Should all Communities be Gated?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Peter Oldfield on December 6, 2009 at 8:16pm

I would think that depends first on the kind of community being formed. There could be an initial time of having an open gate. At some point, depending on the needs and the strategy for the community, the gate might be closed. After the group has established its parameters and found its bearings, it could again open the gate, but this time with clearer entry conditions.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Reader on December 6, 2009 at 11:42pm

I think I agree with some of what Peter is saying. The genre "community" brings images of many different types to mind. In a physical sense the image of "gated" community (to me) is of exclusivity based on monetary capacity and/or fear of those "outside" the community. In a more figurative or "virtual" sense I guess "gating" may be less threatening but would generally tend to work against the purposes of the community rather than for them unless membership conditions are reasonably easy to satisfy.
As Douglas says all groups have their share of freeloadersand non-contributors - I know I am guilty of this myself over the years in various circumstances - it usually means my priorities or interests have changed - and I think that is valid. Again, depending on ciscumstances, re-engaging these people can be as simple as setting up a program geared to their interest or as complicated as making a personal visit to consel and overcome their apathy.
Ona way of 'gating' that is less threatening and can even be encouraging is to charge a nominal annual membership fee and providing some benefits that are exclusive to members - such as discounts on cost of social functions or fundraising events. Here in Australia we have a range of community organisations (known as community or neighbourhood houses) that are sponsored by state and local government. They are run as non-profit organisations with a nominal $5 or $10 per annum membership - a voluntary committee of management but usually one or two paid employees (manager and assistant or maybe social worker). The sponsorship covers salaries and infrastructure costs but achieves good value for taxpayer dollars in providing a focal point for delivery of services and contributing to reduction in anti-social behaviour. Facilities are used by multiple groups from within the community (sometimes on a cost recovery basis) - for example the local neighbourhood watch ( a separate organisation) uses meeting room facilities. I seem t o have got a bit off topic so i will close this post.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Reader on December 6, 2009 at 11:45pm

I think I agree with some of what Peter is saying. The genre "community" brings images of many different types to mind. In a physical sense the image of "gated" community (to me) is of exclusivity based on monetary capacity and/or fear of those "outside" the community. In a more figurative or "virtual" sense I guess "gating" may be less threatening but would generally tend to work against the purposes of the community rather than for them unless membership conditions are reasonably easy to satisfy.
As Douglas says all groups have their share of freeloadersand non-contributors - I know I am guilty of this myself over the years in various circumstances - it usually means my priorities or interests have changed - and I think that is valid. Again, depending on ciscumstances, re-engaging these people can be as simple as setting up a program geared to their interest or as complicated as making a personal visit to consel and overcome their apathy.
Ona way of 'gating' that is less threatening and can even be encouraging is to charge a nominal annual membership fee and providing some benefits that are exclusive to members - such as discounts on cost of social functions or fundraising events. Here in Australia we have a range of community organisations (known as community or neighbourhood houses) that are sponsored by state and local government. They are run as non-profit organisations with a nominal $5 or $10 per annum membership - a voluntary committee of management but usually one or two paid employees (manager and assistant or maybe social worker). The sponsorship covers salaries and infrastructure costs but achieves good value for taxpayer dollars in providing a focal point for delivery of services and contributing to reduction in anti-social behaviour. Facilities are used by multiple groups from within the community (sometimes on a cost recovery basis) - for example the local neighbourhood watch ( a separate organisation) uses meeting room facilities. I seem t o have got a bit off topic so i will close this post.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Peter Oldfield on December 7, 2009 at 12:38am

Thanks for your comments, Paul. Yes, I think Douglas is giving the term 'gating' a figurative and therefore multi-purpose use here. I agree that an annual subscription could serve to sort out those who discover, as a result, that their commitment does not match the need of a particular community. And I do like the idea of devising programs that would re-engage the seeming non-contributors. I wonder how others see this.

Paul Reader said:

I think I agree with some of what Peter is saying. The genre "community" brings images of many different types to mind. In a physical sense the image of "gated" community (to me) is of exclusivity based on monetary capacity and/or fear of those "outside" the community. In a more figurative or "virtual" sense I guess "gating" may be less threatening but would generally tend to work against the purposes of the community rather than for them unless membership conditions are reasonably easy to satisfy.
As Douglas says all groups have their share of freeloadersand non-contributors - I know I am guilty of this myself over the years in various circumstances - it usually means my priorities or interests have changed - and I think that is valid. Again, depending on ciscumstances, re-engaging these people can be as simple as setting up a program geared to their interest or as complicated as making a personal visit to consel and overcome their apathy.
Ona way of 'gating' that is less threatening and can even be encouraging is to charge a nominal annual membership fee and providing some benefits that are exclusive to members - such as discounts on cost of social functions or fundraising events. Here in Australia we have a range of community organisations (known as community or neighbourhood houses) that are sponsored by state and local government. They are run as non-profit organisations with a nominal $5 or $10 per annum membership - a voluntary committee of management but usually one or two paid employees (manager and assistant or maybe social worker). The sponsorship covers salaries and infrastructure costs but achieves good value for taxpayer dollars in providing a focal point for delivery of services and contributing to reduction in anti-social behaviour. Facilities are used by multiple groups from within the community (sometimes on a cost recovery basis) - for example the local neighbourhood watch ( a separate organisation) uses meeting room facilities. I seem t o have got a bit off topic so i will close this post.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Reader on December 7, 2009 at 12:57am

