"In a culture that has seen the work week increase and leisure decline, this paradox of electronic communication points to one of contemporary life's great ironies: Labor-saving devices make more work" (Lee 324 as cited in Moses and Katz 71).Katz and Moses are quick to point out that email is commonly viewed as very efficient and "freeing" in that it allows for quick communication without physical proximity and lacks many of the conventions that define a traditional business memo. Therefore, it is often seen as democratic, even considered a "social panacea" (72) by some, because it removes social inequalities, at least to a certain extent (standardized structure, informal). However, other critics suggest that the internet and email simply repackage traditional power structures or potentially create new ones. For example, they mention the U.S. dominance on the web, the reality of internet-poor places and peoples, and government intervention. Katz and Moses suggest that more work is needed to supplement the little research performed on email and ideology and indicate that their article is not meant to bash or praise email but "critique the hidden ideologies that underlie mail as a cultural practice" (74) using the theory of Habermas.
 |
| "Much like the Sprint cell phone commercials where problems in relationships are cured by the purchase of a cell phone, the general conception is that email facilitates and enhances personal communication and even personal relations" (75). |
Habermas examines the relationship between work and communication and suggests that technology shifts the focus from a balance between work and interaction to work. He's also concerned with the disappearance of the distinction between work and leisure and the way technology makes itself normal and invisible, especially the relationship between technological ideology and the "capitalistic goals of production" (77), so that one appears to determine the other. Furthermore, the authors argue that, unlike other forms of technology, users cannot choose to use email to either maintain or cross the boundary between the workplace and "private life". Therefore, life is a project.
Habermas also outlines two possible relationships between work and communication.
1. Traditional Institutional Framework: interaction is controlled via social norms, common expectations, if rules are broken also enforced by punishments which are determined socially, "systems of ideals (myths, religion, laws) authorize political power" (79), focus on individual and domination-free communication, may have purposive-rational subsystems
2. Purposive-rational system: system controlled by technical rules, technology and science rule, actions motivated by desired outcomes, outcomes also determined by technology e.g. if the rules aren't followed, the task is not completed successfully
The article then jumps to talking about how email began: it was the result of the the United States Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). Their aim was to have researchers share data to "speed up production" (81). In addition, when Ray Tomlinson invented "network mail" he communicated with another computer in the same room in order to see if the technical possibility was there. This focus on efficiency and productivity has continued to reign in email, as evidenced by the designs of Microsoft and IBM (see page 82 for examples).
"Improved general communication is really a spin-off" (83).
Therefore, though providers like Hotmail cater to keeping in touch with family and friends, they are still focused on productivity and the intuitiveness of tasks. In addition, the relationship between Microsoft and Hotmail allows leisure to interfere in the workplace. Though Microsoft and Hotmail offer some control to users in that they will change aspects of email in response to popular demands (making interface look like Outlook), the authors assert that it is only the illusion of control: "We do not own the company, we do not own the means of production, we do not have the power to make changes; we only have the power to imbibe expectations, and make suggestions based on them" (87). We do not realize that these are ideological products, and that we want what is already being "manufactured" by the purposive-rational system in applications (e.g. the calendar function in Hotmail). Blurring expectations means we want the same things we have at work in the home; a purposive-rational system conditions both the economic and emotional.
Because of this system, we now have new behavioral expectations:
1. When a person sends an email, he/she expects the recipient to receive it and be aware of the information instantaneously
2. Because email is quick, people expect that they will be able to respond faster
3. One should always be able to check his/her email: "emailoholism" and "communication enslavement" (90)
FYI when this article was published, 42% of Americans who used email checked in on vacation!
Also, though email doesn't have rigid rules, its standardization (the technology) determines its conventions (e.g. the header section). Not placing something in the subject line, for example, would not change the format and would also result in efficiency failure. Furthermore, it is the technology that determines what the email is going to look like in this purposive-rational way (and puts less emphasis on formatting due to software compatibility). There is no punishment determined by society if a non-optional rule is broken, but a reality that the email has not been sent and even breaking optional rules can result in misunderstandings or difficulties.
The authors then talk about the shift to more informal language in email (e.g. salutations or lack thereof, writing more like speaking, less emphasis on grammar and spelling). They indicate that other scholars see this as a result of mixing the oral and literary modes and personal relations. However, they say that the informality "may be based on the values of efficiency and speed in communication...[a] move away from rules established within the traditional social institutional framework to those inscribed in the purposive-rational institutional framework" (96). Email and technology change the rhetorical situation and, therefore, relationships. This influences the way we teach (informal vs. formal language, away from rhetorical strategy and toward conciseness).
I found the statistics and facts in the article's conclusion to be some of the most interesting information in the piece. For example, they mention that productivity is raised by $9,000 dollars per person due to email, but some companies are banning it due to a lack of essential face-to-face communication. They conclude that people are very dependent on email, with some even stating that it is their preferred mode of communication, but such technology can also lead to "communication overload" and stress.
"Most people, if they think about the increase in work at all, probably see it as just an incidental effect of email use, and not part of the essential nature of email technology. However, this analysis reveals that increased productivity is not a coincidental extension of email technology, but the result of it" (99).
Questions:
1. Moses and Katz say, "What's at stake here is changing how people relate to each other" (85). How true do you think this is? Has email fundamentally changed the way you communicate? Is it different than a letter or phone call in means-to-an end communication?
2. Are these "computer violations" important simply because they make technology visible? Is this a good thing? How else might we make technology visible and will this make people think about it more?
3. Is the transition from traditional rules to the "freer" conventions of email always more freeing (e.g. I'm sometimes very nervous when I'm trying to formulate an email salutation)? Is this just the "transition period"? Are there still traditional roles in the closing information after one's name?
4. How is Skype influencing communication? For example, should we prepare our students for a Skype interview? A phone interview? How long would that take? Is it any different than a face-to-face interview?
5. My last article addressed teaching new and fading technologies; is the business letter a fading technology? Is formal/academic language a fading technology?
6. What do we most want personal email to do that professional email cannot? If productivity isn't the focus of such email, how do we make 'reaching out' the focus?
Connections:
Besides the aforementioned connection to Johnson's work, this article relates to Dilger's "Extreme Usability and Technical Communication" in that email could be considered a system that is plagued by extreme usability. For example, many of the product endorsements described by Moses and Katz stress ease of use (which also contributes to a transparency or invisibility in technology). In addition, both articles mention that the user has the illusion of the technology being user-centered. When he is discussing the fact that businesses attempt know what customers want before they do, Dilger says, "Obviously, in such a relationship, there is room for businesses to shape "needs" to be congruent with profitability, but little room for consideration of the user-centered" (55). A few sentences later he connects this to the ideology of consumer culture, the same production-driven ideology Moses and Katz attempt to get readers to acknowledge.
Interesting questions come to mind when one compares this article to "The Technical Communicator as Author". For instance, do emails have authors or are they like "private letters"? Can email ever be truly private? Does email help employees become the robots that the recruiter wants at the end of Slack et al.? Both articles deal with teaching implications as well (in rather large and perhaps intimidating ways). Is it the job of the technical communicator to ensure that the public understands that email is not value neutral or reveal information that organizations would prefer remain hidden?
You've done a fantastic job w/ this article. And, i lovvvve the images you've used here. Thanks for unpacking it so well, and for the fantastic list of questions. I look forward to our discussion in class.
ReplyDelete