swastikas, White Power symbols and racist statements are disallowed. Pictures of American History X, spider webs and porn are not welcome, as well as flags of cities, countries, soccer clubs and organizations. It is not allowed to provoke, to harass or to offend.
Although the rules seem very strict, most members are content with the policy (Source: Partyflock Poll: Is PF te streng?). It is acknowledged that rules are needed, as in any community. Also, the private messages are not restricted. It hardly ever occurs that a forum is being closed due to unaccepted behaviour. Nevertheless, many members are banned and cannot fight their ban or ask why they are banned. The crew has complete control over what is allowed and what is disallowed. All the same, I think it’s a good thing that there are restrictive rules, not only because it keeps the community liveable but also because it keeps discussions of a certain quality.
The ‘we-feeling’ in the Dutch house community
One cannot discuss the value of Partyflock without referring to the history of the Dutch house scene. Already since its emergence, there have been tensions between those who want to keep the club underground and those who want to go mainstream, and thus about whether the group should be ‘opened’ for everyone to enter, or whether to stay exclusive. The community has always been an important issue in the scene, even after it had become divided.
House music was introduced to the Netherlands in 1988. Rather soon this new music style became all the rage. A new scene was born, in which:
“De sfeer was open en warm. En vrij. Alles mocht. Alles kon, iedereen was welkom. Even leek het erop dat de droom van de sixties toch in vervulling zou gaan. Love, peace & happiness (G. van Veen, in: Mutsaers, p. 204).
The summer of 1989 would be remembered as the Second Summer of Love. New dance halls were opened all over the country, of which de iT became most well known, mostly because of its extravagancy. The music style quickly gained in popularity, a tendency the pioneers did not quite appreciate, since this would reduce the exclusivity and attract people who did not understand the meaning of love, peace and happiness which house music was supposed to express. Also, the public at large saw house music as a problem for society, mostly because of its association with party drugs, at that time mostly XTC. Almost all publicity about house music was related to the excessive drug usage. It even led to a Rock Against Acid party in the Melkweg in Amsterdam (which, by the way, was not a success) (Mutsaers, p. 205).
Also in 1989, discotheque Parkzicht was opened in Rotterdam. This club exclusively played house music. Here, the first schism in the house community arose with the development of gabber, also known as hardcore. This new genre mostly appealed to ‘soccer fans and Leidsepleiners’ (G. van Veen, in: Mutsaers). Even before house peaked in popularity, the house music scene started to disintegrate.
In 1992, gabber music did not even resemble its more ‘mellow’ ancestor anymore. Rotterdam became the base of gabber music, while Amsterdam stayed ‘true to its roots’. This led to tensions between Feyenoord and Ajax supporters (the soccer clubs of the respective cities).
In about three years, house music developed from an underground scene into popular culture (Mutsaers, p. 211). Gert van Veen, himself member of a live act, says: “House is een sociaal experiment, ook al is niemand zich dat bewust. House is verticaal gelaagd. Het loopt van academici tot F-siders” (in: Mutsaers, p. 212). Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that it is a social success: The love, peace and happiness ideals of the early years vanished by fragmentation. Every group had his own music style and was standoffish towards the others. Since the rise of gabber house the reputation of house became tarnished. Gabber was associated with hooligans, neo-Nazism, violence, dope and bad taste. Nevertheless, rave party goers experience solidarity and politeness. Fights are very rare at raves. Therefore, some say that gabber parties are comparable to the love-ins of the sixties (Mutsaers, p. 214). The word ‘gabber’ means buddy or mate. Camaraderie, respect and unity are the driving forces behind gabber (Wal & Bleeker, p. 12). The ‘wij-gevoel’, the feeling of being connected, is very strong within the gabber scene, especially at raves (Wal & Bleeker, p. 106). As one gabber says: ‘Met iemand dansen, nee, dat doe je niet op een rave. Je danst in feite met iederéén! Dus niet met elkaar, maar met elkáár. Dat is het hele idee.’ (Wal & Bleeker, p. 120).