Sorry - hope you can delete the duplicated post my internet disconnected just as i sent it!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Douglas Atkin on December 9, 2009 at 7:58am

Thanks Peter and Paul for these very interesting comments (and sorry for not responding sooner...I've been sick).
Yes, I was using the word 'gating' somewhat provocatively. But from what I've observed, strong communities, especially ones built around a belief, or passion, or cause or interest, do require some 'proof' of buy-in. I like the idea of keeping the community open (as this one is) for a while, seeing what members are especially interested in, then closing it and approving new members based on those criteria.
From my study of cult-like organizations, it was important for them to ensure that members really did buy into the vision and values, whether they were a company (like jetBlue or Nordstroms) or a religious community. Dilution threatened the integrity of the group.
I think the degree of gating and policing depends somewhat on how ideologically-based the community is.
Also, perhaps where experience and skill-level are relevant. There are screenwriter Meetup Groups, for example, where only those who have already had their scripts bought can participate. Having 'amateurs' or people starting out will dilute the experience for the rest, for whom critiques from their peers is key.


Peter Oldfield said:

Thanks for your comments, Paul. Yes, I think Douglas is giving the term 'gating' a figurative and therefore multi-purpose use here. I agree that an annual subscription could serve to sort out those who discover, as a result, that their commitment does not match the need of a particular community. And I do like the idea of devising programs that would re-engage the seeming non-contributors. I wonder how others see this.

Paul Reader said:

I think I agree with some of what Peter is saying. The genre "community" brings images of many different types to mind. In a physical sense the image of "gated" community (to me) is of exclusivity based on monetary capacity and/or fear of those "outside" the community. In a more figurative or "virtual" sense I guess "gating" may be less threatening but would generally tend to work against the purposes of the community rather than for them unless membership conditions are reasonably easy to satisfy.
As Douglas says all groups have their share of freeloadersand non-contributors - I know I am guilty of this myself over the years in various circumstances - it usually means my priorities or interests have changed - and I think that is valid. Again, depending on ciscumstances, re-engaging these people can be as simple as setting up a program geared to their interest or as complicated as making a personal visit to consel and overcome their apathy.
Ona way of 'gating' that is less threatening and can even be encouraging is to charge a nominal annual membership fee and providing some benefits that are exclusive to members - such as discounts on cost of social functions or fundraising events. Here in Australia we have a range of community organisations (known as community or neighbourhood houses) that are sponsored by state and local government. They are run as non-profit organisations with a nominal $5 or $10 per annum membership - a voluntary committee of management but usually one or two paid employees (manager and assistant or maybe social worker). The sponsorship covers salaries and infrastructure costs but achieves good value for taxpayer dollars in providing a focal point for delivery of services and contributing to reduction in anti-social behaviour. Facilities are used by multiple groups from within the community (sometimes on a cost recovery basis) - for example the local neighbourhood watch ( a separate organisation) uses meeting room facilities. I seem t o have got a bit off topic so i will close this post.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Reader on December 9, 2009 at 10:32am

I think we are agreed that the kind of community will probably dictate whether gating is appropriate. Certainly I can see that ideologically based communities will strongly favour gating as a means of avoiding disssent and subversion although the existence of cults and racially based ideologies such as Naziism I think sounds a note of warning about the possible destructive nature of extremes. I was intereste to see you mention screen writers Douglas since I was, until quite recently, a member of e-libretti a group formed out of those of us who attended a libretti writing workshop here about 3 years ago. The intention of the "group" was to maintain contact and interest in each others work through an email digest. After an initial flurry of activity the group went quiet and someone suggested opening it up to interested outsiders - and there being no objections this took place. Despite this the communication waned and a few weeks ago the group was wound up. What had been formed out of an apparent common interest could not be held together simply by that interest alone.as there was little shared activity to accompany the interest. The group was a mix of amateurs like myself and professionals from a diverse range of skills such as dramaturgs, writers and musicians. From experience in other groups that are based on common interest and activity it seems to me that a key element is the willingness and capacity of members to share experience and provide learning opportunities or possibly formal training for those with little experience.
Oncce again I seem to have drifted off-topic probably because I have tended to be a member of interest based communities rather than ideologically based ones. Returning a little to the topic the question of religious communities is an interesting one. I am an Anglican (for US read Episcopalian). One aspect of some faith based communities is open evangelising which by its nature would suffer greatly from "gating". Nevertheless many churches of Anglican tradition here in Australia practice a form of gating which happens through inward looking consolidation broken only by almost accidental new membership rather than active recruitment. Whether this is a healthy condition is open to question but regular decline in membership would seem to indicate that gating (in the sense of exclusion) may lead to the death of a community.

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This