I still have a Facebook, and I was obviously thinking about my "Facebook creeping" methods while reading "Online Performances of Identity." I realized that the main page of a person's Facebook these days consists of their profile picture with links to other stuff (info, photos, friends) under it, their wall with some stuff other people wrote and/or that person's posts and status updates, and now a little "photo reel" on the top. You have to click the "info" tab to find out personalized (or pop-culture-ized) info about the person, and who takes the time to do that? Facebook definitely prioritizes photos and human networking—I usually click on the person's profile picture and see what other pictures they've deemed profile-pic worthy, read some posts on their wall, and call it good. And I am going to venture to say that these things do not have to do with pop culture unless there are pop culture-related things on their wall or in their photos, which is totally possible, but not guaranteed.
They aren't really intellectual, either, and neither is this post right now. Whoops.
As far as Jones and "inter-activity" goes, I found his examples pretty interesting (and impressive). My question now is, what kind of people most often engage in inter-activity? There are definitely different levels of inter-activity, and they don't always have to involve the computer. For instance, while eating breakfast, I often chat with my roommates and read the paper. If I read an especially funny comic, I point it out to my roommate and we laugh together. So the inter-activity becomes social, kind of like when people bond over Star Wars in online forums.
The idea of "cognitive" vs. "social" attention and that "what gives value to information is the amount of attention it can attract" (Jones 22) can also be applied to both online and real-life situations. Lately I've found myself re-developing the skill of tuning people out when I'm trying to read something (this is what happens when I live with three girls). Just by the act of reading, I'm not really paying social attention, but I could be paying cognitive attention, but I'm not. Whereas, if I was online chatting, I would appear to be more polite because I could still read what the person said at a point when I felt like turning my attention there, thus giving it more value than when it was spoken out loud and never registered in my brain.
So, I'm all about FTF interaction, but I can't deny the merits of online communication, whether or not inter-activity is a factor.
Glad you recognized the Facebook/Myspace thing too. I feel like that article was written before the creators of Facebook recognized the lack of FTF and made their program different than Myspace. (Or maybe you're just lucky too, and you don't have friends that post celeb pics to their wall, either).
ReplyDeleteI think FTF communication has its place but the emerging possibilities of non ftf com. are becoming evermore exciting. Capturing attention, and the rhetorical skills involved (online for example) may lead one to find this new communication to be more meaningful. i think in a way, we are using FTF cues and expanding on them online.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, great insights. Thanks for the post.
I do get the same sense that the creators of Facebook/Myspace didn't have the sense of allowing us to create our own identities online in mind. For example, when I first started using Facebook, my friend asked me to add "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" to my long list of useless pages, then when Facebook decided to update itself without our input, it added that movie as one of my favorite films (WTF?). I didn't hate the movie, but it is sure as hell not one of my all-time favorites.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I am so behind on text language. Could someone fill me in on what FTF means? (I have a good idea, but I want to make sure I am right first).
Spencer, "FTF" means "Face-to-face".
ReplyDeleteKaren, interesting thinking you're doing there. I was thinking as I was reading your post how much I often enjoy online chatting, FB posting, and emails, simply because I have no extra time and I can get homework done, play around with my kids, fix dinner, and clean up the house in an evening while carrying on what I've come to call a "chat-ersation" with someone (or more than one person). I appreciate that ability to multi-task, collaborate, and socialize while getting things done that I need to do.
I also appreciate the dynamics of writing and interaction that are more evident when people chat vs when they email or in FTF interaction. I like how the expectation for immediacy changes people's expectation for what they would normally consider proper grammar/writing rules, and even more, how people interact in different ways on chat and FB vs email and FTF interaction. I think the various interactivities give us different perspectives on those we interact with, and a unique window into peoples' writing/thinking process and how it can change when time and other activity is involved.
The funniest part is when you interact with people enough to be able to read the little cues that show that they are more engrossed in their other activities than the one they are interacting with you on. I'd bet that most everyone who participates in such interactivity is well aware that rarely--very rarely--is anyone focusing solely on one person and one project.For that reason, there are one conversations that are less appropriate for interactivity conversations that FTF or long email/concentration pieces.
What I find so interesting here with interactivity is that the rhetorical situation is so invisible, and the cues of that situation can be interpreted so many different ways.