The core ideals of rave culture are said to be openness, acceptance and positivism. This means that ravers do not wish to judge or condemn other people’s appearance, sexual orientation, gender, race, class, income or beliefs. By positivism is meant that “if something makes someone happy without hurting someone else, then that something is okay. As such, fights or scuffles at a rave are rare.
Nevertheless, many feel isolated and stigmatised. Ravers are often seen as antisocial, uneducated drug abusing neo-Nazis. This makes them at best unpopular with the mainstream. Since they feel unrecognized, they feel indifference and apathy towards other subcultures. In the pamphlet “The War Against the Alto’s”, the feeling of ‘us against the rest of the world’, as well as intolerance towards other lifestyles, is well expressed. In this leaflet, the ‘alto way of life’ is being ridiculed and downgraded. The first sentence: “Wij gabbers hoeven geen beweging te organiseren om die tering-alto’s van hun leven te beroven: alle GABBERS vormen nl. 1 grote familie”.
So, although the feeling of belonging together was persistent in the Dutch house genres, the admirers of these genres only seemed to apply this to their own little group and forgot about the Second Summer of Love, when everybody was still welcome and respected. Soon, the house community was divided into factions that did not get in touch with each other at all, despite the fact that the ‘House & Techno Magazine’ Strobe used the slogan ‘one scene one megazine’ and the Love Parade used themes such as ‘My House Is Your House And Your House Is Mine’ (1991), ‘We Are One Family’ (1996), and ‘Access Peace’ (2002).
Nowadays, the genre once called house can be divided into at least 41 different styles, among which hardcore, techno, terror, trance, club, 2step, lounge and jungle. These styles differ so much that one can hardly speak of a scene anymore. The house community nowadays is divided into numerous small groups that hardly get in touch with each other.
This is where the website Partyflock comes in. This site, dedicated to dance music as a whole, provides a meeting place for the separate communities and for the members to exchange views. Partyflock is a link that is able to keep the house community together. This is why the site Partyflock is so important for house lovers. It is able to repair this fragmentised community.
Conclusion
Partyflock is a virtual community site with real-life benefits. The site is able to bring back together the coherence in the house music community. Different, often opposed subcultures (for example the trance scene vs. the hardcore scene) get in touch with each other on this site, something they would probably not do IRL. Also, rightwing and leftwing can discuss their points of view. The site thus forms a place where youngsters can express their feelings and beliefs to likeminded and opponents.
The strength of the site mostly lies in its playfulness and the fact that it is built around music – something all members enjoy. This makes that the forums not only draw politically or socially engaged people but also persons that in another setting would not wish to participate in similar forums. In my opinion, the forums offer a great opportunity for the Dutch government to experience how youngsters perceive the society they live in.
I have experienced the writing of this essay as a jump into darkness. While there is a large amount of information available about Internet Communities and about the importance of the public domain, there appear to be only few writings available on contemporary youth cultures and communities. All scientific (or semi-scientific) texts I found on the Dutch (real-life) house community can be counted on no more than one finger. In my opinion, this is a pity and a lost chance. House is among the most popular music genres in the Netherlands and the attached lifestyles are the lifestyles of a large part of the population of youngsters. More understanding of these lifestyles would also lead to more understanding of the youth of today. Therefore I think that more research relating to this topic is needed.
Because I study Culture and sciences I ve written an essay on PF. Now Im wondering what you flockers thin about it...
Reactions plz!! also, suggestions for a better title are very welcome!!!
PARTYFLOCK: THE THIRD SPACE FOR HOUSE LOVERS
Nowadays, when you meet people at a house party anywhere in the Netherlands, they don’t ask you for your phone number or email address when they want to keep in touch. Instead, they ask you for your Partyflock name. Partyflock is an online community that only has gained popularity since it emerged. Now, it is the most popular dance community website of the Netherlands. Monthly, the site has around 80 million page views (which is about as many as the website of the Telegraaf, a very popular daily newspaper). Partyflock has 115 000 active members and attracts almost 500 000 unique visitors per month. (http://3voor12.vpro.nl/3voor12/magazines/news/index.jsp?portals=2534202&magazines=10719222&news=21884014). In total, PF has had 213 000 registrations. Those visitors get online to check out forthcoming parties, discuss previous parties and get in touch with other house music aficionados. Also, they can discuss whatever subject they are interested in the numerous forums. The forum database is said to be the fourth largest of the world (Wikipedia).
