Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Interactionism in the age of ubiquitous telecommunication

2019, Information, Communication & Society

https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1566487

Abstract

The following paper aims to engage recent reconsiderations of Gibson's theory of affordances and Goffman's concept of copresence in the context of the material turnespecially in the form expressed by Bruno Latour's actor-network theory. The paper's central claim is that microsociology cannot avoid engaging material turn theory. It will be argued that contemporary attempts to reconceptualize classical microsociological frameworks set out on a path that invariably leads to problems investigated by thinkers like Latour: as communication technology advances, the importance of mediated interaction grows, prompting attempts to update interactionism for non-face-to-face interactions such as teleconferencing, social networks and virtual reality. These new social situations are then made sense of in terms of the way these technologies have a transformative effect on interaction. This effect be it a modifier of the temporal structure of the interaction, or of the interactional capacity of the agentsis argued to always lead back to a central question of the material turn: if technology is a static transformational effect, where is its agency? Or, conversely: if a technological object's effect is uniform across all external factors, how is that not a form of technological determinism? The paper investigates whether attempts to avoid determinism manage to keep Latourian metaphysics at bay. The paper concludes by suggesting that contemporary social theory must work towards a middle way that does not gloss over important contributions of material turn theorists whilst also not ignoring the importance of considering human political responsibility.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. Microsociology must integrate material turn theory to address contemporary digital interactions.
  2. The rise of telecommunication technologies alters traditional concepts of copresence and interaction.
  3. Goffman's focus on face-to-face interaction overlooks the agency of nonhuman actors in social situations.
  4. Framework extensions of classical microsociology risk oversimplifying the complexity of human-material interactions.
  5. Affordance theory, while valuable, does not fully escape the challenges posed by actor-network theory's perspectives on agency.

References (59)

