From the earliest days of Challenge for Change program (1966-75) at the National Film
Board, Canada has led the world in the creation of viewing venues and production sites for community and networked media. This was accomplished primarily through the use of film, video and radio. The work produced during that period continues to have a powerful influence on the many grassroots media centres, organizations and networks which populate the Canadian political and cultural landscape. At the same time, the historical impact of this experience has been acted upon and enhanced by media practitioners in other countries. The result has been an explosion of local and indigenous media production. Until the advent of network and computerized technologies much of this work could not be seen or listened to by people in other countries.

The Internet and the World Wide Web have contributed to a fundamental shift not only in our conceptions of the local but in the way we compare the work done in local communities with similar efforts elsewhere. The shift is as much in our perceptions of national and transnational cultural activity, as it is in our understanding of what we mean by context, by the shape and form of cultural production within and across communities.

This article proposes to briefly investigate the shift from the local context of community
media to the creation of national information networks and the move from traditional, community based forms of media expression to digital, computer based communications systems.

I would like to propose that urban FREENETS like the ones in Victoria, B.C. and Ottawa and rural/urban FREENETS in Nova Scotia and Ontario, as well as the three hundred or so FREENETS in the United States and Canada have generated a radically different public sphere whose structure and organization presage a profound realignment of what we have traditionally understood as community and as local communications. At the same time, I am somewhat skeptical of many of the claims which have been made with respect to these technologies. Shifts of this kind are never as dramatic as one would assume from the technology itself and translating the potential of the World Wide Web into action requires the same kind of time and commitment which has always been a characteristic of earlier forms of community activism.

The Victoria and Ottawa FREENETS are among the oldest and most important in Canada. They have built up institutional structures which reveal the pressures, aims and consequences of creating alternative media. They also play significant roles in their communities and are often cited in the literature as among the best examples of the FREENET movement worldwide. The two rural FREENETS which I mentioned above are younger and have faced different problems. They reflect the dispersion of the environments within which they are operating. Their institutional structures are looser and tend to mirror the particularity of the areas and communities they are working in. The urban FREENETS have to respond to the cities within which they operate, where the very notion of community is challenged on a daily basis. Both the urban and rural FREENETS are involved in community building but have developed different modes of address in response to the people they serve. It will be important to consider whether there is a line of continuity between the institutions which have normally supported the growth and development of community media (both within the community and outside, for example, funding agencies) and the various FREENETS which have been established in the last five years. In addition, have FREENETS altered the role of citizens as activists and participants in community affairs? How has the relationship between other forms of community media and the FREENET movement affected the way ideas, projects and points of view are communicated?

The FREENETS are based on the three traditional tenets of community media, access, participation and self-management. Local computer sites can act as hubs, destinations or launching points for immediate access and connection to national and transnational information networks. At the same time, the reverse is also true. FREENETS open up the possibility of expanding the range of information which the community receives and creates. The characteristic functions of FREENETS include, discussion groups, database construction, e-mail, archive searches in local, nation and international libraries, bulletin boards, community computing, community telecomputing, community bulletin boards, civic networking, community information systems and most importantly, the production of new forms of information exchange which are available on an on-going twenty-four basis (e.g., the World Wide Web).

Consequently, what has emerged are "civic networks" which provide a range of services
from information on health issues to educational materials as well as encouragement and support for interactive relationships between people from all walks of life. Crucially, the impetus for the entire process comes from people in the community who not only define what they need, but are able to relate their needs to each other and to anyone else in the country and the world who might be interested. Many different and often contradictory claims have been made for these networks, but the crucial ones, gaining access to information and being able to control the transmission and creation of information, dominate the agenda. This is linked to a strategic effort to dilute the gatekeeping role of mainstream media but also to the potential of computer mediated communications to create new forms of expression and communication.

Further study in this area will have to examine the institutional context within which these claims are being made. Aside from actually examining the information created, modes of access and strategies of connection, researchers will have to explore whether new kinds of content have emerged, whether the availability of interactive communications has genuinely revitalized the public sphere and whether local concerns have reframed the conventional role played by mainstream media.

