Social media is all about conversation. Or, rather, conversations, in plural. If it was just the one conversation, we could apply the old standard conventions to it and go from there. But it isn't, and we can't.
Instead, there are several emerging new conventions, most of them emerging in parallel and with some overlaps and areas for conflicting expectations.
One thing everyone seems to be on board with is that there are, in fact, several conversations going on at the same time. Not one, not two, but a whole bunch of them. No conflicts here. Until it's time to end one of these conversations, for whatever reason.
Some people (me included) are of the opinion that you can't reasonably be expected to talk to everyone all the time, and that conversations naturally fade away, only to be reopened again when new topics arrive. It's not so much one single conversational thread going on from start to finish, as it is a continuous string of interaction about whatever comes along. Sometimes, exchanges happen; sometimes, they don't. But whenever something pops up, the social space includes the option of saying "hey, look at this, what do you think?".
The subtle shift from "conversation" to "social relation" inherent in this view are not coincidental. It is the very essence of the social media thing.
Not responding to a particular input is not a big deal in this view. There will be more inputs, and more things will be said. The social relation will endure when any one particular conversation ends.
As you might imagine, there are other opinions, other conventions. Some of which are much stricter on when you can legitimately not respond to things, and which social markers you need to employ to disengage from a conversation in a proper manner. In fact, they closely resemble the old style rules of conversation: you are talking to someone, with someone, and this deserves the respect the situation warrants. No matter the number of conversations.
The analogy here would be to hang up on someone mid-sentence - that simply will not do.
I've already proclaimed myself partial to the first way of looking at things. This doesn't mean it's the right, only and true way - it's just useful information for those who want to talk at me (@sargoth, hi, talk at me). I'm just the one person, and by no means in a majority. But you will run in to people from my neck of the woods, and you will run in to people from the traditional woods of the neck, and you will most likely have social media conversations with both of them at the same time. Knowing that there is a difference will help you avoid those subtle social transgressions that so often happen when different conventions meet up and talk to each other.
Social media is all about conversation. And conversations. And conventions. And [the blog post fades to a close, opening up a social space for commenting and conversing]
Thursday, March 13, 2014
Wednesday, March 5, 2014
Call me, maybe, but with certainty
There's one thing I've never understood, and that is why there is only one type of phone call.
Now, you're all familiar with the varieties of phone calls that can happen to you: the call from that employer that you got the job, the call from an old friend you haven't heard from in ages, the booty call, the - it goes on for a while. But they are all, in a technical sense, just calls, and if you ever miss one of them, the only metadata you'll get is that you missed it, when and from who. With no indication as to what the whole point of it was.
It is more than technically possible to implement a system wherein the caller adds some useful context to their callings. Such as "hey, this is just a social call, no worries" or "booooooooooty call" or "look, I know things are tough between us right now, but there's a situation with the kids that requires the both of us", or - well, this list also goes on for a while, but you get the idea.
Why is this not a thing?
Now, you're all familiar with the varieties of phone calls that can happen to you: the call from that employer that you got the job, the call from an old friend you haven't heard from in ages, the booty call, the - it goes on for a while. But they are all, in a technical sense, just calls, and if you ever miss one of them, the only metadata you'll get is that you missed it, when and from who. With no indication as to what the whole point of it was.
It is more than technically possible to implement a system wherein the caller adds some useful context to their callings. Such as "hey, this is just a social call, no worries" or "booooooooooty call" or "look, I know things are tough between us right now, but there's a situation with the kids that requires the both of us", or - well, this list also goes on for a while, but you get the idea.
Why is this not a thing?
Friday, February 28, 2014
Chatter chatter chatter
Energy is the basis of all things. But not all things are created equal - not all things demand the same amount of energy to happen. And, to drive this point further, the same things do not demand the same amount of energy to happen for all people. Some people can do certain things with a lack of effort, while others have to struggle their hearts out in order to make that very same thing happen.
Energy is not a universal currency, as it were.
This applies very much to communication. Some people can communicate rather effortlessly, going on and on and on in a state of constant chattering about this and that. Others have to make the effortial equivalent of climbing a hill to say just the one thing. Not to mention two things.
Communication is not a universal constant, as it were.
This is important to keep in mind, as you will run into people who have to effort to communicate. You will run into them at a regular basis, and you will most likely misunderstand their energy requirements for something else. In benign cases, you'll take it for a certain ponderousness, a tendency to think that one extra second before speaking. In other cases, you'll take it for rudeness slowness (with a negative connotation). Or something else, for better or worse.
