Community

Recently I took the opportunity to sit in on a YouNow session with the very talented and inspirational Travis Bryant.  If you don’t recognize his name, you can find him on Twitter @TravisBryantNYC and you can catch his videos on Youtube by searching for “Travis Bryant.”  Travis is a youtuber.  He’s part of a growing group of individuals who document parts of their lives and create entertaining and thought provoking videos for the world at large.  If you want to check Travis out, start with this video.

During the course of the live streaming conversation between Travis and roughly one hundred fans on YouNow, Travis started talking about trying to encourage a positive and supporting community for all of his fans to be at home in.  This resonated with me.  I quickly typed a question into the chat field.  “How much of your desire to create community comes from the fact that you didn’t really have a place to belong when you were younger?”  Travis saw the question (which is a bit of a miracle if you think about it because with one Travis and 100+ fans, you can imagine that the flow of conversation moves pretty fast).  He confirmed what I suspected: It definitely comes from not having a sense of belonging while growing up. 

Human beings are communal creatures.  We crave community.  We look for groups of people that meet our needs and help inform and affirm us as individuals.  It’s not just a social need that is being met when we connect with community; we learn from the community and, through our participation, the community is made stronger. 

Before I go any further I want to pause and define what it is that I mean by “community.”  Often times I think returning to the origin of words helps us understand the word the best; that is certainly the case with a word like “community,” which has somewhat lost some of its power in recent years as it has moved into the ever-broadening lexicon of “buzzwords.”

The entry at dictionary.com for “community” isn’t the best but it includes this discussion of the word’s origin:   

Latin communitatem" was merely a noun of quality ... meaning 'fellowship, community of relations or feelings.” 

I don’t like this discussion for two reasons.  First, as I’ve gotten older I’ve come to understand what my third grade teacher used to yell at us about when we did vocabulary words:  You can’t use the word you’re trying to define in the definition of your word.  Dictionary.com is basically telling us that the word community comes from a Latin word that means community.  Thanks, dictionary.com.

The second reason I don’t like this discussion is that it’s too truncated.  I wonder what those ellipses are replacing. 

The one thing that this explanation has going for it is that it describes what this “fellowship, community” is established around:  relations or feelings.  This is key.  Remember this.

As I said above, “community” has become a buzzword in many circles.  People are looking for a thing called community.  People are establishing something called community in new ways and in unexpected places.  We are beginning to understand that something called community is no longer bound geographically or involves a shared ownership/stake in a tangible thing (“community pool,” “community garden,” etc.).  This revolution in the consideration of community, what it is/how it looks/where it is found, is a direct result of the advancement of technology, specifically social media.  Remember this, too. 

So what is it about this thing called “community” that calls to us?  Why do we crave it?  What do we get out of it?  And, most importantly, what happens if we don’t have it?

In 1986 social Psychologists McMillan and Chavis published a theory in The Journal of Community Psychology .  The theory was called “Sense of Community” and McMillan defined it like this: 

“Sense of community is a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their commitment together.”

Please note that I don’t believe that McMillan’s use of the word “faith” here should be understood in a religious context.

In 2013, David Spinks explores the research McMillan and Chavis did and identifies four factors that contribute to a sense of community.  They are:

1.     Membership (including a process of gate keeping, creating trust and emotional safety, a sense of belonging, personal investment or having a stake in the community, and a rallying symbol like a jersey, gang colors, pink ribbon, etc.)

2.     Influence (influence of members over the community and community over members; members need to know they have a say that matters and the community means something to its members)

3.     Integration and Fulfillment of Needs (members feel rewarded/completed/fulfilled by their participation in the community)

4.     Shared Emotional Connection (this includes a shared/common history and sense of a future trajectory in and for the community; “This factor is believed to be the ‘definitive element for true community.”)

I would also like to suggest as part of the shared/common history of members within the community there is a transmission of values and ideals.  That is to say that the things that are important within the community, the mentality and traits that are valued by the community and the behaviors exhorted by the community, are handed down from generation to generation or sideways from existing members to new members.  Another way to think about this is that it’s through community that we send and receive elements of our culture.

But notice how most of these four elements connect in some way with that idea of a shared relationship or feeling?  There is a fellowship (companionship) centered on emotional elements.

So here’s the question with which we should struggle:  What happens if we lack that sense of community?  What happens if we are denied access to this thing that psychology tells us with greater and greater urgency is so important to not just our development but our ongoing mental well-being?

I know a number of families who have adopted children across ethnic lines.  On the surface it’s a beautiful thing but it does come with some struggles.  Part of the struggle comes when the identity question, complicated by the adoption, surfaces.  One of the families, who adopted two children from Korea, experienced significant struggles with one of the children.  Part of the problem was the community question; the family, though quite active, couldn’t seem to find a community that would meet the child’s needs.

That was an obvious example.  It’s obvious in that there are physical traits that enter into the equation when considering the community question.  It’s difficult to participate in and develop a connection with a community when you never completely feel accepted by the community because of physical traits that define you as different.  In an overwhelmingly White community with minimal multi-ethnic understanding or even tolerance, where do you find community when you are obviously not White?  You’re an outside out of the gate and connection with the community is going to be complicated. 