****

Context

The amount and quality of scholarly literature available in this field is just beginning to
develop. One of the major studies in Canada, which features a broad-based look at many of the key characteristics of the FREENET movement, was prepared by a consulting company in Vancouver for the Victoria FREENET and funded by Industry Canada. The report examines the history of FREENETS in Canada as well as looking at their goals, structure, values, business organization and management framework. A key characteristic of the report is its effort to link the growing FREENET movement into the construction of a National Information Superhighway in Canada. Further research has been done by the Information Superhighway Council in Ottawa, also referenced in the bibliography. Papers have been produced and made available over the Internet from conferences in Ottawa, Vancouver and Victoria. These conferences, which have been held over the last three years, have contributed toward the establishment of a national organization of FREENETS. To my mind, rigourous research in this field must have the following characteristics:

a. It must go beyond anecdotal reports by interested parties whose own involvement in the process tends to limit the range of research which they pursue.

b. It must provide historical background and examine the content of the information which is produced. There is a tendency in the literature to report on the availability of information with little or no comment on the quality. The connections between telephony, radio, television and other networked forms of communication must be examined in relation to the evolving shape and orientation of virtual environments.

c. It must provide an overview of the questions raised by the introduction of new technologies to communities which have functioned quite differently in the past. The overview must question the assumptions of communication between different parts of the community. What do community members learn from these exchanges? How different is a computer-based bulletin board from the kind normally found in a community centre?

d. Finally, this research must be able to account for the transformative possibilities of new kinds of networking. But it must do so by carefully defining what a network is, how networks have functioned in the past, and how technology based networks both fit into and clash with traditional forms of local, national and international communications.

Some of the most interesting literature in the field comes from studies done on Computer Mediated Communications and Information Technology as they relate to the establishment ofcommunications networks. Generally, these studies are driven by a technology orientation with sometimes utopian claims being made for the changes which computer networking will introduce to most forms of human interaction. At the same time, there is little awareness of the connections to an earlier phase of community media both at the discursive level and with respect to technological change. This is especially true with regards to the use of video and radio in the establishment of a grassroots media movement in Canada.

It will be crucial to link such diverse areas as information technology, computer mediated communications, community and narrowcast media studies. The goal will be to bridge the gaps between studies which are either narrowly technical or overly general and to create a transdisciplinary space for the exploration not only of the organizations themselves but also of the competing discourses which are being used to explain the phenomenon of new networks of communication. The aim would be to combine an "ethnography" of FREENETS with an interpretive strategy which looks at the content of the information being produced. It is one of my central suppositions that information is not knowledge until that information is placed into a pragmatic, everyday context of use by members of the community.

FREENETS both in design and orientation represent a quantum leap from previous forms
of community media. At the same time, there are obvious links to video, narrowcast television
networks and radio. Radio has proven itself to be far more important than previously assumed.
Community radio stations function as pivots for the expression of ideas and create spaces for open
discussion of issues central to local development. This is particularly true in Asia and Africa and
with the recent invention of wind-up radios, this movement will accelerate in importance even as
telephonic and computerized technologies are introduced. (Wind-up radios use a spring to generate
about forty-five minutes of electricity. The results will be significant for regions of the world
without electricity. They are very cheap and a factory in South Africa is presently gearing up to
produce them in by the thousands.)

One of the goals of research in this area should be to develop a stronger intellectual and
scholarly relationship between the public debate which is shaping the future of electronic
communications and the construction of grassroots networked environments. Alternative
institutions of communication are a far more significant feature of local and national environments
than is often assumed. The contribution of local radio stations to this process must be taken into
account in any research on computer driven networking.

