Miller, H. (1995). The Presentation of Self in Electronic Life: Goffman on the Internet. In Embodied Knowledge and Virtual Space. Goldsmiths College.
* Goffman sees embarrassment as an important indicator of where people fail to present an acceptable self, and an important motivator.
* Much of Goffman’s interest is in his analysis of the depth and richness of everyday interaction. This depth and richness is perhaps not apparent in electronic interaction, but the problem of establishing and maintaining an acceptable self remains, and there is a range of expressive resources available for this end.
* Electronic communication will become more and more human communication to the extent that there is more to it than just efficiently passing information to each other.
* … it is necessary to establish how electronic communication [EC] differs from face-to-face interaction and to work out what expressive resources are available.
*[EC] Place and distance are largely invisible. It can be entirely promiscuous with homepages.
* It could be argued that EC is not interaction in Goffman’s sense at all. Goffman (1981) gives a series of system requirements for interactions. Some, like signals that informs senders that reception is taking place, or signals that announce that a channel is sought for or that a channel is open, are not present on the Web.
* [face-to-face interaction] When we finally interact, we both know to some extent where we both are and probably where the other is coming from. We also know what kind of interaction this is, whether it’s a customer order, a chance encounter in the street, or a bedroom conversation. This enables us to ‘frame’ the interaction appropriately (Goffman, 1974) so that we both know how to interpret what goes on in the context of what is really going on. … If I knew that what was the way people were going to get to me, I might have arranged my public face differently.
* In electronic mail, the channel of communication is so limited that aspects of the embodied self can only be apparent if described by the sender. This has had a considerable liberating effect for those who are socially or functionally disadvantaged. It has also allowed others to establish fraudulent and exploitative identities (Stone, 1991).
* Goffman points out that one of the difficulties of interaction lies in establishing contact, because an offer to interact always leaves one open to rebuff. Conversely starting an interaction always involves a risk about what the interaction might lead to, and possible difficulty in ending it. [liberation, which is negative, on the web] On the Web you can put yourself up for interaction without being aware of a rebuff, and others can try you out without risking being involved further than they would wish. There is another liberation that can be negative, too. One of the regulating and controlling forces in face-to-face interaction is embarrassment. That is less likely to work on the Web. Others may find your Web page ridiculous, but you probably won't be aware of it.
* Some layout features like rules can be used. Lots of images can be included, but the receiver can always choose not to receive them, and may not have a system which is able to receive them.
* It seems that the only reliable thing that can be used is the informational content of the text. [‘an advertisement for myself’ i.e. what I like, what I can provide and so forth on the web.]
* [paralinguistic an paracommunicational information might be shown] On the internet, you can't smell my breath, catch the tremor in my voice, or realise that I'm watching the rest of the party over your shoulder. The implicit information that does leak through is paralinguistic, rather than non-verbal - a matter of style, structure and vocabulary - or paracommunicational - a matter of how I deal with a Web page compared with customary ways of doing it. Try calling up a succession of homepages and see if they give you hints about the nature of the people who composed them, even without reading any of the information given.
* … , so the traditional analogies are in keeping with the theme. More detailed work could tease out where these analogies fail to apply, and so help to clarify what is new in this communication [electronic communication]. The analogies may be valid in another sense: the people producing homepages are drawing on their knowledge and experience of verbal and paper presentations of self to help them to construct their electronic presentations, and so they will produce presentations at least partly derived from those models. The interesting point is when kinds of presentation emerge which can't be seen as analogous to verbal or paper presentations of self.
* [family, members homepages] There is more emphasis on the personal achievements of the people presented than in individual homepages, …
* There is content to show that the person is particularly skilful, interesting, or striking. … ‘What I think is cool’ above may tip over into a public presentation of ‘see what a cool person I am’.
* … there may be very little about the person as an explicitly presented self, just examples and links to what they enjoy or are interested in. … The analogy here is perhaps with inference of self, rather than presentation. In this paper, I have not set out to present my self, and I've told you very little about me, but you now know about ideas that have influenced me, topics I think interesting, and the way I write about them - and you will have formed some impression of the person who has written this.)