What if the example isn’t so obvious?  What if it’s not a question of appearance or physical characteristics?  What if it’s a question of an identity that is in development, an identity that is labeled as “deviant” by the communities a child is socialized in by a family that doesn’t know any better?

This is what happens with so many LGBTQ people.  I almost said “kids” but it’s not just kids.  Adults, too, who struggle with identity struggle in part because there is no community for them, no way to gain that sense of belonging, sense of normalcy, sense of “you’re okay, we’re in this together.”  In fact, many LGBTQ people receive the opposite from the communities they are naturally matriculated into—political organizations, churches, skill and development organizations.  This isn’t as bad as it used to be.  For example, the Boy Scouts no longer discriminates against LGBTQ people (at least policy wise) but remember that just because there is an absence of discrimination doesn’t mean there is actual acceptance. 

And that’s really the problem, isn’t it? 

Michael Friedman, PhD, wrote an article entitled “The Psychological Impact of LGBT Discrimination” in 2014.  In this article Dr. Friedman identifies a number of troubling statistics and phenomenon faced by LGBT people including:

·        As many as 50% of LGBT teens experience a negative reaction from parents when they come out.

·        30% of LGBT teens experience abuse

·        LGBT children make up 40% of all homeless youth due in large part to family rejection

·        LGBT adults who report rejection by their families are six times more likely to experience depression, three times more likely to use illegal drugs, and eight times more likely to attempt suicide than their “non-rejected” peers.

·        85% of LGBT children are verbally bullied in schools during the course of a school year.

·        40% of these report physical bullying

·        19% of these report being physically assaulted (Remember, too, there is a thing called reporting bias in which people aren’t always honest and forthcoming when it comes to reporting these things because they fear the potential for repercussion.)

·        30% of those LGBT students who experience bullying cite the bullying as a principle reason for missing school because they feel unsafe.

·        LGBT students who experience bullying are six times more at risk for depression and suicide than their straight peers.

How do you experience community when you are denied the experience of family?  How can you experience the element of trust and safety if the people who should love you are the people who abuse you because of something you can no more change than the color of your eyes?  How can you discover a sense of belonging when you are perpetually in transition?

And, again, it’s not just kids.  Adults experience this as well.  42% of LGBT adults experience workplace discrimination; according to Dr. Friedman, this is four times the rate of straight employees.  Those who have experienced workplace discrimination because of their sexual identity have higher levels of psychological stress and health related problems, less job satisfaction, and greater absenteeism. 

I hope you’re getting the idea.  So many experiences in the lives of LGBTQ people alienate and isolate LGBTQ individuals.  Just because a person might appear active and busy, involved in different organizations and appears to be socially engaged, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the individual’s need for community is being met.

Justin Worland (@justinworland), a writer for TIME Magazine, wrote a piece on March 18, 2015 entitled “Why Loneliness Might Be the Next Big Public Health Issue.”  Mr. Worland doesn’t speak directly to the LGBTQ issue in his piece but he does bring up some important points to consider.  These points are developed out of a study published by Brigham Young University, which, coincidentally, isn’t too likely to consider taking up a study about loneliness in LGBTQ populations.  If they were, I think they might find the opposite of this observation is true in LGBTQ circles:

Many social scientists say technology and housing trends are increasing the risk of loneliness. More Americans are living alone than ever before, and technology like texting and social media has made it easier to avoid forming substantive relationships in the flesh and blood. Yet research shows that relationships can improve health in a variety of ways, by helping us manage stress, improving the functioning of the immune system and giving meaning to people’s lives.

For a long time I’ve been skeptical of technology’s ability to host and house sustainable community.  It’s fleeting, it’s not tangible, there’s no sense of physicalness and the security that it can give or the emotional support that can be shared.  Emoji are cool but I have yet to see a study where an emoji can trigger the same emotional/psychological reaction as a hug can. 

And yet I think the one population among whom technology encourages a sense of connection and community is in LGBTQ circles.  Why?  Because it can be anonymous; honesty in the real world comes with a price whereas honesty online can be safe as long as you protect certain truths.  I mean, think about:  You are reading the blog of an author who won’t use his real identity to publish anything because of the real life consequences his coming out would cause.  Cyberspace may not be as stable as the real world (but, remember, stability is a subjective thing particularly when you remember the statistics Dr. Friedman cites with reference to LGBTQ youth) and emoji aren’t hugs, but in cyberspace stories can be shared, a common history discovered, and acceptance can be found.  At least in some measure.

This brings me back to Travis Bryant and many other youtubers out there.  I only discovered Travis about two months ago.  I haven’t met him in person.  I haven’t talked with him outside of the conversation I cited at the beginning of this post.  But I *do* see something special in him and people like him.  They are able to share their stories and create a community around themselves where others can share their stories by participating in the life of the community.  By taking just an hour of his time on a Sunday afternoon to sit in front of a camera and hang out with 100+ fans, Travis models behavior and acceptance that too many teens (and adults) are literally dying for.  In the two months since I first stumbled across Travis’ videos rarely has there been a week in which I haven’t thanked him for his willingness to share his story and be a role model for the LGBTQ community.  Not only does this model turn writer normalize an identity that on the surface may be gaining greater acceptance but he is willing to open up about his struggles and encourage a positivity that I would bet the majority of those 100+ fans who were in that virtual room on Sunday don’t experience in their day to day lives. 

That is community.