Cornell Language and Technology

exploring how technologies affect the way we talk, think and understand each other

Monday, March 13, 2006

#6: Ambiguity

Aoki and Woodruff discuss ambiguity in communication as a face-saving mechanism and social necessity. Specifically, they focus on how communication technologies provide a great amount of flexibility in terms of interpreting unresponsiveness. They believe that ambiguity is an important part of preserving self-image and that communication systems should incorporate it into their designs.

In face-to-face conversation, A’s actions are directly observable by B. A cannot ignore B without an acceptable reason and still expect to save face. On the other hand, unresponsiveness over mediated (i.e., technology based) communication does not have to be explained. During a telephone conversation, for example, B is not privy to all of A’s actions. As a result, B is prone to respond to unresponsiveness in the most face-saving manner possible. For example, if B is talking to A on the phone and the connection is suddenly broken, B can respond by either blaming A or the connection. Whatever B actually believes, he is likely to act as though he thinks the connection was at fault. By doing this, he saves face by avoiding direct confrontation with A and maintains harmony between them.

One example involves a conversation I had using instant messaging. A friend sent me a link that I was not particularly interested in visiting at the time. Since, as discussed above, my friend could not directly observe my actions, I was free to use a white lie and say that I was working on a project and did not have time to click the link. My friend was free to believe – or even explicitly state – that I was lying. However, to maintain social harmony, he decided to ostensibly accept my assertion. To further preserve face by convincing him that I was not ignoring him, I told him that I would look at the link when I had time.

Another time, I received a text message from my friend that I did not feel like answering. When I met him later, he confronted me; I told him that my phone was accidentally set to silent mode, and I did not realize that I had received any messages. As in the above example, my friend was prone to accept my explanation in order to preserve our harmonious social relationship.

1 Comments:

At 11:30 AM, Blogger Josh P said...

Ouch. The situation in which your friend confronted you about the text message is not an uncommon one. I think it’s very interesting that people are so suspicious of one another’s ambiguous behaviors yet so willing to pass them by in the name of maintaining a perception friendship — even if it’s not real. That’s not to say that your friendship with this person isn’t real, but nevertheless, I find it very interesting that people are willing to do this.

I think an example of this can come from Facebook. I know that some people “friend” others without actually being close friends with the other person because they are just looking for more friendship. However, they have no interest in being close friends with those others, and would never have become “friends” with them in FTF. Yet, even though they will not pursue friendship in FTF — keeping the relationship ambiguous — the two will stay Facebook friends. It’s as if the gesture of “friending” is to remove some level of ambiguity about being around another person, but that is all it is for (as opposed to being for actual friendship). Perhaps the fact that Facebook is online (CMC) instills a sense of anonymity in people, making it easier to try to remove the ambiguity of “friendships” there?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home