Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today's schools

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

  • 176 Citations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: FROM GROUPS TO SPACES In this paper, I consider an alternative to the notion of a “community of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). This alternative focuses on the idea of a space in which people interact, rather than on membership in a community. I want to consider this alternative because I believe that the notion of what I will later call an “affinity space” is a particularly important contemporary social configuration with implications for the future of schools and schooling. The notion of a “community of practice” has been a fruitful one. However, it has given rise to several problems, some of which are: The idea of “community” can carry connotations of “belongingness” and close-knit personal ties among people which do not necessarily always fit classrooms, workplaces or other sites where the notion of a community of practice has been used. The idea of “community” seems to bring with it the notion of people being “members”. However, “membership” means such different things across different sorts of communities of practice, and there are so many different ways and degrees of being a member in some communities of practice that it is not clear that membership is a truly helpful notion. While Wenger (see Wenger, McDermott and Snyder 2002) has tried to be careful in delineating just what is and what is not a community of practice, distinguishing it from other sorts of affiliations, the notion has been used by others to cover such a wide array of social forms that we may be missing the trees for the forest.

LanguageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationBeyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context
PublisherCambridge University Press
Pages214-232
Number of pages19
Volume9780521836432
ISBN (Print)9780511610554, 0521836433, 9780521836432
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mythology
Workplace

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)

Cite this

Gee, J. (2005). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today's schools. In Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context (Vol. 9780521836432, pp. 214-232). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610554.012

Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces : From the age of mythology to today's schools. / Gee, James.

Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context. Vol. 9780521836432 Cambridge University Press, 2005. p. 214-232.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Gee, J 2005, Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today's schools. in Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context. vol. 9780521836432, Cambridge University Press, pp. 214-232. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610554.012
Gee J. Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today's schools. In Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context. Vol. 9780521836432. Cambridge University Press. 2005. p. 214-232 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610554.012
Gee, James. / Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces : From the age of mythology to today's schools. Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context. Vol. 9780521836432 Cambridge University Press, 2005. pp. 214-232
@inbook{1d3547d934f24d0db686b0b8a363231a,
title = "Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces: From the age of mythology to today's schools",
abstract = "INTRODUCTION: FROM GROUPS TO SPACES In this paper, I consider an alternative to the notion of a “community of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). This alternative focuses on the idea of a space in which people interact, rather than on membership in a community. I want to consider this alternative because I believe that the notion of what I will later call an “affinity space” is a particularly important contemporary social configuration with implications for the future of schools and schooling. The notion of a “community of practice” has been a fruitful one. However, it has given rise to several problems, some of which are: The idea of “community” can carry connotations of “belongingness” and close-knit personal ties among people which do not necessarily always fit classrooms, workplaces or other sites where the notion of a community of practice has been used. The idea of “community” seems to bring with it the notion of people being “members”. However, “membership” means such different things across different sorts of communities of practice, and there are so many different ways and degrees of being a member in some communities of practice that it is not clear that membership is a truly helpful notion. While Wenger (see Wenger, McDermott and Snyder 2002) has tried to be careful in delineating just what is and what is not a community of practice, distinguishing it from other sorts of affiliations, the notion has been used by others to cover such a wide array of social forms that we may be missing the trees for the forest.",
author = "James Gee",
year = "2005",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/CBO9780511610554.012",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780511610554",
volume = "9780521836432",
pages = "214--232",
booktitle = "Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces

T2 - From the age of mythology to today's schools

AU - Gee, James

PY - 2005/1/1

Y1 - 2005/1/1

N2 - INTRODUCTION: FROM GROUPS TO SPACES In this paper, I consider an alternative to the notion of a “community of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). This alternative focuses on the idea of a space in which people interact, rather than on membership in a community. I want to consider this alternative because I believe that the notion of what I will later call an “affinity space” is a particularly important contemporary social configuration with implications for the future of schools and schooling. The notion of a “community of practice” has been a fruitful one. However, it has given rise to several problems, some of which are: The idea of “community” can carry connotations of “belongingness” and close-knit personal ties among people which do not necessarily always fit classrooms, workplaces or other sites where the notion of a community of practice has been used. The idea of “community” seems to bring with it the notion of people being “members”. However, “membership” means such different things across different sorts of communities of practice, and there are so many different ways and degrees of being a member in some communities of practice that it is not clear that membership is a truly helpful notion. While Wenger (see Wenger, McDermott and Snyder 2002) has tried to be careful in delineating just what is and what is not a community of practice, distinguishing it from other sorts of affiliations, the notion has been used by others to cover such a wide array of social forms that we may be missing the trees for the forest.

AB - INTRODUCTION: FROM GROUPS TO SPACES In this paper, I consider an alternative to the notion of a “community of practice” (Lave and Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). This alternative focuses on the idea of a space in which people interact, rather than on membership in a community. I want to consider this alternative because I believe that the notion of what I will later call an “affinity space” is a particularly important contemporary social configuration with implications for the future of schools and schooling. The notion of a “community of practice” has been a fruitful one. However, it has given rise to several problems, some of which are: The idea of “community” can carry connotations of “belongingness” and close-knit personal ties among people which do not necessarily always fit classrooms, workplaces or other sites where the notion of a community of practice has been used. The idea of “community” seems to bring with it the notion of people being “members”. However, “membership” means such different things across different sorts of communities of practice, and there are so many different ways and degrees of being a member in some communities of practice that it is not clear that membership is a truly helpful notion. While Wenger (see Wenger, McDermott and Snyder 2002) has tried to be careful in delineating just what is and what is not a community of practice, distinguishing it from other sorts of affiliations, the notion has been used by others to cover such a wide array of social forms that we may be missing the trees for the forest.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927083421&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84927083421&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/CBO9780511610554.012

DO - 10.1017/CBO9780511610554.012

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9780511610554

SN - 0521836433

SN - 9780521836432

VL - 9780521836432

SP - 214

EP - 232

BT - Beyond Communities of Practice: Language, Power and Social Context

PB - Cambridge University Press

ER -