PARTICIPATING IN MAILING
LISTS: BOUNDARIES AND IDENTITY
MAILING LIST AS DOMAIN OF ACTIVITY
Reading,
writing, addressing, or being hailed on electronic mailing lists has
become for many people just one of their daily
activities. In people's daily activities, certain norms and
conventions of interaction need to be observed if they are to
participate as recognised members of the groups to which they wish to
belong. Mailing list groups are no different in this respect. As with
all groups, regular membership entails
identification with other members through the adoption of recognised
and ratified behaviours. Such 'conventionalised' behaviours can
become visible
as
patterns of language use, and this is typical
in all situational contexts which develop or negotiate norms over a
period of time. Norms developed by the members of different groups can
also be described as 'boundaries' - they become obstacles which
potential members need to scale in order to join, or they exist in the
form of rules which govern members' behaviour to various degrees.
The place in which mailing
lists conduct their activities, however, is slightly problematised for
those used to conducting their group endeavours in the same space and
time. The domain of activity in which mailing list participation occurs
has a
material context, but in these cases
its technological mediation is a constraining factor on any interaction
since the interaction can only take place, in the first instance, via
computer. Time is certainly involved, but space - apart from that
required to house the monitor, hard drive and a seated, typing
participant - is not. CyberSpace on the other hand, is imagined, and
there are often references to the place
where groups of list participants interact online. At the same time,
many of the participants who come to know each other through
mailing lists live in places far away from each other. In this respect,
email list participants are like novelists in that they are limited to
the meanings
of the graphic channel and written medium, but unlike novelists, they
regularly obtain feedback on their written contributions to public
life. But even such feedback is limited on ascii-mediated mailing
lists - clothing,
gestures, intonation, accent - all these meta-signs are unavailable as
markers of group membership or information carriers in this text-only
medium. This results in conditions where the context of mailing list
interaction raises the issue of
identity and its markers even more pointedly than is otherwise the
case. When the
rich meta-redundancy with which we daily interpret the social roles and
our relationships with others is narrowed in this mode, we still feel
the need to know how we can address what to whom, and with what
consequences. Those markers of identity and membership that can be
observed in an email list then take on further significance for members
of the email list who see themselves as a community or group.
Even though our bodies are not physically present to the other members
who form our audience and fellow recipients in this domain, the body of
each
subscriber is the site of the traces of their own
socio-cultural practices - their meaning-making resources, or habitus (e.g. Bourdieu 1972).
Our bodies are also the sites of interpretive events when
messages written by other participants are sent and then read by
co-participants. Each recipient thus becomes the site for the
'utterance', the reading event, the place where the instance of
interpretation occurs. This view also entails the idea that meaning may only be made within a
community - so that
without a process of interpretation - without others to respond and
make sense of our messages - the texts themselves contain no meaning,
only information:
Instead of talking about meaning-making
as something
that is done by minds, I prefer to talk about it as a social practice
in a community. It is a kind of doing that is done in ways that are
characteristic of a community, and its occurrence is part of what binds
the community together and helps to constitute it as a community. In
this sense we ca speak of a community, not as a collection of
interacting individuals, but as a system of interdependent social
practices: a system of doings, rather than a system of doers. These
social meaning-making practices are also material processes that bind
the community together as a physical ecosystem. (Lemke 1995:9)
Without the usual material meaning-making resources available to participants in
everyday activities, people on mailing lists sometimes
report an experience of unease: who comprises our audience? are
they hostile to our stance, the values which we inscribe - with whom
can we claim solidarity? Because the technology allows us to
communicate with those outside our immediate community, many
participants are not necessarily drawn from the same socio-cultural
group. With this in mind, a newly
constructed mailing list therefore generally features a list
description which sets out the parameters of discussion, alerting
subscribers as to the likely areas which will form the field of
discussion. This list description may be considered a document of
'first boundaries'. By providing this document, listowners assume that
participants will be better able to tell whether others with similar
values and
orientations will be part of their audience or community of knowers.
