I’ve been back to Wenger’s book to try to address my queries. I think it’s the case that, with his ‘communities of practice’ label, he is seekng to mark these communities off from other groupings which have been labelled ‘community’ but which don’t really live up to that definition.

He says that ‘membership is not just a matter of social category, declaring allegiance, belonging to an organisation, having a title, or having personal relations with some people… Neither is geographical proximity sufficent to develop a practice.’

To take those one by one. ‘Social category’. I suppose you could talk of the ‘working-class community’ or the ‘academic community’. But to distinguish ‘working-class community’ from ‘working class’ implies some sort of collective belief or action or experience if the label is not to form a redundant addition.

‘Declaring allegiance’. Well, you could define yourself as Russian, or a Chelsea supporter or a Boyzone fan. Would we use community to describe any of those groupings? Probably not – unless it were a group of Russians abroad. England might have a ‘Russian community’ but, again, you need to be talking of some collective belief, action or experience.

Having a title. The comunity of lords? The community of doctors? The community of politicians? The community of archbishops? No, can’t see this one at all. They might be the aristocracy or the intelligentsia or the nobility but not a community.

Having personal relations with some people. A friendship group? A string of ex-boyfriends? Can’t see any reason for defining a group of people as a community unless they do something more than meet each other. 

Geographical proximity. This is the one which is pertinent with regard to physical / virtual communities. But, even in the physical world, does it make any sense to refer to the people of Milton Keynes as a community unless it is with respect to collective belief or action or experience ?

So, the advantage of  ‘community of practice’ is that it eliminates woolly uses of the word ‘community’. However, in doing so, it introduces redundancies and confusions of its own.