It's not what they're saying. It's how much they have to effort in order to say it.
As it were.
Energy is not a universal currency, as it were.
This applies very much to communication. Some people can communicate rather effortlessly, going on and on and on in a state of constant chattering about this and that. Others have to make the effortial equivalent of climbing a hill to say just the one thing. Not to mention two things.
Communication is not a universal constant, as it were.
This is important to keep in mind, as you will run into people who have to effort to communicate. You will run into them at a regular basis, and you will most likely misunderstand their energy requirements for something else. In benign cases, you'll take it for a certain ponderousness, a tendency to think that one extra second before speaking. In other cases, you'll take it for rudeness slowness (with a negative connotation). Or something else, for better or worse.
It's not what they're saying. It's how much they have to effort in order to say it.
As it were.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Discourse ethics is the default mode of the surveilled
There is a subtle aura of elitism around the notion of "discourse ethics". It connotes a style savvy, distanced author consciously choosing the proper words based on a clearly set of categories, who puts her conscience on the line making sure that each and every little dot gets to where it is supposed to be. Needless to say, this implies a certain measure of efforting on the part of the author.
This is not helped by the fact that the word "ethics" is usually reserved for occasions when someone has done something wrong, and would improve the situation by doing something else.
What puts people off isn't the notion of working hard to make a good text happen. Efforting is not the issue. What's putting people off is that subtle feeling of elitism - the feeling of being judged, under scrutiny, watched, questioned. Worst of all, of being criticized.
Not being good enough.
The disciplining of one's own writing really doesn't have anything to do with what one is writing. It goes beyond that, takes a step back. Forces you to think: am I a person that could and would write such words as those that are currently in this draft? No matter what these words are - pure trolling or the next declaration of human rights, it's all the same. The question is as eternal as it is troubling, and it is the question of self-identity. It won't budge until the text is released to the world, and not even then that eternal doubt lets go.
Who am I? What can I say - what can say me? Am I to be found in that, in this gathering of hastily selected words?
Alienation is the name of this game.
The same thing happens whenever we confront any kind of documentation regarding ourselves. On the one hand, it is definitely us - it has our name on it, there's a younger version of us on the pictures, we remember the things described, we got the scars. On the other hand, it is everything but us. The documentation leaves out crucial details, lacks context, misses points, puts things in a wrong light. We know more than the thing being described, and we know we know.
No one looks good on their passport photos.
The most frightening thing about mass surveillance is not the demand to effort a good appearance. At times, it is even a fun break to do it properly, for such formal/disciplined occasions as weddings and suchlikes. The most frightening thing about mass surveillance is the demand to always look good - both physically and discursively. Both in the eyes of the CCTV cameras and in the eyes of the oversight committee.
You know that feeling of being judged, under scrutiny, watched, questioned? The fear that you, at any moment, can be called to answer for yourself? The fear to, in some unspecified way, not being good enough?
In a surveilled society, this feeling is the default mode.
A good author can turn this into an art form, a hard-earned virtue. The discourse of the visible - the visible discourse - is not a punishment, but a possibility. This spotlight belongs to the stage, rather than the prison.
For us mere mortals, though, it is a life sentence. We will never be good (enough), the story bearing our names will never be a flattering read. What's described is not us, but a lesser version of ourselves, a thing created from criteria and categories we know nothing about. The surveillance photos never capture our good sides, and the surveillance records are always a short step from being labeled "criminal". Work too hard, too little, too average - everything can and will be documented. And judged. And, if judged to be not good enough, punished.
What's virtuous in a human is a sin in a slave. And we modern slaves have overthrown our chains of steel, only to replace them with chains of paper. Discourse ethics is the default mode of the surveilled.
Ihre Papiere, Bitte.
Originally published March 29, 2011
This is not helped by the fact that the word "ethics" is usually reserved for occasions when someone has done something wrong, and would improve the situation by doing something else.
What puts people off isn't the notion of working hard to make a good text happen. Efforting is not the issue. What's putting people off is that subtle feeling of elitism - the feeling of being judged, under scrutiny, watched, questioned. Worst of all, of being criticized.Not being good enough.
The disciplining of one's own writing really doesn't have anything to do with what one is writing. It goes beyond that, takes a step back. Forces you to think: am I a person that could and would write such words as those that are currently in this draft? No matter what these words are - pure trolling or the next declaration of human rights, it's all the same. The question is as eternal as it is troubling, and it is the question of self-identity. It won't budge until the text is released to the world, and not even then that eternal doubt lets go.