Similarly, newly subscribed participants are likely, or even encouraged
to post a
self-introduction. This is usually intended to let others who
read it know what
likely experiences have formed their "real life" persona, which will
perhaps be reflected in their participation in discussions. 'Identity',
on the
other hand, is defined here as a function of participating in a group,
and one's
identity in a mailing list may have little resemblance to one's 'real
world' identities - dependent on how one participates - as is the case
in other
contexts of interaction. It is therefore of great importance to long
time members of groups (mailing lists being a case in extremis due to
the lack of redundant social markers), that norms and conventions be
followed or at least recognised, since these 'norms' become a part of
one's identity in and for the groups to which one belongs.
IDENTITY AND DISCURSIVE PRACTICES
One's individual ways of using language are
taken here to be socially shaped, and that these ways, or 'styles' of
participating, vary
dependent on a number of factors - such as alignments or affiliations
with other group members, membership in different groups demanding a
different set of conventionalised behaviours, or the change of
conventions over time. These differences and changes in interactive
style reveal to some extent the intertextual and interdiscursive traces
of where one has been - or perhaps, where one has participated. Through
being addressed, or inserted as a subject into the texts
with which we have interacted in interpretive events, we become part of
the ongoing dialogic process effected
by these texts: a part of their
history. At the same time, they become a part of our own
histories.
In my own case, reading the posts or contributions to a
mailing list, often leads me to note some things about the
identity 'assumed' by the writers, or about the possible communities to
which they belong. What do they write about, and what is their stance
toward this 'content'. Do I understand how they say - does it mean
to me?
This can be understood as a way of searching for features of texts
which indicate areas of solidarity
and affinity, where ideological resonance may be experienced. On one
list to which I belong (Netdynam) this search for affinity has been
called 'subgrouping'. Sub-grouping was explained during several threads
by reference to extra-textual knowledge systems which helped define the
way group processes worked, and how
speech communities might be formed. The discussion around the notion of
sub-grouping also demonstrated
how valued texts can
become part
of the intertextual history of the group conversation, and form part
of the group's 'canon'. Those with the knowledge, with the 'cultural
capital' to use Bourdieu's (1986) term - by defining to some degree
the categories by which group activities could be known - and therefore
meanings exchanged - were to some degree positioning themselves as
powerful within the group.
An early form of allaying unease in a mailing list is the
appending of 'sig files' to the bottom of one's posts. These
generally state the participant's name and addresses or institutional affiliations,
and form a type of graphic channel, text-only marker of identity which
may help locate the participant for others in terms of their
'real-world' experiences
and status. In some mailing lists, such sig files are demanded for the
privilege
of posting, and are policed by moderators, listowners or list 'board
members' as part of list governance regulations. These types of
regulations and policing behaviours may in turn,
have arisen in response to doubtful posting activities in the history
of the list. In any case, it highlights the sensitive nature of
identity
and its relationship to actual list behaviour in the absence of other
material signifiers of status and authority to speak on matters of
topical 'content'. As well, it serves to highlight the anxiety
occasioned by contentious behaviour especially when this is linked with
anonymity.
The use of sig files as well as other 'image-management' (see Goffman
1976?) type posting behaviours such as autobiographical narratives,
discussion of one's research or qualifications, self-naming and so
forth, allow assumptions to be made by the rest of the group regarding
the roles
each may have experience enacting, and whether positions of equality,
solidarity and affinity may be set up with others. If such posting
behaviours are overtly accepted, especially by listowners or moderators
who are given local institutional authority in the list, others in
the group may follow suit with similarly worded posts (responses) of
their own. In this way conventions or norms may be germinated.
At the same time, the use of these markers of relative status and
authority which may act to signify greater expertise in topic area of
discussion, may result in a version
of what Lyotard (1988) calls a 'differend'. This would be the case
when, for example, some participants
feel that they have no
competence to speak - resulting in their silence.
Lyotard's notion of the 'differend' and its relationship to the concept
of silence as a response in the context of mailing list interaction
is quite a useful perpective for discussing how in-group / out-group
boundaries may be formed in such groups, and it is intended that
further discussion be taken up again elsewhere.
SOME COMMENTS ON GENDER IDENTITY
Another marker of identity often raised on
some discussion lists is that of gender. Academic lists seem less prone
to either contention regarding gendered behaviour, or gender-inflected
behaviour, and
this may in part stem from the conventions common in such lists where
sig files, and self-naming are usual. In this way, little anxiety is
generated over whether one's interlocutors are male or female.
