The Elements of Computer Mediated Interaction
Back in the early ‘90s, under the guidance of Couch, I presented a paper that outlined what I believed were the three unique characteristics of computer mediated interaction (email, chat, and even “virtual reality” when it finally arrives). I still think that any good analysis of digital interaction must establish these points as pillars of the social act in cyberspace. So, please allow me to present them briefly here.
The first characteristic of computer mediated interaction is fully improvised categorical identities. Categorical identities are those that “categorize” a person in normal interaction. These are qualities like, “male,” “white”, and “middle-aged”. These identities are established early on in interpersonal interaction and they tend to shape how the interaction proceeds. In computer mediated interaction, participants can literally choose whatever categorical identities they want. Furthermore, each participant is aware that not only do they have absolute control over their categorical identity, but so do all the individuals with whom they converse. Now, some may suggest that there are many ways to validate a person’s identity these days, but it must be remembered that these identity controls emerged because the system, by itself, doesn’t have any to begin with. We have caller-ID sets by our phones because phones, by themselves, don’t tell us who is calling. Likewise, identity controls in cyberspace aren’t part of the original system; they exist to counter the system’s native elements. Online interaction isn’t alone in providing fluid identities, however. Letter-writing does as well.
This leads us to the second characteristic of computer mediated interaction: virtual address. In contrast to letter-writing, for two individuals to interact via computer neither party need have a traceable geographical address. Of course, IP addresses and the like today make most computer mediated transactions traceable to specific geographical locations. But the point here is that a given machine’s address need not reveal the particular geographical location of the machine in order for interaction to take place. Part of the reason for tying machine addresses to real-world places and tracing their paths through servers has been to allow administrators to keep track of what transactions come from where, a necessity born out of the fact that, at one time, the system functioned perfectly well without this information being collected and readily accessible. Many people find ways around having their IPs traced to their geographical locations, which speaks to the virtual nature of “location” in cyberspace as compared to that in the world of posted letter. When you interact via posted mail, at least the Post Office needs to know where you are. When you interact via computer, while your machine must have some name or tag for others to address you, there is no need for your actual location in space to ever be known, even to the system. This element of computer mediated interaction is at least as important as fully improvised categorical identities to the now common experience of online anonymity.
The third characteristic of computer mediated interaction is proximal reciprocity. That is, replies in online interaction are expected “any minute now”. This is obviously true for chat-style interactions, but it’s also true of email. This is what makes online interaction so addictive. Once an email is sent or a comment is made on a forum, a response could literally come at any time after that, which prompts frequent checking of email and forums. This characteristic of online communication tends to make individual communiqués brief and evocative. It’s this characteristic that’s responsible for the emergence of emoticons and cyber-shorthand (i.e. “lol”), and for giving interactants the feeling of being in constant connection with a virtual community.
The impact all of this has on consciousness is profound. One has so much more control over one’s persona online that it cannot help but deviate from what might be one’s “actual” persona. But one is aware that this holds true for everyone else online as well. So in online interaction there is a sense that none of what transpires is “real”… not one’s persona, not the personas of others, not the “place” where these personas meet, and not the community that they build “there”. And yet the interactants feel real and they feel as though their friends and their community are real and the forum on which they post their interactions feels like a real place. In fact, many times these people get together in “the real world” and often the differences between individuals’ “real selves” and their online personas are simply ignored. This suggests that computer mediated interaction opens participants up to new ways of defining identity and reality that challenge a linear and egoistic (singular self) “literary” mindset.
delicious
diggInteresting...
Very very interesting...
..oh I almost forgot... 
(does that help our interaction?)
CMI
OK then... very in-depth... and impressive... the both of you.
I guess all I want to say (and show some freakin' love and appreciation for) is that one way in which this site is useful is that subsequent to others it helps in bolstering the non-traditional ways one can gain and impart knowledge through networking with people. We could and will do this elsewhere however we don't acquire information solely through "real-life" mediums. This creates a sort of "college medium" wherein one wouldn't normally acquire such knowledge without the internet. Likewise, these discussions range from the differences between government, science, and religion, to funny news, to what "Agape" REALLY means, to how to whip up organic cuisines, and to where to find an online source for Carl Couch. (and to ditto jaz - when applied accordingly, Lost seems to fit the "college medium" bill here as well.)
Emoticons - I was pressed to disagree at first about the nature of emergence of emoticons but it occured to me that we don't get vocal inflection in letters or books either. When dealing with text, you do get a request for explanation and explication if the meaning or intent is unclear as seen time and time again on online forums. However, I guess I believe that "smileys" evolved to solve the problems in communication caused by the lack of non-verbal cues in text. (whereas emoticons emerging in the way you (GC) mention them are closely related to the evocative nature of poetry, I presume.) Miscommunication occurs not only because of the lack of non-verbal cues, but because text is often phlegmatic as a medium. If you're in a face-to-face conversation, you're exposed to gestures and personality traits that will naturally distract you.
