Society, by its very nature, is a collective entity. That’s why a society of one is simply inconceivable. All of the books, hypertext, and recordings can’t take the place of human interaction. Just look at how much human interaction we share. We all belong to multiple social groups—families, spiritual fellowships, neighborhoods, cities, food cooperatives, alumni associations, sports team backers, book clubs, political parties, online meeting places, Second Life, town, province, nation, and world.

 

Philosophers and theorists from every culture and era have attempted to define society. In his Politics, Aristotle famously wrote that man is a social being, and his predecessor, Plato, envisioned an ideal society in his Republic.  Building upon and differentiating from the Confucian tradition, Ssu-ma Chien interpreted society as an ever-changing cycle balancing virtues. Ibn Khaldun recognized the integration between individuals and larger groups within society, and he described a process of expansion and unification that creates societal solidarity.

 

In 1516, Thomas More coined the word “utopia” in his book by the same name. Other novelists, such as George Orwell in 1984 and Alan Moore in V for Vendetta, have illustrated the downside and totalitarian tendencies of idealistic societies.

 

Most people don’t study the academic discipline of sociology. However, we tend to share some common ideas that a model society ought to feature regardless of where we live. Adequate social services.   Responsive local, regional, and national government. Effective schools for the children. Conscious corporate partners. A high level employment. Quality infrastructure.

 

Psalm 133 offers a picture of a society at peace. “How very good and pleasant it is when kindred live together in unity! It is like the precious oil on the head, running down upon the beard, on the beard of Aaron, running down over the collar of his robes. It is like the dew of Hermon, which falls on the mountains of Zion. For there the Lord ordained his blessing, life forevermore.”

 

Who wouldn’t want to live in a well-balanced society?

 

Nevertheless, individuals have attempted to escape society in order to pursue the contemplative life. In the third century, St. Anthony fled into the Egyptian desert to practice the life of an anchorite. He lived alone in a cave, yet the crowds followed him to his wilderness retreat. There was no way for him to get away, and in today’s increasingly interconnected world no one can cut themselves off completely from everyone else.

 

Globalization and the internet reveal both the macro and micro levels of societal interface and transformation.

 

Consider globalization. At every WTO meeting, G8 summit, and World Economic Forum the world’s most powerful governmental and corporate leaders discuss ways of creating closer ties between the leading nations via national and corporate agreements. At the same meetings, thousands of protesters from every corner of the world gather in the streets to voice their opposition to globalized culture. They self-organize in order to speak out in favor of local and regional autonomy. Both sides envision an emerging society that reflects their own particular values. However, the paradoxical result of their interaction is the formation a global society with an acute local awareness.

 

In addition, both sides of the globalization debate utilize the internet. While their goals differ, their methods and means of communication are similar. Without the technological capacity provided by the world wide web, both globalization and the regional movement would not be possible. The standardization of telecommunications and technological protocols allows people on both sides of the globalization divide to communicate with each other, organize their events, and propagate their message.

 

Thanks to information technology, anyone with a computer and a connection can add to the trillions of already-existing web pages. By participating online, you share in the shaping of the world. User-driven self-defining networks create new strata and currents within society-at-large as individuals decide what to publish, read, watch, or listen to. Blogs, vlogs, Web 2.0, Web 3.0, and Web 4.0 are redefining the ways we interact with each other and the ways we define ourselves collectively. Chances are that if you have an internet connection, you probably share a closer affinity with someone hundreds (if not thousands) of miles away from you than with your next-door neighbor.

 

Nothing illustrates the concentric feedback loops of individual to local to global back to individual like YouTube. Launched by three friends in early 2005, YouTube creates a forum for pop trends to materialize, exposes scandal, and provides a soapbox for political candidates.  The grassroots portal allows anyone the possibility of reaching a mass audience immediately. Everyone from Britney Spears’ fans to the US military has found a voice on YouTube.

 

In an attempt to restrict the flow of information, governments and providers have attempted to control both access to and content on the internet with varying degrees of success. The web may appear as a modern version of the “wild west.” No doubt, the internet embodies the seeming mass chaos in today’s world. Anybody can say or do anything with little—if any—accountability.

 

However, the multifaceted online hazards invite web denizens to become more active and conscious in their decision making. Do some research before sending money to that “Nigerian prince.”

 

A more accurate description than “chaos” to explain our technologically-evolving world is “complex.” Our regional-global world is highly complex. Complexity doesn’t necessarily mean difficult, dense, or complicated. Instead, it relates to patterns and recognition. As we grow aware of the developing configuration of how our world is working, we can navigate with greater ease. The answer, then, to transforming society is engagement, not withdrawal.

 

Wikipedia demonstrates the interactive complexity of sharing and creating information. Unlike its printed hardbound predecessors, Wikipedia permits people from all walks of life to contribute to the creation, definition, and dissemination of knowledge. Instead of entrusting data into the hands of an elite few, Wikipedia’s self-regulating network of voluntary contributors continually monitors and shape what we know.

 

Marco Visscher describes this burgeoning participatory culture. “A new era is dawning, characterized by participation rather than the command-and-control model so intrinsic to the institutions that dominated the 20^th century” (Ode, May 2007)

 

Of course, the new participatory culture comes with potential risks. Terrorists organize online, just as relief workers do. However, there is no reversing the evolving transmodern participatory culture. The only question is whether you will involve yourself in it to help shape its contours.

 

Participatory culture invites you to take part in people’s lives—even the lives of people you may never meet face-to-face—in novel ways. Sharing in the lives of others—regardless of who they are—permits you to participate in the very life of God. Every occasion you have to express love, compassion, and knowledge is an opportunity to create contours of agape in the universe, thereby forging new deep structures that will help shape humanity for generations to come. Participating in the creation of your world—including in the lives of friends, family, and even online neighbors—permits you to act in the real world.

 

By consciously contributing your passion and compassion to the, your participation allows you to end the passive voyeurism of watching the world go by and to engage in the missional work of actualizing the New Heaven and New Earth.