Furthermore,
in contexts of 'real-life' academic activities, such differentiated
discursive practices are agreed to be, or avoided as ideologically
'unsound'.
However, it remains fairly typical of human socialisation practices,
that people are 'interpellated' as a gendered subjects from birth,
and in many cases made to accept roles and positions based on community
values as to what constitutes acceptable or appropriate behaviour on
the part of each gender. As long as one remains visibly a member of one
gender or another, and as long as one interacts in a variety of
subgroups or cultural areas where certain behavioural and attitudinal
activities are valorised for each gender, one's behaviour and attitudes
will confirm these experiences - even if certain people isolate
and resist these expectations.
Furthermore, one will be seen as either
deviant or 'normal' dependent on prevailing values attached to such
gendered behaviours. In some cases, pointing to marginal behaviours,
whether made on the basis of gender or some other presumed dimension of
social normative activity, can be used to 'shame' participants in front
of the projected group of other participants. It is
therefore not surprising that anxieties as to whom one is speaking
gender-wise, sometimes arise in the context of mailing lists
where other signifiers are not available.
It is my contention that assumptions about the life experiences and
authority of participants are to some degree filtered through other,
sometimes quite valid, assumptions about gender, or at least, the
traces of its socialisation practices. At the same time, the resulting
nature of the positions one is allowed to adopt, and the ease with
which one may prospect (in Bakhtinian terms)
relationships of solidarity or affinity, especially in terms of contact/familiarity (c.f. Poynton 1985)
may be limited due to presuppositions of this nature. Some researchers
even claim (see Herring and Spender for example) that male and female
participants engage differently in discussion lists, paralleling that
of 'real-world' interaction; that is, their 'styles' of interacting
differ in terms of their use of discourse strategies such as
foregrounding markers of politeness and affinity, which in turn might
be realised by such things as (particular) use of modality, forms
functioning as apology, markers of sympathetic
listening/acknowledgement (as distinct from arguing or introducing new
content), topic maintenance and others (see *** on politeness issue in CMC).
An extended discussion of these issues, and the outline of a study in
preparation focussed on perceived gender on two mailing lists may be
found in the related essay "Gender
consciousness and the norms of interaction in email list dynamics".
WHAT ARE THE BOUNDARIES?
[on
the matter of 'boundaries' then, I will be proposing two main types of boundary -
the 'external' or binding elements of a space (see Stenglin 2006, 2008, 2009, and below) and the 'internal'
or bonding
type. The external boundaries are a function of the terms of moderation and
subscription,
the list topic as stated, and the ways that the subscriber can receive
and send messages to the list - how they are ordered, formatted, what
they look
like on the screen and so on. The internal or bonding elements refer to
the ways in which
norms and conventions are set up, negotiated and ratified over time,
and
relates to the actual language practices adopted by the list members in
contributing to the interaction - as well as the particular uses each
participant makes of the binding elements allowed by the interface.
These elements relate to the (apperception of) notion or
reference to the 'space' of interaction - draft section]
In terms of the specific context of the mailing list (Netdynam) on
which I base most of my research, what I have been calling 'norms' or
conventions, have typically been referred to as 'boundaries' by
long-time listmembers (see also Honeycutt
2005).
This refers to internal boundaries and the obstacles set up by the
normative and negotatiated practices of the group which prevent
newcomers from fully participating - or at least gives them a sense that
they are being prevented. The term also refers to the ways in which
these norms are policed and how new behaviours or identities are
legitimated through discursive interaction (negotiation). One of the means by which
group-members identify their membership is through reference to
in-group slang, jargon, past events and so on. These form a netwok of
'bonds' through which long-time members may explore and re-negotiate
their affiliation with the group. Other 'bonding' matter includes such
simple things as the ways in which messages are formatted, how
responses are formulated, what ways of signing off are typical and so
on.
Newcomers to the list, often termed 'newbie' in
net parlance, are often at a loss to know what is expected of
participants - what norms and conventions are in operation at their
time
of joining. Because of the very nature of the list Netdynam which was
set up in order to explore such things as the formation of group
dynamics online, the listmembers evolved a type of ideology of the
existence of 'unwritten rules' which would only become 'visible' upon
participation, in effect valorising the process of interacting, and
effecting an invitation to re-negotiate boundaries.
Beyond being directed to the 'mission statement' or list guidelines, or
advised to spend time reading the archives, such enquiries never seemed
to be answered satisfactorily. These enquiries indicate that the
previously described phenomenon of
anxiety experienced by participants in first subscribing to a
discussion list and wishing to participate - as distinct from remaining
a 'lurker', or 'read-only-member' (ROM) - is quite a common one. In
order to actually participate,
subscribers feel the need to know
what the norms of interaction are. For this reason, joining a list 'on the ground', when
it is first set up, may be far more preferable than
coming to a list or group that has been in action for some time. Being
a founding member in other words, gives one an opportunity to
contribute to the boundary formation, to the
construction of ground rules - if the type of list and its governance
allows it. It means, in effect, that one can become a member of the
in-group, or the elite of that group - and whether participants
recognise this membership or not, my observations suggest that in-group formation
does occur. Once an in-group has formed in this way, newcomers can
sometimes find it difficult to participate unless they follow the tacit
or explicit norms of this group because the in-group members feel
comfortable - or even more powerful - when they can not only control their
own discussion environment, but the behaviour of others as well. In
many cases, this can go well beyond the enforcement of so called
'manners' or 'netiquette'.
As far as Netdynam is concerned, boundaries seem to have long since
disappeared over gross topic or content matters. In the early years of
the list, debates over the value of 'affinity' posts - which were
one type of image-management post designed to give clues to
'real-world' identity - compared with the relative value of 'content'
posts were often brought up. So-called 'content' posts were directed at discussing topics or a field more
objectively aligned with 'the net' (an observational rather than an
interactional stance, if you will). These debates lessened or changed in flavour over the years, one
reason being that
those who favoured a more content-based content, gave up resisting one
of what appeared to be a dominant ideological value of the group. Many
members
continued to post on matters of personal identity and autobiography in
the face of criticism that it was 'off-topic' or formed idle chat,
justifying such behaviour by claiming that it was part of the dynamics of group
formation. For many, the actual need to construct an offline identity
and online persona
as a way of forging bonds with others on the list, was just as
important as discussing the need itself - as a topic relating to the
dynamics of group formation.
The list boundaries, therefore, are not clearly defined around the
notion of acceptable topic. That is, the 'binding' elements of the
group discussion, its "architexture", was not rigorously defined
in ideational terms, although certain semantic and knowledge domains
were indeed valorised. In the first year of the list's existence for
example,
topic was discussed under the idea that anything could become 'grist
for the mill'. This broad definition of acceptable topic was 'agreed'
in that no one successfully opposed it. This was taken further by one
participant and qualified as
meaning that even
the topic of 'green chickens' would be considered as fair game for that
particular participant. It seems that such discursive practices were
acceptable at that juncture in list history/group formation, and that
with the exception of minor skirmishes over topic boundaries since, the
edict of the green chickens has stood the test of time.
In other words, almost any topic is within bounds, although the
prevalence of psychologists as participants, and the mentioning of
valued texts in the 'mission statement' has meant that discussion of a
psychological orientation is also highly valued and prevalent. These
areas of discussion deal with group/individual
relations, Jungian psychology, object relations and Kleinian
psychology, and especially the group dynamics theories of Wilfred Bion.
In such cases, those with authority, i.e. those accorded the
status
of
knowledge in such areas, will have potential 'positioning' power
over
others. This positioning of self vis-a-vis others less knowledgeable
might be realised in contributions indicating high
affinity with their own content/experience and the positive citing of
valued texts, as well as addressing others as un/equally knowledgeable
through the use of such elements in their message as presuppositions.
Other means of enacting authoritative positioning might take the form
of (lack of)
modality and other grammatical markers of certainty, the
use of jargon or in-group language to distance themselves from those
not familiar with the topic area, or in lack of response to others
disputing their claim to the floor who might wish to change the topic
or add 'irrelevant' contributions. It remains for the other
participants to accept or resist such positioning - to ratify the
ideas, or legitimise the topic or the way it is presented.