Diversity - age, appearance, gender, and profession often times pales in comparison with such prized traits including creativity, wit, friendliness, the ability to communicate via text, and more importantly IMO - the simple desire to participate.
Re: CMI
OK, Kat... but why did emoticons never show up in books? Sure, you can find examples of folks using "smileys" in letter-writing, but not to the extent they're used in CMI.
But that's an interesting question... why smileys in letters but not in books? Well, the letter is shorter. The person writing doesn't want to take the time to write the sentence or paragraph so that the irony is more obvious or so the sadness of the statement comes through better.
Perhaps the reason online communications utilizes smileys more often is because they are, as a rule, even shorter than letters. But why are they so short? Because people generally treat them like comments in a face-to-face conversation. Why? Because they feel as though the back-and-forth of CMI takes place relatively rapidly, more like a face-to-face conversation than a letter correspondence.
So... indeed, the NEED for emoticons arises from something lacking in text communication. But the widespread use of emoticons in CMI emerges from the sense folks have that CMI interaction is rapidly reciprocated.
re: CMI
Well to be clear, I don't disagree with you at all. Emoticons do appear to be more widely used in one-to-one communication rather than letter or the like because of the requisite time involved, so I think you nailed it.
I suppose, in my thinking, it seems as though the two reasons for using emoticons in general go hand in hand - cause and effect, even. (What you point out to be rapid reciprocation and what I pointed out to be non-verbal cues leading to miscommunication.) The very act of rapid reciprocation merely allows one to potentially misinterpret anothers meaning more easily. So I guess my point was the use of emoticons can pose as a more essential communicative tool under those circumstances.
Literature... the way I see it is one is more adept to analyze any potential meanings in a book compared to an instant messenger setting where we're able to respond instantly and consequently misinterpret someones meaning.
re: re: CMI
Misinterpret... but also seek clarification. Letter-writing is almost a kind of broadcast... it's treated like one-way communication rather than a give-and-take because... well, the time between correspondences is quite long. But in face-to-face interaction we're allowed "shortcuts" in expressing ourselves because it's relatively easy for one person or the other to verify what the other person meant. Actually, in face-to-face interaction conversation can't accurately be called "give-and-take" because it's really more complicated than that. Conversations aren't really "he says this, then she says that", but, rather, a complex, organic, non-linear product emerging out of the process of sharing of symbols. It seems to me that CMI aspires to this kind of experience in spite of its resemblance to letter-writing, and I think the widespread presence of emoticons in CMI demonstrates that most people DO experience CMI in this "emergent" way.
re: re: CMI
Re: Elements of Computer Mediated Interaction
I find the relation between identity and media so fascinating. I'm more familiar with the way this shapes definitions of self during the development of the novel--there are interesting connections and contrasts to what you're describing which I think help in thinking about how more collaborative notions of identity might evolve.
In the novel, the self is defined in conflict with others, and those others represent just those categorical identities that you describe. The conflict involves some social or personal oppression of the character who represents "self" and it's through overcoming that oppression that the self is shown to grow and develop into an "actual," "authentic," individual (as opposed to the others who are seen as limited by the categories they represent). In relation to society the self plays the role of oppressed victim (which may be why victim narratives are so popular on talk shows like "Oprah"), but is seen as being "true" and "real" in maintaining individuality against those social powers.
Thinking about the novel in the context of capitalism, the industrial revolution, and the growth of cities--it seems to me that a lot of the emotional effects of living at that time--feelings of powerlessness in relation to institutions, of disconnection and alienation from communities and from older markets and means of production--get transformed in the novel into something that is seen as valuable. Your individuality is what makes you good. The way in which you stand apart from society gives you power--the lone hero. (Just an added note again that it strikes me that the Four Fears you mention under Existential Quandaies are all really heightened in that historical period.)
So this becomes people's idea of an "actual" self--and to draw attention to the way in which that self might be fictive is really threatening because it's seen as the last bulwark against this mass faceless society. But it's actually hypertext that gives more control over identities and gives everyone more authorial say in narrative (authority). Conversely it also fosters narcissism and a kind of "say whatever you want without repercussion" attitude which leads to flamers. I think that's a combination of the emotiveness you noted plus two factors I can relate back to the four fears. What I see most people using as attacks is accusing the other person of ignorance--("You Idiot...This can't be true because it's been leaked that..."). And they feel completely free to do this because they seem themselves as isolated (and no fear of impermanence--'cause not in physical proximity), and I think the rage comes mostly out of fear of their own irrelevance (and relatedly ignorance, isolation).
So where the heck am I going with all this? 