FREENETS are another manifestation of this potential to build new kinds of connections
between people, but as Steve Jones asks in a recent book, can genuine commitment be built within
the community when people remain relatively anonymous and can easily connect and disconnect
from the computer networks of which they are a part? (Jones, 1995) This is a crucial question if
we subscribe to the notion that FREENETS represent a significant shift in the way communities of
people interact with each other. Will different social formations develop from the interactive spaces
made possible by FREENETS? Do all of the pieces of this puzzle point toward the recreation of the
public sphere, now made more responsive by the many different venues in which people can speak
to each other? Perhaps the very terminology to which we have become accustomed to describe
processes of communication needs to be re-thought. What are the implications for the democratic
process when large numbers of people in a given community can voice their opinions to politicians
and the mainstream media? If geography and physical proximity were the normal markers for
community, what happens when those markers change? Do FREENETS amplify or decrease the
importance of the informal arrangements which normally govern the organizational structures of
communities? Why would bulletin boards available electronically be any better than the kind which
we find in a community centre? How do all of these questions and issues mesh with the research
which is needed to identify the actual content of the information which people exchange? Are
virtual spaces more or less flexible than conventional forms of human interaction?

Clearly, the sharing of information within the virtual space of a FREENET may or may not
bring people together around specific issues. Community spirit, democratic participation, the
fostering of values which encourage life-long education, the provision of advice on health and
social services and the exchange of personal and public forms of communication may or may not
encourage the strengthening of "communal" relations and responsibility. None of these elements
can be assumed merely because the network exists. But a fair judgement can be made that
FREENETS are redesigning the potential for all of these elements of community life to be
represented and actualised in a more open and useful manner. Many people never visit their civic
centres and yet claim an attachment to the community where the centre is located. Perhaps virtual
connections, which are initially a displacement of geographical boundaries, help to "relocate"
members of the same community by giving them reason to meet within a physical space.
(Rheingold, 1993)

Virtual spaces do not simplify or solve many of the problems which communities face in
the real world. The difficulties of communication which exist between individuals, groups and
other social formations in communities don't disappear because FREENETS make networking
possible. What must be remembered here is that the hardware which links people (computers) is
ultimately a minor facet of what community members do with the linkages. Great care must be
taken in assuming that networks are 'naturally' useful just because they make connections
possible.

The implications of this research, the value and contribution which I believe can be made
through an examination of FREENETS rests on two central assumptions. The first is that we are in
the middle of a major transformation in the communications systems which not only form our
culture, our social life, our politics but which also drive the process forward. The interaction of
technology, community, and translocal networks does suggest that social relations are being
changed. Secondly, and flowing on from this, as evidenced by the many different reports which
are being commissioned by various levels of government in Canada, are the long-term cultural and
communications policy implications which these changes portend. Without rigourous research into
what is actually going on within these networks, it will be difficult to evaluate the many competing
claims which have developed with respect to FREENETS and networked environments in general.

The assumption that computer based networks help build community at the local level
needs to be analysed and examined through direct on-site work within the organizations which are
developing and sustaining the FREENET process. What resources have been provided to the
community and how have those resources been evaluated by the community and by the FREENET
organizers? What training methods have been used and how have outreach strategies been
implemented? What criteria have been developed to examine the effectiveness of networked
technologies in the creation of community? Are new forms of social and cultural exchange being
developed which transform not only what community members say to each other, but how they
interact around issues of primary concern to the community? Finally, do the FREENETS
themselves point toward new and different media forms, strategies of representation which are
outgrowths of earlier activities within the community media movement?

In his new book New Community Networks: Wired for Change Douglas Schuler describes
six "core values" which he suggests are at the root of networked environments:

* Conviviality and Culture
* Education
* Strong Democracy
* Health and Well-Being
* Economic Equity, Opportunity and Sustainability
* Information and Communication (Schuler, 13)

I will not pursue these categories in depth here suffice to say that they represent the
assumptions of many of the most progressive people working in computerized networking.
Schuler was one of the founders of the Seattle Community Network and consequently has an
excellent idea of the many different aspects of grassroots organization, the sometimes difficult and
ambiguous process of bringing people of diverse backgrounds together within a participative and
pluralistic context. At the same time, it could be argued that these categories have always been
proposed as the foundation of Western democracies. These grassroots activities are at the cutting
edge of a vast media advocacy movement whose extensive activities in developed and developing
countries are not based on reaching a mass audience, but instead are quite content with reaching a
few hundred. The premise is that alternative sources of information both express and lead to a
'diversity of viewpoints' which give an otherwise disenfranchised citizenry an informed base to
make decisions about their lives and about the institutions which make up their communities.