* [An advertisement for the service I can provide.] … there may be a definite split between the 'commercial' and 'private' selves, which will not be played up in the presentation.
* One of the things that has been a background worry in this discussion is the idea that EC is not interpersonal interaction of the kind that Goffman was describing. An interpretation of Goffman's work, and that of the Symbolic Interactionist school in sociology, is that self is developed and maintained, as well as presented, in interaction.
* [the presentation online largely forms its images from face-to-face interaction] … the electronic self of the homepage can not be developed and maintained in EC, but has to derive from face-to-face interaction, or at least email interaction.
* [the link and great similarity between non-electronic and electronic presentations of self] … but the selves presented in Web pages have not seemed to me to be qualitatively different from selves presented in other ways, and their styles of presentation can easily be likened to non-electronic presentations of self. This might mean that this aspect of EC, at least, is not rich enough to support the interactive development and definition of distinctive 'electronic selves', …
* [the lack of depth and richness presentation on the web] … sociality and interaction are necessary for us to know who we are and what we can say about ourselves to others, and much more depth and richness in EC is needed before 'electronic selves' can emerge.
* [thus users make interaction online more like face-to-face interaction] Contrariwise, much of the depth and richness that we can think of adding would be to make EC more like face-to-face interaction, which might suggest that electronic selves could be developed in a different social context (continuing the extension of the social world …) [like they do in the social world]
* [claiming oneself] EC provides an interesting new medium for us to use to display ourselves and make claims about ourselves. …
* [the gap between the presentation and the truth] Even though Web pages are apparently limited in the depth of information they provide compared with face-to-face interaction, there is still room for information about the self to be given off in the way people use the medium, in what they say as well as what they don't say. A full appreciation of this has to wait until we have an implicit understanding of the 'frames' that can be applied to communication on the Web, so we know how to interpret what people say about themselves in the context of 'what is going on' when they say these things.
* [learning using different languages] … we just have to learn to read between the pixels of Web pages, but I think we have to read beyond the pixels to see how they express the social processes and intentions that lie behind them.
* Goffman sees embarrassment as an important indicator of where people fail to present an acceptable self, and an important motivator.
* Much of Goffman’s interest is in his analysis of the depth and richness of everyday interaction. This depth and richness is perhaps not apparent in electronic interaction, but the problem of establishing and maintaining an acceptable self remains, and there is a range of expressive resources available for this end.
* Electronic communication will become more and more human communication to the extent that there is more to it than just efficiently passing information to each other.
* … it is necessary to establish how electronic communication [EC] differs from face-to-face interaction and to work out what expressive resources are available.
*[EC] Place and distance are largely invisible. It can be entirely promiscuous with homepages.
* It could be argued that EC is not interaction in Goffman’s sense at all. Goffman (1981) gives a series of system requirements for interactions. Some, like signals that informs senders that reception is taking place, or signals that announce that a channel is sought for or that a channel is open, are not present on the Web.
* [face-to-face interaction] When we finally interact, we both know to some extent where we both are and probably where the other is coming from. We also know what kind of interaction this is, whether it’s a customer order, a chance encounter in the street, or a bedroom conversation. This enables us to ‘frame’ the interaction appropriately (Goffman, 1974) so that we both know how to interpret what goes on in the context of what is really going on. … If I knew that what was the way people were going to get to me, I might have arranged my public face differently.
* In electronic mail, the channel of communication is so limited that aspects of the embodied self can only be apparent if described by the sender. This has had a considerable liberating effect for those who are socially or functionally disadvantaged. It has also allowed others to establish fraudulent and exploitative identities (Stone, 1991).
* Goffman points out that one of the difficulties of interaction lies in establishing contact, because an offer to interact always leaves one open to rebuff. Conversely starting an interaction always involves a risk about what the interaction might lead to, and possible difficulty in ending it. [liberation, which is negative, on the web] On the Web you can put yourself up for interaction without being aware of a rebuff, and others can try you out without risking being involved further than they would wish. There is another liberation that can be negative, too. One of the regulating and controlling forces in face-to-face interaction is embarrassment. That is less likely to work on the Web. Others may find your Web page ridiculous, but you probably won't be aware of it.
