Part I
In his “unapologetically presentist reading of Goffman’s
dissertation,” Dr. Moore presents several points with the intention of increasing
our understanding of what is common and different in online and offline
interaction, and I would like to begin the first part of my blog discussing one
that resonated with me the most.
One of the points that I found relevant for understanding
communication interaction was the idea of “faulty participant,” which I
understood as needing more than verbal cues to successfully communicate (see p.
280). This notion is relevant to me, as it goes back to the idea that there are
layers of meaning to what we say. For example:
Chilean friend 1: Hey buddy! Do you
want to join me for ‘once’ (Pronounced
“awn-say,” it translates as ‘eleven,’ but it is actually the equivalent of ‘dinner’
in the US).
Chilean friend 2: Nah! I have stuff
to do.
Chilean friend 1: Are you sure?
It’s my treat.
Chilean friend 2: No, I am sure!
Going to your place would be an inconvenience for everybody.
Chilean friend 1: Dude! It’s not.
Just come over. This is the last time I ask!
Chilean friend 2: Ok. If you
insist, I guess I’ll have to come.
This little dialog I created is an example of something that
I actually had to explain to my wife not long ago. Every time she would offer
to do something for me or give me something, I would say ‘no’ with the
understanding that she would ‘insist’ and after this back and forth showed in
the example, I would ‘give in’ or ‘accept.’ However, as soon as I would say ‘no’
my wife would just move on, and not do or give me what she had initially
offered. So how does this anecdote relate to context collapse? I think it does
in a couple of ways. First, it brings to our attention how we communicate in a
given situation, meaning, what are the unspoken interactional conventions of a
given situation, and second what could happen if we use the same pattern of
communication with an audience of people who aren’t aware of those unspoken
conventions, and actually have conventions of their own. I also believe it
relates to context collapse in that it implies a transformation in the uptake
of information, resulting in another new message: ‘Delivering a package by car’
means delivering whiskey (see p. 278). My wife successfully understanding my
words means my ‘wife does not understand me,’ or even if we push it a little
bit, ‘she does not care about me’.
So, I tend to agree with Dr. Moore in his proposition of
viewing that there are many commonalities to offline and online communication, specifically
in terms of ‘curating the self,’ to a particular audience both online and
offline, and the transformation of old messages into different new messages.
For the second part of my blog, I will turn to Dr.
Georgakopoulou’s claim that there are ethical clashes in connection with
processes and outcomes associated to context collapse, and since I have very
limited knowledge regarding how to conduct ‘scientific research’ I will present
more questions than comments/answers in hopes that we can tackle them in class.
In the context of study of online discourse, Dr.
Georgakopoulou claims that there is a bias towards inductive and descriptive
approaches, which results in the lack of space for the researcher to be
reflexive of their own ideologies. If this is true:
1.
What are inductive and descriptive approaches
trying to accomplish with the way research is done? Or why don’t they
incorporate this reflexive piece that Dr. Georgakopoulou mentions?
2.
Why is this a problem now?
a.
It seems to me that most researchers conduct
research just to prove their starting idea.
Another ethical clash discussed in the text is the
‘mismatch’ between ‘amplification’ and ‘scalability’ of acts of communication.
“What will prevail and how is not linear or foreseeable and the participants or
audiences in this process are equally unpredictable.” Also, it is argued that
“disproportionate emphasis [can be given] to what the collective chooses to
amplify.” If this is true:
1.
How is this a problem? – I believe I can relate
to the discomfort Dr. Georgakopoulou experienced when the audience of her
presentations laughed at the videos she was showing. In a way, it makes me
think of the memes I shared with the class about 9/11, and how for some people
it is a “joke.” But at the same time, it makes me ask: ‘what don’t I know?’
‘Why can’t I join the laugh?’ – At the beginning of the semester, we read in
Ch. 1 (I believe) that it is by looking at talk about language that we find
meaning, so it would be in the interest of awareness and critical thinking to
understand why a certain group of people find funny something we don’t.
Finally, a series of recommendations that require
reflexivity and phronesis are made, and I wanted to ask how you feel about them.
Namely:
1.
Heavy disguise,
2.