Who am I? What can I say - what can say me? Am I to be found in that, in this gathering of hastily selected words?
Alienation is the name of this game.
The same thing happens whenever we confront any kind of documentation regarding ourselves. On the one hand, it is definitely us - it has our name on it, there's a younger version of us on the pictures, we remember the things described, we got the scars. On the other hand, it is everything but us. The documentation leaves out crucial details, lacks context, misses points, puts things in a wrong light. We know more than the thing being described, and we know we know.
No one looks good on their passport photos.
The most frightening thing about mass surveillance is not the demand to effort a good appearance. At times, it is even a fun break to do it properly, for such formal/disciplined occasions as weddings and suchlikes. The most frightening thing about mass surveillance is the demand to always look good - both physically and discursively. Both in the eyes of the CCTV cameras and in the eyes of the oversight committee.
You know that feeling of being judged, under scrutiny, watched, questioned? The fear that you, at any moment, can be called to answer for yourself? The fear to, in some unspecified way, not being good enough?In a surveilled society, this feeling is the default mode.
A good author can turn this into an art form, a hard-earned virtue. The discourse of the visible - the visible discourse - is not a punishment, but a possibility. This spotlight belongs to the stage, rather than the prison.
For us mere mortals, though, it is a life sentence. We will never be good (enough), the story bearing our names will never be a flattering read. What's described is not us, but a lesser version of ourselves, a thing created from criteria and categories we know nothing about. The surveillance photos never capture our good sides, and the surveillance records are always a short step from being labeled "criminal". Work too hard, too little, too average - everything can and will be documented. And judged. And, if judged to be not good enough, punished.
What's virtuous in a human is a sin in a slave. And we modern slaves have overthrown our chains of steel, only to replace them with chains of paper. Discourse ethics is the default mode of the surveilled.
Ihre Papiere, Bitte.
Originally published March 29, 2011
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Communicating change
Today, I ate at a burger joint. Today was, apparently, also the first day that they served fancy coffee. Not just regular old coffee, mind, but fancy coffee, with faux Italian names and whatnot Which, to be sure, is a change, and a change that needs to be communicated to the customers. For many reasons - the least not being to sell those coffees to these customers.
So. Communication happened. In the form of an explanatory folder strategically placed on the tables, containing an explanatory text. Which began talking about coffee, and then transitioned into talking about burgers.
This, at first, confused me. Then the gears started ticking. What was the aim of this communication? What fictional sender needed to be discursively constructed in order to make this communication work? What's the main theme of this place?
Burgers. The whole place was about burgers. Burger joints do burgers. The central theme is burgers.
Burgers.
It makes sense for them to talk about burgers. Especially when communicating change. They have a core value, and they're sticking to it. And they're now doing fancy coffee, too, in addition to this.
It is, in one word, brilliant. There is change, and there is a firm understanding that nothing will change. Those in favor will nod in favor, and those in unfavor will get the message that they're safe in ignoring the new fad.
There is, to be sure, rhetoric in all things. Even when things change.
So. Communication happened. In the form of an explanatory folder strategically placed on the tables, containing an explanatory text. Which began talking about coffee, and then transitioned into talking about burgers.
This, at first, confused me. Then the gears started ticking. What was the aim of this communication? What fictional sender needed to be discursively constructed in order to make this communication work? What's the main theme of this place?
Burgers. The whole place was about burgers. Burger joints do burgers. The central theme is burgers.
Burgers.
It makes sense for them to talk about burgers. Especially when communicating change. They have a core value, and they're sticking to it. And they're now doing fancy coffee, too, in addition to this.
It is, in one word, brilliant. There is change, and there is a firm understanding that nothing will change. Those in favor will nod in favor, and those in unfavor will get the message that they're safe in ignoring the new fad.
There is, to be sure, rhetoric in all things. Even when things change.
Monday, February 17, 2014
Stupidity by association
There are people out there who argue against feminism.
This, in and of itself, is not a strange thing. Make any kind of speech act at all, and someone will inevitably find a way to argue against it. Even if you are God almighty accompanied by all the angels singing the Hymn of Truth, there will inevitably be someone. It's going to happen, so don't fret it.
The strange thing about people arguing against feminism is that they, for whatever reason, don't just settle for arguing. They could say "hey, I've read your argument, and there are some points I happen to disagree with, and here's why". They could say that. That would be a reasonable thing to say. And, to be sure, the polite thing to say.
