The Internet: Third Place or Crutch?
In recent years, on social media and in a lot of online discourse, there’s been conversations concerning Third Places, which was first coined in Oldenburg and Christensen’s book “The Great Good Place”, which talks about how Third Places are “anchors of community life that facilitate and foster broader, more creative interaction”. There’s been discussion about how The Internet has become a Third Place for many people, especially after the COVID pandemic. But can The Internet truly be, by definition, a Third Place?
To continue using the term laid about by sociologist Oldenburg and environmentalist Christensen, we need to look at the characteristics that qualifies a Third Place. There are 7:
Open and inviting. You don’t need an invitation or appointment, and you can come and go as you please.
Comfortable and informal. You feel that you belong there.
Convenient. It’s close enough to visit often, ideally right in your own neighborhood.
Unpretentious. Everyone is on the same level, there’s nothing fancy or fragile, and it’s not expensive.
There are regulars. And often there’s a host who greets people as they arrive.
Conversation is the main activity. Discussion, debate, and gossip are part of the mix.
Laughter is frequent. The mood is light-hearted and playful. Joking and witty banter are encouraged.
According to those characteristics, it’s impossible for the entire internet to be lumped together into one “place” and considered a Third Place. If we take this in a non-literal way, which is the intention of those that state this ideology, then we can dissect it even further.
If John Doe states that his Third Place is “The Internet” and, after discussion, reveals that he mainly browses Wikipedia and watched YouTube videos, is this a Third Place for him? By Oldenburg and Christensen’s definition, no. Wikipedia and YouTube do not offer socialization in the same way that a cafe or pub would, so a few of the 7 characteristics do not apply. One could argue that commenting on YouTube videos and entering a discussion with someone in the comment section would provide socialization, but it has to be more than that.
Is everyone in the comment section, the Third Place that’s in question right now, unpretentious? Is everyone on the same level? Are there regulars?
Following the characteristics that Oldenburg and Christensen have laid out and applying it to the specific sites that are visited while enjoying The Internet as a Third Place starts putting a lot of sites into a different light, as there are many that people frequent that would not tick off all of the boxes.
The topic of the Third Place continues to come up in conversations and will continue to do so, as the co-author Christensen is going to release a sequel to The Great Good Place, where she argues that a Third Place is the answer to loneliness, political polarization and climate resilience; arguably, three of the most prominent issues many are facing today.
If The Internet is not a Third Place, and it doesn’t actually satisfy the characteristics laid out that qualifies it as such, and it’s not an “anchor of community life” that “facilitates and fosters broader, more creative interactions”, then what is it? I would argue it’s a nebulous 2.5 place: A place that exists between “Home” and “Play”.
Oldenburg states that first two social environments are Home (“First Place”) and Work (“Second Place”). Oldenburg argues that the Third Place is important for the previously stated reasons but also, it’s important because it provides a place for democracy, civic engagement and a sense of place. Work, typically, does not provide those 3 things because the main objective is to be productive, not socialize. Home, also, cannot fulfill those 3 things because there isn’t enough socialization, as most people live with a small number of people and the main priority is to relax or do housework. The Third Place is vital.
Since Oldenburg’s writings (1989), the virtual Third Place has been considered and discussed. It has provided an accessible way for more individuals to socialize with others. However, the goal of a Third Place isn’t to just socialize, it needs to be more than that, in the pursuit of self-actualization, growth, development and progress. In A Typology of Places in the Knowledge Economy: Towards the Fourth Place, Morrison argues that there is an existence of a Fourth Place. We work from home, there are pandemics, we colive, cowork or comingle in and out of our homes. The Fourth Place, Morrison argues, can exist as the separation between each Place blurs more and more.
A new Place, however, does not takeaway the need for previous Places. The Internet as a Third Place is a facade and cannot sustain itself without impeding an individual’s progress in self-actualization, in contributing to society and in growing, learning and developing.
Morisson, Arnault A Typology of Places in the Knowledge Economy: Towards the Fourth Place https://zenodo.org/records/2652170
Oldenburg, Ray (2023). The great good place: cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community (2nd ed.). Great Barrington, Massachusetts: Berkshire Publishing Group LLC. ISBN 978-1-61472-097-3.