So that, in matters of the negotiation of group norms, while
the actual Field of situation or ideational meanings become a site for binding conventions and
external-type boundary maintenance activities, it is in matters of how
one posts
which takes on significance in many cases. In other words, group norms
can be viewed as negative,
or reactive - one reason why it is difficult to ratify norms into one
document:
anything is allowed unless it offends someone - and the someone says so
onlist. On the other hand, bonding may also be "negotiated" in the
negative - for example in the case where a contribution which elicits a
response is ignored. Such
non-response (silence) to obvious elicitations is also fraught with
anxieties onlist, because in the absence of any other markers of
acknowedgement (such as nods), this lack of response on the part of
fellow participants is
tantamount to denying the post any 'meaning'. Even argument or a denial
of the relevance of the content of a message is in this sense more
meaningful and 'supportive' of the identity of the original contributor
than a non-response would be. Hence, the participant
who has projected her audience as those who will align in some way with
her words, may feel that her identity is under threat, or is indeed,
denied (c.f. Watzlawick 1967: 86). Norms then are not stable or
equally applied to
all participants, and it seems that long time participants, or in-group
highly 'affiliated' members, are accorded a
'place' in the interaction by virtue of their having been 'there' for
some time. This means that they may take up this place for
their activities in the group, according to their own set of
conventionalised identity-related norms, the constraints of list
developed conventions notwithstanding.
MACRO AND MICRO PERSPECTIVES
Overall patterns of list interaction and conventions, or
generalised patterns of repeated behaviour, can be collected and used as representative of a macro
level of discursive formations. These should be evident over a
wide range of
topics, time, and participants. Actual 'exchanges' - usually
conducted via quoting and other reframing moves within posts - form the
micro level. Within these levels themselves, other strata of
interaction can be identified and analysed at further levels of
delicacy. One type of study using these perspectives involves identity-related
discursive practices - participant-local styles of interacting which
might change according to interlocutor, topic, or diachronically over
time - viewed against a background of the typical or general patterns used by other participants.
Thus, an analysis of the discursive practice of the group at the macro
level must be synoptic in orientation, as the posts are received in
sequence and sent and stored in sequence, as discrete entities. On the
other hand, contributions are made both retrospectively with an eye to
previous contributions to the conversation which is the history
of the list, and prospectively, in their orientation to anticipated
responses (c.f. Bakhtin via Fairclough 1992: 102). Any move in any
exchange can be analysed from the perspective of the dynamic or
participatory mode, as well as taken as an instance of the synoptic. In
this manner, macro-patterns - norms - can be posited, and local
linguistic behaviours of single participants, or exchanges in which
either typical or atypical behaviours are evident, may be compared with
these macro-patternings.
If norms are indeed 'reactive' - if, in other words, the boundaries can
only be detected by stepping outside them - then what discursive
practices are likely to signal sites of ideological positioning evident
in texts, or which elements of discursive practice might signal
resistant readings of such moves?
It is contended that boundary areas in both senses of the term (i.e.
boundaries of acceptable behaviour (bonding), and boundaries between discursive
units of the contributions (i.e. formatting, topic-relevance, binding elements)) are those likely to be
characterised by marked linguistic behaviour of some kind, or other
forms of marked behaviour. This raises the question as to what constitutes
marked linguistic behaviour, and the approach adopted here is to identify marked behaviour against a
backdrop of macro-patterning mentioned above - i.e. what constitutes normal
linguistic behaviour in this context, or what the general patterns
of discursive practice are.
Given that such practice can be characterised along a variety of
dimensions and used as a standard, then this view entails that
marked linguistic behaviour will fall into two broad kinds: one textual
and one interactional. These two types of behaviour may then be further focussed on
identity-related marked behaviour - what Watts (2003) refers to as impolitic
behaviour. Such marked behaviour will point to
'fissures' in the ideological orientations of the group, which may be
further investigated against other conventions in the wider community
and/or culture.
The investigation of mailing list conventions and norm-maintenance
activities may also be conducted under notions such as relevance
(ideation-response), politeness (interpersonal orientation), formatting
(binding elements of the space) and
exchange structure (negotiation-response). Obvious conventions can be
seen
in such things as the manner in which posters compose or format their
contributions - for example by emulating turn-taking, by interactive
and dialogic devices, most commonly through quoting those parts of the
posts to which they wish to respond, by framing their contributions in
order to stress their relevance or sense, and so on. At the other end of
the 'dialogic' spectrum, participants may respond in a monologic
fashion, by acknowledging no one, or posting an announcement for
example, which does not even invite any onlist response at all. The
question can then be posed: Which
of these modes is norm-al as list practice? Which is normal for list
individual participants?