Instead, it goes something like this:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GENDER! PEOPLE ARE BORN THAT WAY, BE IT MALE OR FEMALE! THERE ARE NO SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS, AND THEREFORE NORMS AND DISCOURSE CANNOT INFLUENCE THE WAY SEXED BEINGS ACT AND THINK!
Which, allcaps aside, is the strangest thing to say. It goes way beyond the needs of the argument - it in effect takes us right back to the nineteenth century when it comes to social sciences. Which, all in all, is slightly overkill.
You may or may not be familiar with Occams razor. In this case, it's not so much a razor as a full blown ultradeluxe electrorazor 5000, with all the extra trimming features added. The result is not only the removal of those things that are deemed superfluous to the argument, but of all the things useful in understanding this society we live in. Sociology, political science, psychology - all thrown overboard in the effort to show that Feminism Is Wrong. Feminists use it, and therefore it is Wrong too.
I can't help but be constantly flabbergasted by the enthusiasm behind this reduction to absurdity. Feminism is wrong - and therefore we can't know anything about how large scale societal systems works. Feminism is wrong - and therefore there is no such thing as critique of power dynamics within institutions. Feminism is wrong - and therefore writers like Proust can't tell us anything about how humans work.
Go go antifeminists. Stay strong.
This, in and of itself, is not a strange thing. Make any kind of speech act at all, and someone will inevitably find a way to argue against it. Even if you are God almighty accompanied by all the angels singing the Hymn of Truth, there will inevitably be someone. It's going to happen, so don't fret it.
The strange thing about people arguing against feminism is that they, for whatever reason, don't just settle for arguing. They could say "hey, I've read your argument, and there are some points I happen to disagree with, and here's why". They could say that. That would be a reasonable thing to say. And, to be sure, the polite thing to say.
Instead, it goes something like this:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GENDER! PEOPLE ARE BORN THAT WAY, BE IT MALE OR FEMALE! THERE ARE NO SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONS, AND THEREFORE NORMS AND DISCOURSE CANNOT INFLUENCE THE WAY SEXED BEINGS ACT AND THINK!
Which, allcaps aside, is the strangest thing to say. It goes way beyond the needs of the argument - it in effect takes us right back to the nineteenth century when it comes to social sciences. Which, all in all, is slightly overkill.
You may or may not be familiar with Occams razor. In this case, it's not so much a razor as a full blown ultradeluxe electrorazor 5000, with all the extra trimming features added. The result is not only the removal of those things that are deemed superfluous to the argument, but of all the things useful in understanding this society we live in. Sociology, political science, psychology - all thrown overboard in the effort to show that Feminism Is Wrong. Feminists use it, and therefore it is Wrong too.
I can't help but be constantly flabbergasted by the enthusiasm behind this reduction to absurdity. Feminism is wrong - and therefore we can't know anything about how large scale societal systems works. Feminism is wrong - and therefore there is no such thing as critique of power dynamics within institutions. Feminism is wrong - and therefore writers like Proust can't tell us anything about how humans work.
Go go antifeminists. Stay strong.
Friday, February 14, 2014
More, longer skies
I have this peculiar tradition. Every Valentine's day, I start up a new blog, regardless of whether I need one or not. Which means two things. One: this is the second anniversary of this here blog you're reading right now (party mode!). Two: there is indeed a new blog out there, and you can find the three first posts by pressing this here link:
More longer friend, can you see that sky?
I'll leave it up to you to figure out what the overall gist of this new thing is. What you probably won't be able to figure out (nor have any reason to, should you be among the 99.9% of everyone that doesn't read Swedish) is that the visual theme is an homage to this vast expanse of gray blogitude that turns five today. (There are translations, though.)
Gray is the new, and old, black.
The aim of this tradition is, as is the aim of any proper modernist tradition, to be anti-tradition. To get new things in motion, to get unstuck from the thousand ruts that is the things we tend to do, and to nudge the default. Not in any particular direction, mind. Just in general.
Thus.
More longer friend, can you see that sky?
I'll leave it up to you to figure out what the overall gist of this new thing is. What you probably won't be able to figure out (nor have any reason to, should you be among the 99.9% of everyone that doesn't read Swedish) is that the visual theme is an homage to this vast expanse of gray blogitude that turns five today. (There are translations, though.)
Gray is the new, and old, black.
The aim of this tradition is, as is the aim of any proper modernist tradition, to be anti-tradition. To get new things in motion, to get unstuck from the thousand ruts that is the things we tend to do, and to nudge the default. Not in any particular direction, mind. Just in general.
Thus.
To the days beyond this one which are still perfect. Whatever they may be.
I'll see you there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)