* Some layout features like rules can be used. Lots of images can be included, but the receiver can always choose not to receive them, and may not have a system which is able to receive them.
* It seems that the only reliable thing that can be used is the informational content of the text. [‘an advertisement for myself’ i.e. what I like, what I can provide and so forth on the web.]
* [paralinguistic an paracommunicational information might be shown] On the internet, you can't smell my breath, catch the tremor in my voice, or realise that I'm watching the rest of the party over your shoulder. The implicit information that does leak through is paralinguistic, rather than non-verbal - a matter of style, structure and vocabulary - or paracommunicational - a matter of how I deal with a Web page compared with customary ways of doing it. Try calling up a succession of homepages and see if they give you hints about the nature of the people who composed them, even without reading any of the information given.
* … , so the traditional analogies are in keeping with the theme. More detailed work could tease out where these analogies fail to apply, and so help to clarify what is new in this communication [electronic communication]. The analogies may be valid in another sense: the people producing homepages are drawing on their knowledge and experience of verbal and paper presentations of self to help them to construct their electronic presentations, and so they will produce presentations at least partly derived from those models. The interesting point is when kinds of presentation emerge which can't be seen as analogous to verbal or paper presentations of self.
* [family, members homepages] There is more emphasis on the personal achievements of the people presented than in individual homepages, …
* There is content to show that the person is particularly skilful, interesting, or striking. … ‘What I think is cool’ above may tip over into a public presentation of ‘see what a cool person I am’.
* … there may be very little about the person as an explicitly presented self, just examples and links to what they enjoy or are interested in. … The analogy here is perhaps with inference of self, rather than presentation. In this paper, I have not set out to present my self, and I've told you very little about me, but you now know about ideas that have influenced me, topics I think interesting, and the way I write about them - and you will have formed some impression of the person who has written this.)
* [An advertisement for the service I can provide.] … there may be a definite split between the 'commercial' and 'private' selves, which will not be played up in the presentation.
* One of the things that has been a background worry in this discussion is the idea that EC is not interpersonal interaction of the kind that Goffman was describing. An interpretation of Goffman's work, and that of the Symbolic Interactionist school in sociology, is that self is developed and maintained, as well as presented, in interaction.
* [the presentation online largely forms its images from face-to-face interaction] … the electronic self of the homepage can not be developed and maintained in EC, but has to derive from face-to-face interaction, or at least email interaction.
* [the link and great similarity between non-electronic and electronic presentations of self] … but the selves presented in Web pages have not seemed to me to be qualitatively different from selves presented in other ways, and their styles of presentation can easily be likened to non-electronic presentations of self. This might mean that this aspect of EC, at least, is not rich enough to support the interactive development and definition of distinctive 'electronic selves', …
* [the lack of depth and richness presentation on the web] … sociality and interaction are necessary for us to know who we are and what we can say about ourselves to others, and much more depth and richness in EC is needed before 'electronic selves' can emerge.
* [thus users make interaction online more like face-to-face interaction] Contrariwise, much of the depth and richness that we can think of adding would be to make EC more like face-to-face interaction, which might suggest that electronic selves could be developed in a different social context (continuing the extension of the social world …) [like they do in the social world]
* [claiming oneself] EC provides an interesting new medium for us to use to display ourselves and make claims about ourselves. …
* [the gap between the presentation and the truth] Even though Web pages are apparently limited in the depth of information they provide compared with face-to-face interaction, there is still room for information about the self to be given off in the way people use the medium, in what they say as well as what they don't say. A full appreciation of this has to wait until we have an implicit understanding of the 'frames' that can be applied to communication on the Web, so we know how to interpret what people say about themselves in the context of 'what is going on' when they say these things.
* [learning using different languages] … we just have to learn to read between the pixels of Web pages, but I think we have to read beyond the pixels to see how they express the social processes and intentions that lie behind them.
全站熱搜
留言列表
