Peer Interaction
Technolgies these days are such a part of the fabric of daily social life they have been incorporated into our nearly all of our our interaction and communcation with others. (Moores: 2000: pp: 8) Because of this, and the rapid and extraordinary expansion of this technology that our society has endured over the last 10 – 30 years, the social shaping of technology is an important counter to the development of new media. (Flew: 2002: pp: 53)
The purpose of the mobile phone is said by Caron (2001: pp: 58) to be the perfect tool for relational communications, the purpose of which is to preserve, express and confirm pre-exisiting social links. So too has the internet with email and msn had an large inpact on the type and frequency of interaction with others, particularly so for the youth of our society. But the advancements in technology and its changing forms of communication have had an effect on the english language, on our personal behaviours and and the organisation of our societies. (Gordon: 2002 :pp: 18)
No longer are we passive users. The simple social acts of tuning in, ringing up, or logging on have complex meaning for subjects who are negotiating their realtions to immediate others. (Bausinger 1984 – in Moores pg: 9) There is a simultanious mixing of proximate and distant communications. Overseas contact is immediate, personal and occurs in our living rooms, via the internet. People seem familiar and and trustworthy and can be contacted at anytime of the day or night, via mobile telephone. (Henderson and Guiding: 2004: pp: 492)
While face-to-face communication still remains the dominant form interaction it is undeniable that technologies have altered the nature of social interaction. (Meyrowitz: 1999: pp; 198)
Technology enables peer interaction to occurring on a much more regular basis, particularly among youth. With multiple communications possible in a day with any one person, such conversation often takes place while one or more parties engage in other activities. It is normal for any youth’s interactions seem interfere with other interactions. There is an overlap of communications, technologies and thoughts, multi tasking with multiple forms of media at any one time.
No longer is there a set period of time in which communications occur. Where once people interacted over lunch, or a coffee, taking an hour out of a day to ponder or communicated intensely, the next generation does it on the go. However, while communications may be more frequent are they more meaningful or more productive?
References:
Caron, A. and Caronia, L. (2001) Active Users and Active Objects: The Mutual Construction of Families and Communication Technologies, in Convergence, London, Volume 7, Issue 3, pp: 38 –59.
Flew, T. (2002) New Media: An Introduction, Oxford University Press, Australia.
Gordon, J. (2002) “The Mobile Phone: An Artefact of Popular Culture and a Tool of the Public Sphere� in Convergence, London, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp: 15 - 25.
Henderson, S. and Gilding, M. (2004) I’ve never clicked this much with anyone in my life: trust and hyper-personal communication in online friendships, in New Media and Society, SAGE Publications, London, Volume 6, Issue 4.
Meyrowitz, J. (1999) “Shifting World of Strangers: Medium Theory and Changes in ‘Them’ versus ‘Us’ � in K.B. Massey (ed.) Readings in Mass Communication: Media Literacy and Culture, Mayfield Publishing, California, U.S.A. pp: 196 – 207
Moores, S. (2000) Media and Everyday Life in Modern Society, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Related Topics
Identity
Health
Social Protocol
English Lanugage
Financial Implications
Text Messaging
Chat Rooms
Email
MSN Messenger
Industry Convergence
Education
Oligopolies
Mobile Phones
Advertising
Homepage
Family Structure
Youth Access to Information
Reduction of Boundaries
Self Expression
Frances Curro 21:43, 9 Sep 2004 (EST)
Frances Curro 19:38, 28 Oct 2004 (EST)