At a more delicate level, discourse
level phenomena as indicated earlier, collectively form part of the
macro-patterning, as well as indicate the status and construal of
interpersonal positions. Elements such as evaluative lexis, modality
and other markers
of (dis)affinity, use of personal
referents, theme/subject conflation, the relative weightings of given
and new in thematic development of arguments, the nature and use of
intertextuality and interdiscursivity to signal alignments with
ideological positions can all be used to investigate the construal of
Tenor. In terms of evaluative resources, the Appraisal framework allows
a very delicate analysis of use of Attitude for example. Even in these
cases, locally unconventional use of formatting can be viewed as an
attitudinal indicator. [Those interested in an extended discussion of
the discursive,
or
linguistic norms of a mailing list centred on the organisation of the
contribution to discussion, or 'post', are invited to read a rather
long paper entitled "Genre and written interactive texts", in which I
argue that these texts need to be considered a macro-genre within
a Mode-governed text-type.]
A second
approach to analysis needs to be incorporated for following the means
by which norms are negotiated. This is a combinatory one: it entails
noting what features of what texts produce what responses. This
requires a taxonomy of message/post type categories together with their
relevant recurrent features in order that this approach can be
operationalised. For eample, it seems from observation alone that
highly charged evaluative lexis (i.e. marked in that it is
highly intensified or 'upgraded') will
work in two ways: as a marker of a site of contention over group norms
or ideology, and as a predictor of further response of a somewhat
marked nature. Anaylsis designed to investigate this aspect of response
would 'tag' those phases or elements of the message and correlate them
with other features of the local context - particularly in this case,
with the type and content of response. On the other hand, it might also
be the case that it is at sites of ambiguous or unclear attitude (rather than explicit attitude) that
responses are motivated and felt as needing to be made in order to
clarify issues.
It is important here to stress that I see meaning as
being made, or negotiated, at several junctures. One is the level of
utterance, which I take to be the point at which a reading is made: not
necessarily the point at which the addresser writes, but the point at which the
addressee(s) responds through interpretive events. This means that each
reading becomes the site, or
node in the group network (at
distance and time from each other) of "utterances" instantiated in
material contexts. A reader who interprets a message may respond by
simply deleting the contribution, and some
participants may withdraw from participating at any level by not
reading the contribution at all. These readings/interpretations are
unavailable
to the group, and are thus, in one sense, meaningless. Unless the
interpretant is made materially available to the group through
subsequent contribution, the text remains a text to all intents and
purposes: a record of a possible set of meanings.
Each new
contribution then becomes a potential site for new readings, and an
analyst hopes to account for some of the potential readings of the text
s/he analyses. Through analysis of the texts as objects or
instantiations of system,
analysts can make statements about possible sets of meaning in context,
and their relationship to the trajectory of list conventions. It is
only if the text is responded to through subsequent contributions, that
the analyst can find further evidence that any of these possible
meanings were
made by others. Of course, if the analyst is also a participant, she
may also account for the ways in which her own interpretations were
formed for a particular reading.
In this manner there is a constant tension between writer and reader - one can take either role at any time - and one can make
interpretations of contributions while also making a contribution. This
also means that as the group and its members interact over periods of
time, list specific memories may be brought into play and the context
of interaction begins to show signs of intra-list intertextuality
chains. It's at this point that newcomers may have difficulty in
participating through lack of list-cultural knowledge.
ASCRIBED ROLES/IDENTITIES THROUGH WORDINGS
In this section I discuss for illustrative purposes, net domain
specific words
such
as 'lurker' and 'newbie' and their perceived negative connotations.
This is because labelling and address forms are one obvious means by
which participants may be marginalised or inserted into the
conversation. In the context of mailing list 'culture' of the 1990s,
participants who are members but who do not contribute to the
conversation were given the label 'lurkers', and those participants who
are newly subscribed to a list are sometimes referred to as 'newbies'.
Throughout the history of the list Netdynam, there have always been
exchanges over the
negative value accorded to these terms. This may be to confuse the
meanings in context of the activities which the word summarises, the
signified, and the word itself, the signifier, which seems to be
accorded identity-specific meaning. I can find few people who have
participated on mailing lists ready to condemn the non-activity of the
lurker, although, again, there have been reports of anxiety over those
who do not reveal themselves, yet read our heartfelt contributions -
who are they? Where does our audience come from?