In this essay, I want to defend the thesis that Partyflock is not ‘just another website’. Partyflock, the largest Dutch online community, is not only of importance to the Dutch dance community but for society as a whole: although Partyflock is a virtual community site, it presents real-life benefits. This value is what I want to make clear in this essay.
The concept of the Internet Community
Over the past centuries, there have been numerous debates about the concept of ‘community’. Now, with the emergence of Internet communities, everybody seems to talk about them without having a clear picture of what exactly such a community is. For this reason, I will try to clarify the concept. First of all, several factors are needed for an Internet community to exist: people, a purpose, policies and computer systems. People are needed to interact socially while they pursue their own needs and goals. They need to have a shared purpose, for example information exchange. This provides them with a reason to join, and stay, in the community. Further, policies, such as (unwritten) laws, protocols and rituals are needed to guide people’s interactions. And, obviously, computer systems are needed to support and mediate interaction. (Preece, p. 10).
‘Cyberspace guru Howard Rheingold’ says:
“Virtual communities are cultural aggregations that emerge when enough people bump into each other often enough in cyberspace. A virtual community is a group of people who may or may not meet each other face to face, and who exchange words and ideas through the mediation of computer bulletin boards and networks” (Rheingold in: Preece, p. 11).
The primary goals of any community are the exchange of information, the provision of support (as opposed to the exchange of information in that it involves expressing empathy and emotion), the possibility for people to chat and socialize informally and the discussion of ideas (Preece, p. 114).
As far back as 1887, Tönnies wrote about the negative effects of modernization on community life, using the concept of Gemeinschaft, that refer to pre-industrial communally organized societies, and Gesellschaft, that explains the contemporary post-industrial societies that are organised by contract. Gemeinschaft is based on proximity, solidarity and tradition. The icon of Gemeinschaft is the small village where everybody knows everybody. The Gesellschaft, in contrast, is a “machine of instrumentality, rationality and anonymity” (Boomen, 1999). The shift started with the industrialisation in the 19th century and the schisms that occurred with it: the socio-political rupture between church and state and the geographical economic division between house and work (Boomen, 2000, p. 76). Now, there is a renewed yearning for social cohesion. The small Gemeinschaften have disappeared and the contemporary Gesellschaft is too heavily based on mass communication. There is a need for a form of public domain in which communication is not massive and anonymous, nor individual and privatised. Jörgen Habermas sees the 17th century English coffee house as an important factor in the communication infrastructure, or even “prototypical locations of the public domain” (Boomen, 1999). For Habermas, “the public sphere embodies the idea of a forum, constituted by a community of individuals, coming together as equals, capable of producing and reproducing a public opinion through critical discussion, argument and reasoned debate” (Slevin, p. 76). In these public places, there was communication between all classes of society, poor and rich could discuss their matters with each other. Of course, this was not entirely true. Only men went to these cafes, and apart from that, the labourers and the well-to-do had their own bars. Internet communities, in contrast, are freely accessible to everyone. The internet community is the ideal public space for discussion and for the development of public opinion.
Ray Oldenburg is another sociologist who discussed the decline of public domain. He pleas for the resurrection of ‘third places’, public places that exist apart from home, the first place, and work, the second place. Third places are fundamental for every society since these are the places where people can gather informally and where conversation is the main activity. There are some criteria for these places: they are as neutral as possible, which means that they are as non-commercial as possible and not linked to any religious or political organization. Also, all people have to be able to talk with each other, regardless of income, education or gender. Also, there has to be a lively atmosphere and there should be regulars, people that often come to this place and are known by the visitors (Boomen, 1999). The third place is: “people’s own remedy for stress, loneliness, and alienation. (…) It contributes to a healthy perspective by combining pleasure with association in a wide group and affording the collective wisdom of its members” (Boomen, 2000, p. 29).