Not showing certain videos that glamorize
violence,
3.
More prescriptive stance on communication
practices, and
4.
Bracketing.
Hi Israel!
ReplyDeleteI believe that the problem with the scalability is as you alluded to, that it is in the hands of the collective who chooses to amplify something, that who takes what words/phrases/etc. from which situations are totally out of our hands. What is a big deal to one, might not be the same for another. I really like your interpretations about context collapse in the sense of what you are missing from the context also. That missing piece is crucial in being a part of the context and speech community with which your speaking. I never thought about it that critically before and thank you for opening up my awareness to that.
Additionally, I also feel the same way and a sort of connection to the Dr. Georgakopoulou example you mentioned when they laughed at the video. When I am speaking Spanish or in a room of Spanish-speakers and they say a joke that I do not understand. I understand the literal words of what was said, but I might not understand the TV show it came from, or the history behind the words and there I am left feeling “collapsed” and wondering exactly what you mentioned- ‘what don’t I know?’ ‘Why can’t I join the laugh?’
Thanks for your post! – Gab
Hi Israel, Thanks for addressing the two posts and the potential overlap--and for calling on us all to think carefully about the options for ethical behavior the Alex suggests. It definitely seems important to consider these options in light of Rob's point that context collapse is not unique to "Social Media"--but may be amplified by it.
ReplyDeleteI really loved your little dialogue, Israel! It would also work if you substituted "French" (I have a friend who has been living in this country for a long time but still misses opportunities to get some coffee when she's dying for it because she systematically says no when people offer thinking they are going to insist at least once so that she can say yes without seeming too eager!).
ReplyDeleteI too was very happy to read Georgakopoulou's ethical concerns this week as they resonated with my own. It seems (from both papers) that the crux of the issue is that when we went from irl ethnography to online, we went from participant-observer to just observer (or lurker, voyeur, etc.). The fact that the presence of the researcher is unseen for the interlocutors is in itself a context collapse that has ethical repercussions. Participants in online forums can't (and couldn't) imagine that a researcher is reading their interactions and will extract some quotes for analysis and publication. I find this problematic because by resemiotizing someone's utterances in another context, not only do we participate in the feedback look (scalability, online amplification), but we also expose participants to context collapse (readers of academic journal being a different audience from that of the online forum they originally published on). Which is why I subscribe to the cautious steps you mention at the end in order to protect participants' identification.
Thank you Israel for your attentive reflection on the readings. I agree that we should ask people why they laugh at the video. If to do nothing more than encourage their own reflection on their response. I think on some level she knew the answer and I agree it is discomforting but I think she should lean into that and see that happens. Ask the audience why it is funny. Would be funny if it had happened to their mother or sister? Would they have the same reaction? (or would that be taking it too far?)
ReplyDeleteThanks Israel for sharing that little dialogue! Similar situations occur to me a lot as well, when I tend to decline people's offers in an attempt to be polite and to not seem too excited about them. For me, recognizing certain situations as 'context collapse' often comes later when I get the chance to reflect upon those situations in classes like this. I tend to attribute those awkward communicative moments as my personal deviation from the communicative norms, or simply me not paying enough attention to the situation. I always wished I had learned more of these communicative skills in my past language classes, which as a teacher I strive to include as much as possible. I wonder if you have also attempted to teach this in your Spanish classes and if you have, I am curious to know what American students' reactions were like.
ReplyDeleteHi Israel, thanks for sharing the interesting dialogue. I have the similar experience too.
ReplyDeleteMy example is that when many friends get together in one’s home, Chinese people (i.e. the host) usually use “I’m going to cook and have lunch/dinner now” to indicate that the host is tired and the guests need to leave. However, American people don't know this contextualization cue. For instance, once when an American student and I discussed our assignment in my apartment. I thought the meeting was over and I wanted her to leave, so I said, “I’m going to cook lunch. Do you want to stay here?”. Actually, I thought the discussion was done and she might leave. The purpose of the second sentence was just a formulaic language showing politeness. But my friend responded, “okay, I’ll have lunch with you. What are you going to have?”.
It is obvious that we had a miscommunication because of the lost of shared cues.
(Xiaoyi Tang)
Delete