The use of computerized media for empowerment mixes the local with the national.
Computer texts and images are used for purposes of mobilization. Information becomes potentially
subversive: alternative ideas presented this way encourage access both for the viewer and
practitioners; local experiences can be shared between members of the same or different
communities; this can lead to increased awareness, to creative networking and to a
reconceptualization of the place of the media in the public sphere. The fulcrum for many of these
ideas is a creative notion of dialogue. Networks encourage exchanges between members of the
community - the notion of dialogue takes on an even richer quality through the rapidly expanding
base of telecommunities where town hall meetings can take place across the boundaries of space
and time. There are many other examples of community dialoguing and these include VCR
networks, small radio transmitters and cable access as well as the significant role played by Art
Centres in the creation and distribution of experimental as well as issues-oriented videotapes,
sound cassettes and journals. All of these grassroots manifestations need to be examined through
their linkages with sensitivity to the character of the local even as that very category it itself being
transformed.

Decentralization, along with distinctions between mainstream and alternative media, has
been of fundamental importance for local use of computer technology. Claims of participatory
democracy and advocacy are generally cast in opposition to state and corporate control. This is
linked to interactivity and heterogeneity - the notion that local cultural control more fully
expresses the needs of the community in all of its diversity. These decentralized cultural
expressions, it is assumed, communicate across the boundaries of class, gender and ethnic
difference and are a reflection of the 'particular' interests and identities of the various groups which
make up the community.

Empowerment through the use of networked media is also about policy making at the local
level and efforts to link local politics with the translocal and the national. It is about another way of
constructing local history and providing narratives which are more personal and directly related to
the experiences of communities and the people who live in them. One of the problems with this
conceptualization of the relationship between media and community is that it assumes a measure of
disenfranchisement which has to be recovered. It locates the political and practical orientation of the
lowcast media producer outside of the supposedly weak discursive strategies of the community. In
this respect, information is meant to fill a hole which other forms of local expression have left
empty.

One possible way of thinking about this issue may be to challenge the idea of
empowerment as it has been articulated by community media practitioners. When a community
worker asks, 'how do we create opportunities for culturally diverse groups to speak to each other'
they are in essence, marginalizing existing forms of communication and exchange. They may not
be able to recognize the presence of creative alternatives located in cultural spaces quite different
from the ones they are used to. There is a spontaneity to local culture which far exceeds the
descriptions and analyses which can be made of it. The process is in constant evolution and by its
very nature challenges preconceptions of subjectivity, public discourse and modes of
communication. There are many examples of this including the use of graffiti for political
purposes, eclectic and highly localized zines, college radio stations, local rock bands, as well as
rock 'movements' like straight-edge, reading and photography clubs, free local newspapers,
freenets and what Peter Manuel has described as Cassette Culture through which music and the
spoken word are created and marketed at very low cost, on sound cassette in an unsystematic
fashion, and then distributed within and across various communities.