Unfortunately, the third place has been in a decline. It has been replaced by nonplaces: places that are privatised public places, such as bars, discotheques, malls, festivals and Luna parks. These places are built around consumption, not around conversation. Oldenburg:
“In real places the human being is a person. He or she is an individual, unique and possessing a character. In nonplaces, individuality disappears. In nonplaces, character is irrelevant and one is only the customer or shopper, client or patient, a body to be seated, an address to be billed, a car to be parked.” (Oldenburg, in: Boomen, 2000, p. 81).
The decline of the third place seems to have come to a halt by the arrival of the internet community. It is able to offer the ideal middle between the individual private communication of the Gemeinschaft and the anonymous mass communication of the Gesellschaft. It is the quintessential medium for individuals to reach a large ad broad public. Moreover, this new medium has made it extremely easy to reach exactly the public you want to reach. Now, if someone wants to buy a professional camera, he goes to a photographers’ community and posts a question in a forum. He could also google it, but then he would get numerous suggestions, often even sponsored by the manufacturer. At a forum, you can be pretty sure to get honest suggestions by people who have prior experience.
Partyflock as a community
Rustema identifies four characteristics of Community Networks: social cohesion, third places, freedom of information and communication and democracy. All four concepts are manifest in the Partyflock website. First, there is social cohesion because the visitors have a common background and interest: they are all into house music. At Partyflock, they feel strengthened in relation to their way of life. Social isolation in real life could be compensated by acceptation on the web.
Social cohesion
Social cohesion is strengthened by the ‘buddy system’. At Partyflock, every member has his or her (39% of all members are female) own profile page, giving details such as name, city, age, gender, a party agenda and a list of buddies. These buddies can be met at parties or at Partyflock itself. By sending one-to-one messages to other members, friendships can be generated. Also, social cohesion is supported by the substantial forum area, on which any topic can be discussed. It is not a coincidence that these two functions of Partyflock, the forum and the private messages (‘Pb’tjes) are the most popular. 32% of all visitors likes the Pb’tjes best. The forum scores second place with 23%. (The chat function, interestingly, only scores 2%, this is probably due to the fact that the software of the chat function uses is not very practical, and because buddies meet each other at MSN messenger or ICQ, not at the chat of Partyflock itself).
Another factor that strengthens the social cohesion at Partyflock is that the community is formed bottom-up. The site was originally developed as a hobby by a student at the Technische Universiteit of Twente. It has grown from the inside, there have never been any ads for Partyflock. 80% of all flockers say that they first heard of Partyflock through friends. This is important since this means that there is a real life basis for Partyflock. It means that the community is not just virtual but has an IRL (In Real Life) background.
For the flockers the site is of great importance since it offers a place to form a Gemeinschaft. Since the house scene has become vastly fragmented over the years, the scenes have multiplied but have also become smaller. For this reason, many people who enjoy this music have few friends who enjoy the same kind of music and have the same lifestyle. At Partyflock, they have a place to get in touch with each other and enlarge and enhance their virtual as well as their real life community. Partyflock can be seen as a safe haven for house music fans that feel lost in the anonymity of our Gesellschaft (i.e. society as a whole).
Third place
Apart from the fact that Partyflock will not attract many people who don’t like house music (which immediately excludes almost everyone over 35), Partyflock has many characteristics of a third place. Oldenburg hands us eight different features of a third place. I will now discuss these. The first feature is that the place has to be on neutral ground. It is of great importance that one is free to come and go, and that there is no hidden agenda. Partyflock has long been a hobby of a student, and as such was a not-for-profit activity. Now, this is no longer completely true. The student always used to use the servers of his university. Now that he has graduated he can o longer make use of the facilities of this university. This means that Partyflock now displays banners on its site, which, fortunately, are subject to certain rules. They have to be in line with what flockers want. Most banners are thus ads for parties such as Sensation White or for mobile phones. Also, members can make donations to keep the site online. Other than that, nothing has changed on the site.
