:: urbansheep (urbansheep) wrote,
:: urbansheep
urbansheep

[ L ] Glancing — амбиентная коммуникация с привкусом случайности и... необязательности ответа

«

(slide 9) Erving Goffman in his book "Behavior in Public Places" studied the way people interacted in twos and threes and small groups and looked at how people move from unfocused interactions, where they're in the same place but not together, to encounters, where they're actually talking to each other.

He saw that people didn't just start talking but used ambiguous expressive communication to ask if it was *okay* to start talking first.

Hang on, expressive communication? Right, he made a division into two kinds of messages:

Linguistic messages are your spoken ones. You speak about whatever you want, and deliberately communicate the meaning you want to communicate. Like me giving this talk.

Expressive messages are the ones you - you're the message receiver - *glean* about me. The fact I chose to use this particular word rather than another. My body language. The fact I'm here at all! A nervous laugh.

Expressive messages are usually involuntary, but you can pretend if you want: that's like a poker face.

The great thing about expressive messages is that your intention of sending them is usually unclear -- or at least unprovable! The reason I'm talking, and talking is linguistic communication, is to give you information, so much is obvious, but if I look in your direction am I trying to get your attention, or just staring into space?

So Goffman found that a person would try to start a conversation with a glance that is...

(slide 10) "sufficiently tentative and ambiguous to allow him to act as if no initiation has been intended, if it appears that his overture is not desired."

Which makes sense. It's a good way of saving face. Rather than being a person other people ignore, you can just say their thoughts were on other things. Letting people save face is really important if you want to keep them happy.

Howard Rhiengold in his book Smart Mobs gives a good example of text messaging being used for this. He talked about kids in Sweden after a party. Say you've seen someone you quite liked and you'd like to see them again, but don't know if the feeling's shared. You'd send them a blank text message, or maybe just a really bland one like "hey, good party". If they reply, ask for a date. The first message is almost entirely expressive communication: tentative, deniable.

»

«

(Sweethearting) Pings would be perfect for situations when texting or a phone call is too time consuming, distracting, or takes you out of the flow of your present experience. If you call your husband on the way home from work every night and say the same thing each time, perhaps a ping would be better...you wouldn't have to call and your husband wouldn't have to stop what he was doing to answer the phone. You could even call it the "sweetheart ping" or "sweethearting"...in the absence of a prearraged "ping me when you're leaving", you could ping someone to let them know you're thinking about them.

(Sweethearting, part 2) Several people mentioned pranking[1] as a current implementation of this idea, a trick I remember using as a kid. You call someone and hang up after one ring..."prank me when you're outside my apartment and I'll come down". Pranking is typically driven by economics...you don't pay for a phone call that doesn't connect.

[1] I received reports of pranking being used all over the world. It's called one-belling (or pranking) in England, people send "toques" (roughly "touches") or "sting" each other in Spain, Italians "fare uno squillo" (which Google translates as "to make one blast"), and in Finland it's called "bombing".

»

 
 
 
 
 

Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments