Page 153 - Communication Theory Media, Technology and Society

Holmes-05.qxd 2/15/2005 1:00 PM Page 136

136 COMMUNICA TION THEORY
These basic differences between kinds of extended media, and the
fact that they typically extend some aspects of phonocentric communica-
tion whilst they annul others, is well outlined by John B. Thompson in his
book The Media and Modernity (1995).
In a sophisticated typology of interaction, Thompson distinguishes
between three types of interaction: face-to-face interaction, mediated inter-
action and mediated quasi-interaction. ‘Face-to-face interaction occurs in a
context of co-presence; the participants in the interaction are immediately
present to one another and share a common spatial-temporal reference
system’ (82). In the face-to-face, participants can ‘use deictic expressions
(“here”, “now”, “this”, “that”, etc.) and assume that they will be under-
stood’ (82). Face-to-face communication is, like some extended modes, dia-
logic, or two-way. However, Thompson claims it is a special dialogic,
because it is the only communicative event in which participants ‘are con-
stantly and routinely engaged in comparing the various symbolic cues
employed by speakers, using them to reduce ambiguity and to refine their
understanding of the message’ (83, italics mine). It is the multiplicity of
symbolic queues that are seen to be available to face-to-face situations that
guarantees a form of presencing which Derrida names ‘phonocentrism’.
Thompson’s next form of interaction is ‘mediated interaction’, which
includes letter-writing and telephone conversations. It presupposes a
technical medium (paper, electromagnetic waves, etc.) which enables
messages to be transmitted to persons remote ‘in space, in time, or both’.
The most important feature, however, is that ‘[w]hereas face-to-face interac-
tion takes place in a context of co-presence, the participants in mediated interac-
tion are located in contexts which are spatially and/or temporally distinct. ... The
participants do not share the same spatial-temporal reference system and
cannot assume that others will understand the deictic expressions they
use’ (83). Because of this, communicants must decide how much contex-
tual information to add, such as signatures, letterhead information, or
identification at the start of a phone conversation.
The third form of interaction is ‘mediated quasi-interaction’. This
form is peculiar to the media of mass communication – books, newspa-
pers, radio and television – and its defining feature is that ‘symbolic forms
are produced for an indefinite range of potential recipients’ (84). This
level of interaction is one which engages individuals ‘impersonally’, but
does not exclude them from more horizontal forms of personal associa-
tion. Of course, the early days of ‘mass communication’ and effects analy-
sis assumed that something equivalent to this level of interaction was the
dominant form of interaction of mass society – so much so that the
primary group of ‘face-to-face’ relations had to be ‘rediscovered’ in this
tradition (see Lowery and De Fleur, 1983: 180).
For Thompson however, it is because the addressees of this form of
communication do not have specificity, to the extent that this form engages
them, that individuals look also to primary forms of association.
Nevertheless, quasi-interaction, even if it is largely ‘one-way’, is still a