Second, the third place is a leveller. “A place that is a leveller is, by its nature, an inclusive place. (…) Third places counter the tendency to be restrictive in the enjoyment of others by being open to all and by laying emphasis on qualities not confined to status distinctions current in the society”. This is also visible in Partyflock. While it is “een website die gericht is op liefhebbers van dance(muziek)”, everybody is welcome to become a member of Partyflock and “de doelstelling is dat iedereen zich er thuisvoelt” (Algemeen Beleid Partyflock). This levelling becomes evident when we see what kind of education the flockers have had, which is quite diverse. Most of them (33%) have MBO/MEAO as the highest education, followed by HBO/HEAO with 21% and LBO/MAVO/VMBO with 18%. One out of 20 flockers has gone to university. (Bron: Partyflock Poll: Wat is jouw hoogst genoten opleiding?)These figures all point to one direction: Flockers form a very diverse community. This can only enhance the discussions on the site.
This brings us to the third point: conversation. This is the main activity of any third place. At Partyflock, there are several means of communication. There is one-to-one communication through the sending of private messages (‘Pb’tjes), there is a chat room and most importantly, there are the numerous forums. These forums are very lively. Once a forum is opened you can expect to have a lively conversation in half an hour. Flockers can open forums on any topic they like, as long as it does not offend other people. Flockers can be said to be mostly right-wing (although obviously not all of them are). This means that many conversations are about nationalism and foreigners. The forums are sometimes based on what happens in the media (“Het kindje van Willem en Max is geboren!” or “Puma doolt nog steeds rond over de Veluwe”), others are entirely based on personal experience or worries (“Ik ben tienermoeder, wat vind je daarvan?”, “Waarom gaan alcohol en XTC niet samen?”, “Nog steeds teveel nazis toch?). These forums can be very important to these people as a means to gather information and to form an opinion on certain issues. It is a much acknowledged fact that many flockers are right-wing, often even neo-Nazi. The forums can serve as a platform to express as well as suppress dangerous sentiments. Leftwing and rightwing can discuss their points of view here. Partyflock is a very good site where youngsters can discuss politics, simply because it is not meant to discuss political topics. If someone were to build a site for the youth to primarily discuss political issues, it would never reach as many people as Partyflock. Because Partyflock is a site that is based on something else that does attract these people (i.e. music), even youngsters with no interest in politics whatsoever can be drawn into these conversations.
Oldenburg’s fourth point is accessibility and accommodation. “The activity that goes on in third places is largely unplanned, unscheduled, unorganized, and unstructured” (Oldenburg, in Rustema, 2001). Third places must serve people’s needs for sociability and relaxation. This is also the case with most flockers. Many go online, check their Pb’tjes, have a look at the forums or look whether there are any parties they would like to go to. They come and go as they please. There is no pressure from the site itself to visit it (for example, you’re profile will stay online even if you don’t check it for a year).
The fifth feature is to do with the regulars. Oldenburg says about this: “The third place is just so much space unless the right people are there to make it come alive, and they are the regulars” (Oldenburg, in Rustema, 2001). On the Partyflock forums, there are many regulars, who are recognized by other members. Most regular posters only post at particular forums, for example some only post in forums about movies, while others mostly post in political debates or topics about drugs.
The sixth characteristic of third places is that they have a low profile. They are unimpressive looking, not advertised and look plain. This is also the case with Partyflock. Many visitors have complained about the amateurishness of the layout of the site. The site, admittedly, looks like it is very poorly designed. Nevertheless, this simple look made the interface more practical. The poor appearance, thus, leads to good usability (Preece, 2000 p. 133).
A seventh aspect of third places is that the mood has to be playful. “The unmistakable mark of acceptance into the company of third place regulars is not that of being taken seriously, but that of being included in the play form of their associations”. Thus, when in the topic “Wat moet ik doen om erbij te horen?” someone responds by saying “met VageJetje naar bed gaan”, then that makes it clear that VageJetje is a well-known person on the site and a well appreciated regular.
