[Air-l] Computer-Mediated-Communication
Steve Fox (NLG)
stevef at microsoft.com
Wed Feb 6 11:46:25 PST 2002
Joao,
-> Are computers, PDA's, etc...only mediating communication?
I think I agree with where you're going...That is, within the realm of
cybercultural studies, one might argue that there is much more going on
that just the mediation of communication. For example, PDAs, current
messaging and cellular technology, and so on, do much more than mediate
conversations. They are effectively changing the way we live and behave,
which has some serious implications for the way we interact on a social
and cultural level - you'll need to divorce savvy marketing from actual
usability, but I still think you'll find individuals creating a slightly
different cultural practice through the use of CMC-type devices.
I believe the general computer industry is trying to make the experience
as human and as everyday as possible as well...it's very interesting to
see the field of computing positioning itself in the 'everyday' of
modern society and culture. So much so that it becomes as important, or
mundane, as opening the fridge or putting on your shoes.
Steve
PS Please note that my postings are not representative of the company
for which I work. Being a part-time student, I am wholly interested in
pursuing the academic challenges of how society and culture are
embracing technology.
-----Original Message-----
From: Joao Vieira da Cunha [mailto:jvc at MIT.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:55 PM
To: air-l at aoir.org
Subject: Re: [Air-l] Computer-Mediated-Communication
I am puzzled by the use of 'computer mediated communication'. Is IT
really
'mediating'? I cannot help but to remember McLuhan's motto 'the medium
is
the message'. Are computers, PDA's, etc... only mediating communication?
Perhaps their role is more encompassing. If we take seriously the role
of
material artifacts in cognition and representation of reality it is hard
to
limit computers to the role of mediators. There's a qualitative
difference
between web-enabled computers and the telephone, at least in the sense
that
we have a wide margin to represent our identities on-line and very
little
if any over the phone or other 'mediating' tools.
I don't want to quabble around words, although I do like computer-aided
communication more than computer-mediated communication, what I am
interested in is in being rigorous around the role of IT in
communication
and find out if it's more than that of a mediator.
Any thoughts?
Joao
Joao Vieira da Cunha
PhD Student
MIT Sloan School of Management
At 01:12 PM 2/5/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Sandeep Krishnamurthy asked about the use of the term computer-mediated
>communication. First, in response to your friend's suggestions:
>
>>screen-mediated-communication
>
>The screen on any device is not the system that controls the mediation
-
>the 'computer' and,software do that, while is where the mediated
>interaction occurs. To call CMC 'screen-mediated-communication' might
be
>akin to calling letter writing 'page-mediated-interaction' - it doesn't
>really get to the sense of the mediation. To continue with that
analogy,
>'pen and paper-mediated-interaction' might be better for letter-writing
-
>if one writes in pen, but what if one writes a letter on a computer,
>prints it out and sends it? 'page-mediated-communication' brings us,
>ironically, closer to a generalized representation of the literal
'display
>of mediation' , but in fact it still does not really get to what the
>mediation is. We 'writing a letter' is a gloss for a form of mediated
>interaction between (at least) two people that involves one doing some
>kind of writing 'onto' (we can include printing) some kind of physical
>paper, then physical postage of the physical paper in such a way as the
>written material produced in one time is physically made available to
>another person. So I think the lesson from that is that the 'name' of
any
>medium somehow captures the 'sense of interaction' of the medium...
>
>>device-mediated communication?
>
>This is probably too general - a telephone could be device-mediated, as
>could, indeed, face-to-face interaction (the device being organic but a
>mechanical contrivance of a sort).
>
>So, on to CMC. Like, 'device', 'computer' has certainly become a term
that
>is now almost too general. However, by the same token most 'CMC
systems',
>or 'CMC media' have their own names - 'email', IRC' etc. So in some
ways
>it doesn't matter that 'computer' is so general because (a) we have
>specific names when we need them and (b) CMC is a good enough
>superordinate category to differentiate it from at least face-to-face
>interaction, letter writing and telephone interaction in the sense that
we
>understand those as not involving computers as we now know them. On the
>other hand, when the actual stuff occuring via CMC systems is
discussed,
>it is referred to by names that are more general, and different, than
the
>names of the CMC system. So, people talk about 'interaction' in chat
>rooms, or 'reading' a web page. What I am very confusingly getting at
is
>that the term 'CMC' is situated within realm of discourse about
>communication, and that it, at least, fulfils a task of differentiation
>from some other forms of communication. It is not necessary for it to
do
>duty on every level, though, hence other names.
>
>This brings me to your point:
>
>>me. I argued that, starting with the Internet, connectivity with
others (or
>>community, if you like) had to be a component of CMC, but not other
forms of
>>screen-based-communication. By this standard, communicating through
PDAs or
>>e-mail devices such as Blackberry was, indeed, CMC. But, checking out
the
>>weather on a kiosk was not.
>>
>>What do you think? Is the term CMC too restrictive?
>
>I would disagree that CMC actually has to involve interaction at all.
To
>me CMC could be a checking out the weather on a kiosk webpage because
CMC
>covers the notion that I'm looking at communication on a computer. If I
>want to talk about some kind of interaction happening via a computer, I
>could also use CMC. But, as I said above, CMC doesn't have to do the
duty
>of specifically referring to every possible form of CMC. Checking out
the
>weather on a kiosk is patently not the same kind of interactive
>communication as talking about the weather via email, but to
differentiate
>those we would want other terms anyway. If we were serious about
>delineating interaction systems withing CMC, we might alter the *last*
>term to make the kind of communication more specific, e.g.
>'Computer-Mediated Interaction' or 'Computer-Mediated Webcasting' etc.
>
>On a practical level, CMC has also served very nicely to indicate what
>many people are researching, and there is something to be said for
that,
>too. Then again, people have mooted lots of other terms to more
>specifically delineate what they are doing, such as
'online-ethnography'
>or 'cyber-sociology'.
>
>I wish my computer had mediated this email to improve its
intelligability. ;)
>
>Until anon,
>
>Sean
>
>--
>
>E. Sean Rintel
>Communication Department
>University at Albany
>State University of New York
>1400 Washington Avenue
>Albany, NY, USA, 12222-0001
>http://www.albany.edu/~er8430/
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Air-l mailing list
>Air-l at aoir.org
>http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
_______________________________________________
Air-l mailing list
Air-l at aoir.org
http://www.aoir.org/mailman/listinfo/air-l
More information about the Air-L
mailing list