3-13 A6 - #1

Aooki and Woodruff explain that every conversation is potentially face-threatening encounter. There are many ways to deal with this potential threat, and as Aooki and Woodruff state, the medium of communication (or lack of it) can make some strategies for maintaining face more effective than others. In this study, the researchers looked at ambiguity in conversation as a means of maintaining face. Research has generally dealt with conversational means for saving face. Aooki and Woodruff, however, looked at the use of ambiguity that takes advantage of the various differences in (lightweight) communication technologies, in order to maintain face. This ambiguity can be intentional (active) or come about unintentionally (passive), but in both cases the ambiguity is a result of the medium chosen and can help maintain face. In terms of active ambiguity, a person can use the ambiguity in a medium to his/her advantage to make messages unclear, such as hanging up on someone on a cell phone and afterward saying the connection was lost. This kind of act is a form of plausible deniability.

Avoiding interaction is one way in which you can be ambiguous. The research refers to the use of hand-held radio devices and the delays in response of its users. This is the conversational level of ambiguity, in which the actual act of talking can be delayed.

I have used this level of ambiguity to my advantage on certain occasions, especially on the Facebook. On one occasion, I received a message through the web site from a person I barely knew, and didn’t really feel like responding to. So, I waited almost a month before I responded, and attributed the delayed response to being very busy with my job (it was the summer). Not only did I outright lie, but ironically, by ignoring this person I made him feel like I was altering my busy day to respond, and therefore made him feel more important, maintaining our (positive and his negative) face. I used the distance between us to my advantage to “release [myself] from responsiveness,” as well as the constraints of the medium to create plausible deniability, use the reviewability of the message, and the lack of mobility of the site. He would have little reason not to believe my assertion because these things create ambiguity, as he is unable to tell when I checked for the message or how long it took me to respond.

Another level of ambiguity is accomplished at the associational level, in which one person can control who he/she interacts with. This is a form of lease control in that the actual channel for communicating is made available (or not). The reading uses the example of a student, her cell phone, and her choice to make its number available or not.

Like the example in the reading, I control leases with my own cell phone. I rarely give out my cell phone number, and sometimes, I won’t answer if I don’t want to talk to the person. For example, one time my boss called my cell phone and I didn’t feel like answering because I thought I would be forced to do work that I didn’t have time to do. I called back the next day and said my cell phone had been off because it died. The ambiguity of the medium — because my intentions and actions were indeterminable — allowed me to pretend this, while maintaining my own face. I controlled who I leased to in this way.