Last of all, a third place is a ‘home away from home’. Although most people probably come online when they are in their own homes, Partyflock can be seen as a second home for some people. They feel at ease there and they feel recognized as a person.
All these aspects of third places can be found in the Partyflock website. But there are two more characteristics that make a community work: the freedom of information and communication and democracy.
Freedom of information and communication and democracy
There is no complete freedom in the Partyflock community. The sites are governed by web hosts, who can close forums and ban members (for restricted periods) when they do not abide by to the rules of Partyflock. “Because information can have such a huge impact on people’s lives, the goal of most Community Networks is to facilitate the distribution of the information for the benefit of the members of the community” (Rustema, 2001). For Partyflock, this means that there are strict rules, most of them related to extreme right expressions. Swastikas, White Power symbols and racist statements are disallowed. Pictures of American History X, spider webs and porn are not welcome, as well as flags of cities, countries, soccer clubs and organizations. It is not allowed to provoke, to harass or to offend.
Although the rules seem very strict, most members are content with the policy (Source: Partyflock Poll: Is PF te streng?). It is acknowledged that rules are needed, as in any community. Also, the private messages are not restricted. It hardly ever occurs that a forum is being closed due to unaccepted behaviour. Nevertheless, many members are banned and cannot fight their ban or ask why they are banned. The crew has complete control over what is allowed and what is disallowed. All the same, I think it’s a good thing that there are restrictive rules, not only because it keeps the community liveable but also because it keeps discussions of a certain quality.
The ‘we-feeling’ in the Dutch house community
One cannot discuss the value of Partyflock without referring to the history of the Dutch house scene. Already since its emergence, there have been tensions between those who want to keep the club underground and those who want to go mainstream, and thus about whether the group should be ‘opened’ for everyone to enter, or whether to stay exclusive. The community has always been an important issue in the scene, even after it had become divided.
House music was introduced to the Netherlands in 1988. Rather soon this new music style became all the rage. A new scene was born, in which:
“De sfeer was open en warm. En vrij. Alles mocht. Alles kon, iedereen was welkom. Even leek het erop dat de droom van de sixties toch in vervulling zou gaan. Love, peace & happiness (G. van Veen, in: Mutsaers, p. 204).
The summer of 1989 would be remembered as the Second Summer of Love. New dance halls were opened all over the country, of which de iT became most well known, mostly because of its extravagancy. The music style quickly gained in popularity, a tendency the pioneers did not quite appreciate, since this would reduce the exclusivity and attract people who did not understand the meaning of love, peace and happiness which house music was supposed to express. Also, the public at large saw house music as a problem for society, mostly because of its association with party drugs, at that time mostly XTC. Almost all publicity about house music was related to the excessive drug usage. It even led to a Rock Against Acid party in the Melkweg in Amsterdam (which, by the way, was not a success) (Mutsaers, p. 205).
Also in 1989, discotheque Parkzicht was opened in Rotterdam. This club exclusively played house music. Here, the first schism in the house community arose with the development of gabber, also known as hardcore. This new genre mostly appealed to ‘soccer fans and Leidsepleiners’ (G. van Veen, in: Mutsaers). Even before house peaked in popularity, the house music scene started to disintegrate.
In 1992, gabber music did not even resemble its more ‘mellow’ ancestor anymore. Rotterdam became the base of gabber music, while Amsterdam stayed ‘true to its roots’. This led to tensions between Feyenoord and Ajax supporters (the soccer clubs of the respective cities).
