Page 33 - Communication Theory Media, Technology and Society

Holmes-01.qxd 2/15/2005 10:30 AM Page 16

16 COMMUNICA TION THEORY
• When we watch a soap opera, we typically are viewing countless
thousands of face-to-face interactions between talking heads, whilst, in
the very act of such viewership, we forgo our own engagement in face-
to-face interaction. Most of the needs we might have for the face-to-
face may be achieved via the screen.
• Studies show that people in the city, who have much more access to
high volumes of face-to-face contact, use the telephone far more than
do people in rural areas.
• Studies of Internet relationships show that anonymous interactants are
more likely to divulge intimate information, as if they had a long-term
face-to-face relationship, than they would with strangers in embodied
interactions.
• Commonplace in the etiquette of Internet communication is the use of
‘emoticons’ as a substitute for the gestural communication that inter-
actants feel is lost in the medium.

The prominence of the way in which technologically extended communi-
cation has become a dominant mode of integration can even mean that we
may idealize some kind of unmediated face-to-face sense of community as
a reaction to the pervasiveness of extended forms of ‘communication at a
distance’. Conversely, we might also fetishize communication technology
itself as being capable of delivering us the interactive immediacy that is
denied to abstract kinds of community (the dream of virtual reality). These
two kinds of reactions to contemporary media integration can also be
found in much of the more populist variety of second media age literature
and cyberstudies texts which privilege the concept of interaction.
Such literature is framed by a social interaction model – i.e. that face-to-
face interaction is being supplanted by extended forms of communication –
and this is seen to be derived from technology somehow intervening and
separating individuals from some ‘natural state’ of interaction which is the
face-to-face. This powerful model inspires not only nostalgic communitar-
ians, such as Rheingold, who claims that individuals in information societies
are looking for ways to get back to that which they have lost – the face-to-
face – but also postmodernists, like Félix Guattari, who, while sharing the
view that face-to-face relations are no longer significant, sees in this no cause
for lament. Instead, he argues that it is important to embrace post-individual
networks of communication, and realize that the subject is a fiction and
always was (see Guattari, 1986). But this kind of negative theology is,
I would argue, merely parasitic of the misconception that the face-to-face
was ever historically lost in the first place. That is to say, if the face-to-face
is considered as a form of social integration rather than interaction, these
kinds of political oppositions become, I would argue, untenable. It is
because, anthropologically, the face-to face is an important mode of con-
nection in information societies that the Internet becomes such a powerful
mode of connectedness – but one that can never consummate the mode of
integration it supposedly stands for.