  1. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (2012). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (Anniversary ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  2. Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (1992). Shaping technology/building society: Studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press.
  3. Callon, M. (1984). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. The Sociological Review, 32, 196-233. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X. 1984.tb00113.x
  4. Campos-Castillo, C., & Hitlin, S. (2013). Copresence: Revisiting a building block for social inter- action theories. Sociological Theory, 31(2), 168-192.
  5. Cerulo, K. A. (1997). Reframing sociological concepts for a brave new (virtual?) world. Sociological Inquiry, 67(1), 48-58. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682x.1997.tb00428.x
  6. Cooper, G., King, A., & Rettie, R. (2009). Sociological objects: Reconfigurations of social theory. London: Ashgate Publishing. Retrieved from http://epubs.surrey.ac.uk/754892/ Crossley, N. (2001). The social body: Habit, identity and desire. London: Sage.
  7. Davis, J. L. (2015). Theorizing affordances. Retrieved from https://thesocietypages.org/cyborgology/ 2015/02/16/theorizing-affordances/
  8. Davis, J. L., & Chouinard, J. B. (2016). Theorizing affordances: From request to refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(4), 241-248. doi:10.1177/0270467617714944
  9. Erofeeva, M. (2017). Actor-network theory: An object-oriented sociology without objects? Logos (Russian Federation, 27(3), 83-112. doi:10.22394/0869-5377-2017-3-83-109
  10. Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2016). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35-52.
  11. Farman, J. (2013). Mobile interface theory: Embodied space and locative media. London: Routledge.
  12. Ford, S. M. (2011). Reconceptualizing the public/private distinction in the age of information tech- nology. Information, Communication & Society, 14(4), 550-567. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2011. 562220
  13. Gibson, J. J. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  14. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  15. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday anchor books, A174. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
  16. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Blackwell.
  17. Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order: American sociological association, 1982 presidential address. American Sociological Review, 48(1), 1-17. doi:10.2307/2095141
  18. Goffman, E. (1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience (Rev ed.).
  19. Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(10), 1489-1522.
  20. Gotved, S. (2014). Privacy with public access: Digital memorials on quick response codes. Information, Communication & Society, 18(3), 269-280. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2014.989250
  21. Hardey, M. (2008). The formation of social rules for digital interactions. Information, Communication & Society, 11(8), 1111-1131. doi:10.1080/13691180802109048
  22. Harman, G. (2009). Prince of networks: Bruno Latour and metaphysics. Melbourne: re.press.
  23. Hayles, N. K. (2008). How we became posthuman: Virtual bodies in cybernetics, literature, and infor- matics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  24. Jacobsen, M. H. (Ed.). (2010). The contemporary Goffman. Routledge studies in social and political thought. Vol. 68. New York: Routledge.
  25. Jarzabkowski, P., & Pinch, T. (2013). Sociomateriality is 'the new black': Accomplishing repurpos- ing, reinscripting and repairing in context. Management (France, 16(5), 579-592.
  26. Johnson, J. (1988). Mixing humans and nonhumans together: The sociology of a door-closer. Social Problems, 35(3), 298-310. doi:10.2307/800624
  27. Knorr Cetina, K. (2009). The Synthetic situation: Interactionism for a global world. Symbolic Interaction, 32(1), 61-87.
  28. Lageson, S. E., & Maruna, S. (2017). Digital degradation: Stigma management in the internet age. Punishment & Society, 20(1), 113-133. doi:10.1177/1462474517737050
  29. Lamb, R., & Kling, R. (2003). Reconceptualizing users as social actors in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 197-236. doi:10.2307/30036529
  30. Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  31. Latour, B. (1994). On technical mediation: Philosophy, sociology, genealogy. Common Knowledge, 3 (2), 29-64.
  32. Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228-245.
  33. Latour, B. (2002). Gabriel tarde and the end of the social. In P. Joyce (Ed.), The social in question. New bearings in history and the social sciences (pp. 117-132). London: Routledge.
  34. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Clarendon lec- tures in management studies. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
  35. Martey, R. M., Stromer-Galley, J., Banks, J., Wu, J., & Consalvo, M. (2014). The strategic female: Gender-switching and player behavior in online games. Information, Communication & Society, 17(3), 286-300. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2013.874493
  36. Marx, G. T. (1999). What's in a name? Some Reflections on the Sociology of Anonymity. The Information Society, 15(2), 99-112. doi:10.1080/019722499128565
  37. Miller, B., & Mundey, P. (2014). Follow the rules and no one will get hurt: Performing boundary work to avoid negative interactions when using social network sites. Information, Communication & Society, 18(2), 187-201. doi:10.1080/1369118x.2014.946433
  38. Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(3), 336-366. doi:10.1111/josl.1_12177
  39. Nevile, M. (2015). The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48(2), 121-151. doi:10.1080/08351813.2015.1025499
  40. Pinch, T. (2010). The invisible technologies of Goffman's sociology: From the Merry-go-round to the internet. Technology and Culture, 51(2), 409-424.
  41. Pinch, T., & Bijker, W. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14 (3), 399-441. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/285355
  42. Rettie, R. (2005). Presence and embodiment in mobile phone communication. PsychNology Journal, 3(1), 16-34.
  43. Rettie, R. (2009). Mobile phone communication: Extending Goffman to mediated interaction. Sociology, 43(3), 421-438. doi:10.1177/0038038509103197
  44. Rey, P. J., & Boesel, W. E. (2014). The web, digital prostheses, and augmented subjectivity. In P. J. Rey & W. E. Boesel (Eds.), Routledge handbook of science, technology, and society (pp. 173-188). London: Routledge.
  45. Robinson, L. (2017). The identity curation game: Digital inequality, identity work, and emotion management. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 661-680. doi:10.1080/1369118x. 2017.1411521
  46. Sandywell, B. (2004). The myth of everyday life: Toward a heterology of the ordinary. Cultural Studies, 18(2-3), 160-180. doi:10.1080/0950238042000201464
  47. Sayes, E. (2014). Actor-network theory and methodology: Just what does it mean to say that non- humans have agency? Social Studies of Science, 44(1), 134-149. doi:10.1177/0306312713511867
  48. Schau, H. J., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385-404. doi:10.1086/378616
  49. Schraube, E. (2009). Technology as materialized action and its ambivalences. Theory & Psychology, 19(2), 296-312. doi:10.1177/0959354309103543
  50. Schutz, A. (1932). Der Sinnhafte Aufbau der sozialen Welt: Eine Einleitung in die verstehende Soziologie. Wien: Springer.
  51. Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students' education-related use of Facebook. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 157-174. doi:10.1080/17439880902923622
  52. Shilling, C. (2012). The body and social theory. London: Sage.
  53. Tufekci, Z. (2008). Grooming, gossip, Facebook and Myspace. Information, Communication & Society, 11(4), 544-564. doi:10.1080/13691180801999050
  54. Vakhshtain, V. (2011). Sociologiya povsednevnosti i teoriya frejmov [Sociology of everyday life and frame theory]. Saint Petersburg: European University at Saint Petersburg.
  55. Walther, J. B. (1996). Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyper- personal interaction. Communication Research, 23(1), 3-43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001
  56. Zhao, S. (2003). Toward a taxonomy of copresence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 12(5), 445-455. doi:10.1162/105474603322761261
  57. Zhao, S. (2004). Consociated contemporaries as an emergent realm of the lifeworld: Extending Schutz's phenomenological analysis to cyberspace. Human Studies, 27(1), 91-105. doi:10. 1023/B:HUMA.0000012246.33089.68
  58. Zhao, S. (2006). The internet and the transformation of the reality of everyday life: Toward a new analytic stance in sociology. Sociological Inquiry, 76(4), 458-474. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682x.2006. 00166.x Zhao, S. (2015). Constitution of mutual knowledge in telecopresence: Updating Schutz's phenom- enological theory of the lifeworld. Journal of Creative Communications, 10(2), 105-127. doi:10. 1177/0973258615597376
  59. Zhao, S., Grasmuck, S., & Martin, J. (2008). Identity construction on Facebook: Digital empower- ment in anchored relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(5), 1816-1836. doi:10.1016/j. chb.2008.02.012