All of these observations suggest that studies of the internet and social capital require us to return our attention to the sources of community, and the question of why an internet community, in and of itself, cannot substitute for the traditional forms. One reason is that a community is something to which individuals have an emotional attachment, and from which they derive a sense of a common past and a common future. Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that communities encourage civic engagement, or the investment of social capital, in the future. Individuals only make investments if they can envision some future goal, either for themselves or their children.

But cyberspace exists only in the moment. It substitutes immediate gratification for a sense of past or future, and neither demands nor encourages commitments or investments of social capital. We may argue, of course, that even traditional communities have no real "past" or "future"; they might be considered merely "imagined communities" represented by a piece of land that symbolizes a common heritage. But one can return to the land and thereby "revisit" the community. Revisiting a website is a poor substitute for a link to a particular physical place one would fight for and perhaps die defending. Without such a sense of common past and fate, individuals in a society lose the bonds which make them invest social capital in their community or nation.

Frank Louis Rusciano is a professor of political science at Rider University.

Additional Reading