Well I'm thinking about the relation between narrative and fear that's made in this book called Narrative Impact that I just started. The author begins by talking about archetypes (Propp, Campbell) and says that narratives are an evolutionary development which allows us to connect our unconscious, emotional, automatic responses and our conscious, rational and controlled ones--and that the very first narratives are ones that deal with threat and fear. So I'm thinking that already in having more control over identity there's a greater possibility of dealing with those fears that have been passed down to us from the modernist, capitalist period. And that what we need to do is to continue refashioning narratives in ways that confront those fears. (It suddenly occurs to me that Lost might be read as such a narrative.)
Just some other ideas/links--online gaming--the fact that it relies on forming groups with others to proceed through some parts of the game story.
Generally the open-source movement. Here's a link to Open Source Democracy and what I think is a relevant quotation: "While it may not provide us with a template for sure-fire business and marketing solutions, the rise of interactive media does provide us with the beginnings of new metaphors for cooperation, new faith in the power of networked activity and new evidence of our ability to participate actively in the authorship of our collective destiny."
Mining Pop Culture for Identity
An article today talked about how the current "Net-Generation" use the pop culture past as a playground--a place to revive and play with pop culture icons. The one thing I'd disagree with is that the author is making a distinction between this generation and past generations based on how ironic the use of those icons is. He sees the current generation's use of figures like Batman as "straight" as opposed to previous generation's. To me that's a confusion between parody and irony. As long as someone uses a mask in a knowing way, acknowledging its artifice, then it's ironic--the person doesn't have to also be mocking the mask to be ironic. And I also think the use of those icons, at least on the net, can often be mocking anyway.
Well, Dang, I can't get the article itself online, so I'll quote some of it:
"A trend emerges: Ironic distance, the sine qua non of super hero flicks and TV shows since Adam West danced the Batusi in 1966 is out. The same is true for all sorts of cultural leftovers: It's no longer the case that Americans in their 20s and early 30s want the reheated entertainment freshened up with air quotes. These day, they prefer taking it straight...I'm not claiming that Netter revivalists and aficionados are reactionary, or less talented than their predecessors whose style they've appropriated. And we all know that there's plenty of room for originality when artists choose to operate within strict parameters. I'm pointing out that when it comes to venerble pop culture franchises, young Americans don't want to mock them. Like vinatge video games, they just want to reboot them." Once More without Irony
Who Controls the Flow of Information
Victim Narratives
A letter to the editor in the paper today was complaining about an editorial in which the author compared the lynching of African-Americans to the Holocaust. The letter writer claimed this was a false comparison because if you broke down how many people were killed during the Holocaust it would be in the 1000s/week while if you did the same measurement from the end of the 19th century into the early twentieth in the U.S. it would only be 1/week.
My first reaction was to ask, why is there some kind of statistical competition over which is worse? Aren't they both evil? Why does this person feel aggrieved over the comparison? And that made me think of what I had written about the way in which "self" gets defined in the modern period (and that definition is still very much with us) as victim--and that somehow the only position from which people imagine they can speak powerfully about their rights as individuals is as a member of the most victimized/oppressed group. Unless you are down there at the very bottom your status as an individual, as the lone heroic group, can be challenged 'cause maybe you partially belong to one of those categories of the oppressors. (I think of that Monty Python routine where the guys get into a verbal sparring match over who had the absolutely worst childhood--"You think you had it bad...we had to get up before we even went to sleep and then me Da had us lick the road clean with our tongues!")
As long as people keep to this story, they're going to be kept busy fighting amongst themselves for the bottom most rung of the ladder instead of finding some common means of dismantling the ladder itself.
Re: Re: Elements of Computer Mediated Interaction
Right on, jaz.
I'll point out here that the common theme in all of Couch's work is "symbolic interaction". Human life revolves around it. Of course, "symbolic interaction" and "constructing narrative" are essentially the same activities.
I'll also point out that, given this, the pre-sociology discipline would probably be linguistics (how speech emerges in humans) and the post-sociology discipline would be anthropology (exploring the specific cultural manifestations of sociological principles).
One's "own" opinion
An article in the paper today--a satiric piece--but still reminded me of something I've been thinking about anyway, which is with the increased flow of information is consciousness/identity becoming more fluid, and when does information become "our own" and when are we just acting as an unreflective mirror, so to speak. I've been thinking about it, as this writer has, in the context of the Presidential election because I remember voicing opinions at a very early age about Presidential politics. I remember telling a neighbor that the VP candidate's stand on Nuclear Weapons was dangerous when I was 6--I don't think that could have been "my" opinion--must have been something my Dad said. But then when I was 10, I remember talking to my Dad about the campaign and thinking ahead to the day I'd be voting, and worrying that I didn't want to vote based on his opinions. Maybe there's a step like that that's missing for some people? Moreso because of computer mediated interaction?
Defining Identity/Reality