In about three years, house music developed from an underground scene into popular culture (Mutsaers, p. 211). Gert van Veen, himself member of a live act, says: “House is een sociaal experiment, ook al is niemand zich dat bewust. House is verticaal gelaagd. Het loopt van academici tot F-siders” (in: Mutsaers, p. 212). Nevertheless, this does not necessarily mean that it is a social success: The love, peace and happiness ideals of the early years vanished by fragmentation. Every group had his own music style and was standoffish towards the others. Since the rise of gabber house the reputation of house became tarnished. Gabber was associated with hooligans, neo-Nazism, violence, dope and bad taste. Nevertheless, rave party goers experience solidarity and politeness. Fights are very rare at raves. Therefore, some say that gabber parties are comparable to the love-ins of the sixties (Mutsaers, p. 214). The word ‘gabber’ means buddy or mate. Camaraderie, respect and unity are the driving forces behind gabber (Wal & Bleeker, p. 12). The ‘wij-gevoel’, the feeling of being connected, is very strong within the gabber scene, especially at raves (Wal & Bleeker, p. 106). As one gabber says: ‘Met iemand dansen, nee, dat doe je niet op een rave. Je danst in feite met iederéén! Dus niet met elkaar, maar met elkáár. Dat is het hele idee.’ (Wal & Bleeker, p. 120).
The core ideals of rave culture are said to be openness, acceptance and positivism. This means that ravers do not wish to judge or condemn other people’s appearance, sexual orientation, gender, race, class, income or beliefs. By positivism is meant that “if something makes someone happy without hurting someone else, then that something is okay. As such, fights or scuffles at a rave are rare.
Nevertheless, many feel isolated and stigmatised. Ravers are often seen as antisocial, uneducated drug abusing neo-Nazis. This makes them at best unpopular with the mainstream. Since they feel unrecognized, they feel indifference and apathy towards other subcultures. In the pamphlet “The War Against the Alto’s”, the feeling of ‘us against the rest of the world’, as well as intolerance towards other lifestyles, is well expressed. In this leaflet, the ‘alto way of life’ is being ridiculed and downgraded. The first sentence: “Wij gabbers hoeven geen beweging te organiseren om die tering-alto’s van hun leven te beroven: alle GABBERS vormen nl. 1 grote familie”.
So, although the feeling of belonging together was persistent in the Dutch house genres, the admirers of these genres only seemed to apply this to their own little group and forgot about the Second Summer of Love, when everybody was still welcome and respected. Soon, the house community was divided into factions that did not get in touch with each other at all, despite the fact that the ‘House & Techno Magazine’ Strobe used the slogan ‘one scene one megazine’ and the Love Parade used themes such as ‘My House Is Your House And Your House Is Mine’ (1991), ‘We Are One Family’ (1996), and ‘Access Peace’ (2002).
Nowadays, the genre once called house can be divided into at least 41 different styles, among which hardcore, techno, terror, trance, club, 2step, lounge and jungle. These styles differ so much that one can hardly speak of a scene anymore. The house community nowadays is divided into numerous small groups that hardly get in touch with each other.
This is where the website Partyflock comes in. This site, dedicated to dance music as a whole, provides a meeting place for the separate communities and for the members to exchange views. Partyflock is a link that is able to keep the house community together. This is why the site Partyflock is so important for house lovers. It is able to repair this fragmentised community.
Conclusion
Partyflock is a virtual community site with real-life benefits. The site is able to bring back together the coherence in the house music community. Different, often opposed subcultures (for example the trance scene vs. the hardcore scene) get in touch with each other on this site, something they would probably not do IRL. Also, rightwing and leftwing can discuss their points of view. The site thus forms a place where youngsters can express their feelings and beliefs to likeminded and opponents.
The strength of the site mostly lies in its playfulness and the fact that it is built around music – something all members enjoy. This makes that the forums not only draw politically or socially engaged people but also persons that in another setting would not wish to participate in similar forums. In my opinion, the forums offer a great opportunity for the Dutch government to experience how youngsters perceive the society they live in.
I have experienced the writing of this essay as a jump into darkness. While there is a large amount of information available about Internet Communities and about the importance of the public domain, there appear to be only few writings available on contemporary youth cultures and communities. All scientific (or semi-scientific) texts I found on the Dutch (real-life) house community can be counted on no more than one finger. In my opinion, this is a pity and a lost chance. House is among the most popular music genres in the Netherlands and the attached lifestyles are the lifestyles of a large part of the population of youngsters. More understanding of these lifestyles would also lead to more understanding of the youth of today. Therefore I think that more research relating to this topic is needed.