The matter of identity and personal revelation is closely interrelated,
and thus this issue redounds with the issue of boundary maintenance as
well: members are uneasy about being frank in front of complete
strangers - as opposed to those strangers one has been reading and
interacting with for some time - those strangers who have been seen to have contributed to the negotiation of the norms of the group.
'Newbie' at first glance seems an innocuous term, a convenient and non
pejorative
way of referring to a new participant. However, this is to deny the
vehemently expressed feelings of at least one new subscriber to
Netdynam who promptly unsubscribed when he saw this word used onlist,
claiming it offensive. Furthermore, by its reference to a status in
contra-distinction to other long time members, it does tend to
underline the perceived boundary
between in-group and out-group participants talked about earlier, in
which group norms may entail the recognition of 'deviant' behaviour.
The problematic nature of these words, I want to suggest, may not be
entirely centred on their devalued status as epithets, but also relates
to the relationships enacted in the uttering of these words in the
context of a mailing list. The chagrin one might feel at being
categorised in this way appears to be entailed in the process of the
labelling itself. It is related to the participant status of those
most likely to make such a
categorisation, in relation to which participants are more likely to be
labelled in
this manner. In other words, it is a matter of co-positioning of
affiliation/contact, of calling attention to the lack of 'time spent
together'.
Here, the issue is in the nature of affiliations and the highlighting of
subgroups who are distanced from those doing the labelling: the
talked-about-in-the-3rd-person; the ones treated as object of study, or
discussion, are positioned as distant; their lack of solidarity
(certainly in terms of presumed contact/familiarity through long-time
association)
with present interlocutors is assumed, and a resistant reading is
impossible for these participants by the very nature of the terms. In
this way,
a differend
is enacted. This is because if the lurker is to make a contribution
onlist in order to deny her lurker role, she thereby loses this status
in the action of posting itself, while at the same time, acknowledges
the truth of the label. Similarly, the newbie, in denying her newbie
status can be shown to have recently subscribed through an examination
of list records, and thus proved to be what she has been categorised
as.
BOUNDARIES AND CONTROL
The nature of labelling, categorising, naming, defining and
boundary-drawing - and the policing of their related norms - falls into
activities associated with attempts to control one's environment. Even
the quoting of someone else's words
as an aphorism, signals an attempt to define a situation
metadiscursively by calling on outside authority. The entire story of
human activity can be understood as the effort to control the world in
some way. The highest authorities are cited in the undertaking of this
endeavour and made justifiable thereby - man having been given dominion
over all things which creepeth and crawleth comes to mind.
The very act of naming, of using a language, has in itself the telos of
control - of controlling emotions, feelings, relationships, by
channelling these into thoughts via language - whereby these thoughts
may be more easily exchanged with others - a type of economy of the
consciousness. When meanings made through language and other semiotic
modes are agreed upon within certain groups, a type of hegemony with
respect to other groups may be set up: 'reality is such and such'. The
more powerful groups may gain control of the meanings which may be made
through human activities, they may be able to set the accepted meanings
of actions and thoughts as the right and proper, most valid, most
logical, most justified/useful/ or morally superior view of reality for
everyone else who would have any truck with them for whatever reason.
In the case of discussion based mailing lists, because they rarely
impinge on a our financial well-being, if we as participants are not
allowed to participate fully, either through being corralled by labels,
or positioned by having our actions labelled as 'not-valid' by the group,
and/or if our resistant readings are belittled or, worse in some cases,
ignored, then we are 'free' to withdraw from such confrontation: to
unsubscribe, or remain silent. Through this type of dynamic, lists are
occasionally left free of dissident or resistant readings of dominant
ideological positions. And, as I have pointed out elsewhere, such
'harmony' onlist may be bought at the cost of a lack of any
interactivity at all: for discussion to continue, conflict of some
description seems a necessary prerequisite. (c.f. Kress 1985).
Alexanne Don
February, 2001
revised January 2006
revised May 2009
(Draft: please don't quote without permission)
click here
for some relevant references [more to come]
back to lexi_con HOME