All of this, and I have cited just a few examples, speaks about types of enfranchisement
which are not located in conventional political or cultural strategies of communication and
representation. For people involved with networking this suggests that other modes of public
address are needed. How do imaging and computerized technologies take on a public character?
How and why do they become relevant to the everyday lives of widely divergent groups of people?
Taking a contrarian point of view do they effectively work against change rather than for it? It may
be the case, for example, that FREENETS and other lowcast technologies (as distinct for example
from zines which are hybrids and where desktop technologies cannot be the sole driving force for
the medium's creators) like video, effectively undermine the very changes which they are searching
for. They take what Leo Marx has described as a "disembodied entity" like a machine or a
technology and ascribe powers to it which effectively disengage people from the power to do
anything about them. The best evidence for this lies in the fact that imaging technologies are
devised and created within professional, engineering contexts which rarely work to demystify their
operations. Some of the best computer technologists of the moment are striving to make the
computer an "invisible" part of everyday life - the result will be machines which in a metaphorical
sense don't exist, yet have an effect on the user. As the machine disappears, what happens to
relations of subjectivity and identity? Where can the use be located? What are the boundaries
between machine (the rules and codes which have been built into its structure), culture and change?

Douglas Brent develops an argument which suggests that the entire area of electronic
interchanges of information not only becomes independent of geography but encourages
spontaneous "networlds" which are 'leaky' and built on foundations which change so often that
virtually all of their rules are in constant flux. He sees this as the nexus for a new set of boundaries
which recast the conventional definitions which our culture has made not only of community but
the activities of culture and daily life. The philosophical premise for all of this is a radically
redrawn conception of interconnectivity and networking. So, for example, an artist run centre in
Toronto could presumably put its videotapes on-line (through the World Wide Web) and using a
program developed by the filmmaker David Blair, encourage people to comment on the tapes. The
comments could lead to new ideas, new ways of making or remaking the material already shot or
an entirely different video could grow out of the feedback. This process of annotation changes the
domain of knowledge attached to the videotape. It also transforms how and what we think of
audiences and spectatorship. It broadens the potential of the video and at the same time weakens
the proprietary relationship of the author to his or her creations. It also casts the mainstream itself
into a different light. Conventional hierarchies (e.g., creation, sale, marketing, distribution, and
consumption or viewing of cultural creations) which tend to focus the production of knowledge in
specific locations become dispersed. This dispersal challenges what we mean by community and
the exchange of knowledge and ideas. Most importantly, it connects what might have been an
obscure or eclectic video with communities of people who have by design or serendipity
"discovered" the video as they browse through cyberspace.

It is an irony that much of what is described as cyberspace is a "place" of accident which is
nevertheless dependent upon highly complex computerized structures. The scaffolding for so much
of cyberspace rests on the shifting sands of much older technologies like electricity. This is not
meant as a capricious comment. Anyone who has experienced their computer screen fading out as
the electricity goes off knows how helpless both the computer and the network become.

So many of the issues which have haunted and motivated a generation of artists and
activists, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas, democratic forms of community
involvement and the incorporation of political ideas into artistic experimentation are now up for
grabs through networked computerization. An anecdote may suffice to explain this process and its
effects. One of my most brilliant students did a project in which he designed a World Wide Web
Home page for a course which I was teaching and put his own fanzine on it. The fanzine is in the
form of a hypermedia production on the Web. In discussions with him he mentioned that he rarely
reads books not because they don't interest him, but because he is now so used to moving around
in hypermedia environments that he is impatient with "ordinary" books. His fanzine is about a
rather large community of people devoted to straight-edge rock culture. His biggest thrill was
examining the log for those people who have looked in on his work and incorporating their
suggestions into the project. His orientation is not to be dependent on the technology nor to
overstate its value, rather what he is searching for is a way of remaining in continual contact with
the growing network he is helping to create. This stretches the boundaries of what we mean by
community, but it also effectively disengages the relationship between conventional definitions of
political activity and cultural creation. My student's fanzine is all about the potential for
communication without the need to link that process to a particular effect. It positions him while
also denying his authority as the creator of the fanzine. In other words, the networking exceeds his
ability to control the process. To be effective he has to double back, to examine or exclude the
creative work of a variety of people. This interactivity means that he controls the agenda for a short
time, loses control and then regains it. Effectively, consensus is built through virtual discussions
about hypothetical forms of interaction and communication. This tentative or contingent space is at
the root of networking technology and researchers will have to examine how the shifting structure
of these interactions signals a major departure from what we have defined both as the local and as
community media.