All media are social but social media are different

Dr James (Jim) Slevinon organizations and social media

Lecture 3 of 7

Reading for this week

• Cammaerts, B. (2008) Critiques on the participatory potentials of Web 2.0.

Communication, Culture & Critique, 2008, 1-4, 358-377.

• Innis, H. A. (1950) Parchment and Paper in: Empire and Communications.

Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 138-163.

• Poster, M. (2001) CyberDemocracy: Internet and the public sphere.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

• Thompson, J.B. (1990) Towards a social theory of mass communication in:

Ideology and modern culture. Cambridge: Polity Press, 216-238.

• Thompson, J.B. (2005) The new visibility. Theory, Culture & Society,

December 22-6, 31-51.

• Williams, R. (1974) The technology and society in: Television. Technology

and cultural form. London: Fontana, 1-25.

Whether you believe in Web 2.0, Network Society or in Risk Society, you will probably agree that we live and work in a world of change

Communication technologies are understood to play a key role in social change:

Understanding how net-media interact with our changing world is problematic

New Medialike nothing else

like a parallel universe

like a existing technology but more efficient

For a better understanding, we need to progress towards a social theory of social media

Raymond Williams: we are so used to statements saying that technology has altered our world, but what do they mean?

1. Technological determinist statements: Technology has consequences that follow directly from the technology itself.

2. Symptomatic technology statements: Technology is developed in a marginal way but gains significance in uses which are already contained in known social practices.

Williams wants us to relate technology to social change in a more radical way:

1. Technology is looked for and developed with certain purposes and practices in mind.

2. Technology is not marginal to known social practices but central.

Williams recogizes two kinds of statement:

For John B. Thompson, communication technology relates to social practices by way of its interactional impact

Thompson’s interactional approach

Takes account of:

• The content of communication.

• The structured contexts within which such content is produced and received.

• The technological features.

Key to the interactional approach:

Communication technologies are not alternative means of distribution but they allow for the creation of new forms of

action and interaction.

Mrs.DollyFarrow

StEdward´sPassage

Cambridge

Dear Lenora,

Thank you for your

reply. I hope you are well.

I am looking

forward to meeting with you next

Tuesday afternoon.

Yours sincerely,

Dolly

Hello… ?

Yes…

It´s Dolly… Thank you for…

Hey…Good to hear you…

About next…

It´s Tuesday afternoon… Right?

Someone at the door…

You still there…??

Hya Lenora!

Wanna meet-up Tuesday afternoon?

Don´t be L8!! ;-)

*HUGS*

Cya,

Dolly

Changing content across media

Context of ReceptionContentContext of Production

Technology

Checking incoming e-mail involves new forms of action and interaction

24/7 Mail

Investigating a communication technology as a modality of interaction involves studying three interrelated aspects

1. The technical medium of transmission.

2. The institutional apparatus of transmission.

3. The time-space distanciation of transmission.

Let’s look at each of these in turn...

Technology never works itself out in pure form alone

The technical medium of transmission involves three attributes

The degree of fixation / storage a technology allows for.

Pigment and rockCave of Altamira, Spain

The degree of reproduction / circulation a technology allows for.

Blackfoot, voice andPhonograph, USA

The degree of participation that a technology requires.

Driving and distraction, UK

The institutional apparatus of transmission involves two attributes

The channels of selective diffusion

The mechanisms for restricted implementation

The nature and extent of time-space distanciation varies from one medium to another

Space

TimeSpace Bias (paper) Time bias (stone)

See: Harold Innis

Thompson’s concept of arenas of circulation enables us to spatially and temporally separate out different types of interactional situations involving us in varying degrees of sociability

Primary arena of circulationPeripheral arenas of

circulation

The social organization of face-to-face interaction

Peripheral arenas of circulation

Technically mediated interaction transforms the areas of circulation

The social organization of technically mediated interaction

Peripheralarenas of circulation

Peripheralarenas of circulation

Secondaryarena of circulation

Secondaryarena of circulation

Primaryarena of circulation

Mapping out the technically mediated interactional situations involved in traditional broadcasting

Secondaryarena of

circulation

Peripheralarenas of circulation

The social organization of mediated quasi-interaction

Secondaryarena of

circulation

Primaryarena of

circulation

Peripheralarenas of circulation

Production Reception

Secondaryarena of circulation

Secondaryarena of circulation

Production / Reception Production / Reception

Primaryarena of circulation

Mapping out the technically mediated interactional situations involved in net-media

Peripheralarenas of circulation

Peripheralarenas of circulation

Social media involve a variety of interlocking interactional situations

The interactional approach allows us to address a key question:

Are social media in practice more like a hammer or more like the Netherlands?

Cf. : Mark Poster ‘Whats the matter with the Internet’ (University of Minnesota Press 2001). “Is the internet more like a hammer or like Germany?”

Using Raymond Williams’ words: Social Media is a technology and a social form

The interactional approach allows us to critique understandings that hold that the meaning of social media is exhausted by their instrumentality

All communication technologies have dual potentialities that is, the capability to produce

one set of effects or their opposite

Richard Walton:

Flash mob Project X

Understanding the interactional impact of (for example) Facebook is not about making general claims

We must investigate its characteristics as a modality of interaction:• Chat.

• Messaging (private and group).

• The technological features.

• Status and wall posts.

• Tagging photos.

• Checking in.

• Friending, defriending and blocking.

• Hiding adverts.

• Posting comments.

• Liking posts.

• Liking pages.

• Joining groups.

• Managing Timeline.

• Privacy and account settings... etc.

We must also investigate the way it interlaces with other fields of interaction:

• In other social media and internet.

• With mass media.

• With face-to-face interaction... etc.

Study questions

• To what extent are lessons gleaned from the social theory of mass media

useful in regard to understanding the impact of social media?

• Are social media simply alternatives to existing media or do they create

opportunities for new forms of action and interaction?

• Attempt an Innis-type analysis of communication technology & empire to

social media impact and an organization.

• Are social media more like the Netherlands or like a hammer?

• All communication technologies have a dual-potentiality to produce one

set of outcomes or their opposites. Do social media inherently enrich

user participation?

All media are social but social media are different

Dr James (Jim) Slevinon organizations and social media

Lecture 3 of 7