Neighborhood group chats as a subject of offline sociology

Neighborhood group chats have become an inseparable attribute of most urban localities. Despite their significant role in the processes of neighborhood communication and the construction of local communities, this phenomenon has been little comprehended by social science. The purpose of this article is to offer variants of adaptation of some sociological approaches to the analysis of the phenomenon of neighborhood chats. The nature of neighborhood chat as an institutional and communication-oriented tool for information exchange is described. The classification of neighborhood chats according to the level of their closeness is given. The forms of control in the selection of participants in closed versions of neighborhood chats are explained. The communicative side of neighborhood chat is proposed to be considered through the prism of E. Goffman’s “dramaturgy”. Conceptualizations of the basic concepts of “dramaturgy” in the context of digital neighborhood interaction are proposed. The complicated nature of neighborhood chat as a technological and social phenomenon is analyzed using the actor-network theory approach. The identification of neighborhood chat as an “actor-network” has been substantiated. The functional side of neighborhood chat as a mechanism of assemblage of neighborhood communities is considered in correlation with R. Oldenburg’s concept of the “third place”. It is shown that the neighborhood chat, being rather a digital simulation of the “third place”, can potentially compensate for the lack of real public spaces in the conditions of typical development, launching and supporting the processes of integration on the locality.

1. Castro E.V. (2017), Cannibal metaphysics. Frontiers of poststructural anthropology, Trans. from French Kralechkin D., Ad Marginem Press, Moscow, Russia (in Russian)

2. Chernysheva L., Gizatullina E. (2021), “Vkontakte and the neighbors: features and practices of hybrid neighboring in a large housing estate in Saint Petersburg, Russia”, Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 39–71, https://doi.org/10.25285/2078-1938-2021-13-2-39-71 (in Russian).

3. Dobryakova M.S. (1999), “Studies of local communities in the sociological tradition” [“Issledovaniya lokal’nykh soobshchestv v sotsiologicheskoi traditsii”], Sociological Studies, no. 7, pp. 125–133 (in Russian).

4. Eidelman T.A., Safransky S. (2021), “The urban commons: a keyword essay”, Urban Geography, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 792–811, https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2020.1742466

5. Goffman E. (2000), The presentation of self in everyday life, Trans. From Eng. Kovalev A.D., Kanon-Press-Ts; Kuchkovo pole, Moscow, Russia (in Russian).

6. Hogan B. (2010), “The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 377–386, https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610385893

7. Kibakin M.V., Grishaeva S.A. (2019), “The current problems of the digital reflection of social reality: rethinking scientific concepts”, Digital Sociology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 4–9, https://doi.org/10.26425/2658-347X-2019-1-4-9 (in Russian).

8. Latour B. (2014), Reassembling the social. An introduction to Actor-Network Theory, Trans. from Eng. Polonskaya I, Gavrilenko S. (ed.), Higher School of Economics Publ. HouseMoscow, Russia (in Russian)

9. Law J. (2015), After Method: Mess in Social Science Research, Trans. from Eng. Gavrilenko S., Pisarev A., Hanova P., Gavrilenko S. (ed.), The Gaidar Institute Publ. House, Moscow, Russia (in Russian).

10. Lebedeva E.V. (2022), “‘Right to the city’: experience of analysis of courtyard communities from the position of critical theory (by the example of Minsk)”, Bulletin of the Institute of Sociology (Vestnik instituta sotziologii), vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 44–66, https://doi.org/10.19181/vis.2022.13.1.775 (in Russian).

11. Mallinson K. (2015), “Smartphone revolution: Technology patenting and licensing fosters innovation, market entry, and exceptional growth”, IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 60–66, https://doi.org/10.1109/MCE.2015.2392954

12. Miller D., Rabho L., Awondo P., Vries M., Duque M., Garvey P., Haapio- Kirk L., Hawkins C., Otaegui A., Walton S., Wang X. (2021), The global smartphone: Beyond a youth technology. UCL Press, London, UK.

13. Oldenburg R. (2014), The great good place: cafés, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons and other hangouts at the heart of a community, Trans. from Eng. Shirokanova A., New Literary Observer [Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie], Moscow, Russia (in Russian)

14. Pavlyutkin I., Yudin G. (2015), “Community as a given versus community as a process: strategies for studying small towns”, Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 88–105 (in Russian).

15. Rettie R. (2009), “Mobile phone communication: Extending Goffman to mediated interaction”, Sociology, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 421–438, https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509103197

16. Schütz A. (2004), Selected writings: A world luminous with meaning. Transl. from Eng. and Germ. Nikolaev V., Romashko S., Smirnova N., Russian political encyclopedia (ROSSPEN), Moscow, Russia (in Russian).

17. Schütz A. (2008), “Some structures of the life world”, Trans. from Eng. Portnov A., Kukarceva M., Issues of Social Theory. Scientific almanac, vol. 2, no. 1(2), pp. 72–87 (in Russian).

18. Vahshtajn V.S. (2022), Imagining the city: an introduction to conceptualization theory, New Literary Observer [Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie], Moscow, Russia (in Russian).

19. Van Dijk J. (2006), The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media, SAGE Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, USA.

20. Zhao S., Elesh D. (2008), “Copresence as ‘being with’: Social contact in online public domains”, Information, Communication & Society, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 565–583, https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180801998995