the presence paradox - lite communication tools

Lite communications tools such as Twitter & Instant Messaging & SMS txting offer the promise of ambient intimacy or the less confronting option of ambient presence. Little slivers of meaning 'n' grooming flick(er)ing between people.

Leisa Reichelt's ambient intimacy post positions these lite tools as mostly "phatic". I am not convinced that we are very good at correctly recognising "phatic" vs. "semantic" acts of speech. Most of our corporate communications (emails from the CEO, townhall meetings, intranet pages) position themselves as meaningful but are frequently meaningless. Instead they convey another set of messages around status, order & control. They are, in fact, almost purely phatic.

The further you move away from the tools supposedly concerned with meaning into the tools associated with grooming, the more actual meaning you will find. The corporate communications department rarely thinks of IM as a comms channel (thankfully). Let's hope they don't find out.

Presence vs Intimacy

So I had coffee with Alex on Friday and our conversation came round to Twitter & ambient presence. I thought I'd reflect on this subject a bit more so I plugged the term into Google to find out who I'd stolen it from. And up pops this article from Lee Hopkins who references Alex, who got it from me.

Whilst many others have used the "ambient presence" term before, I had in fact misremembered something else - Leisa Reichelt's post on ambient intimacy. LR's term deliberately mixes the human ‘ickyness’ of ‘intimacy’ with the distributed and non-directional nature of ‘ambiance’. Which makes it uncomfortable for a business environment. We don't want to be intimate with colleagues. In fact, doesn't that lead to disciplinary action (and not the "fun" kind of disciplining either)?

I think I subconscously gave Alex a more formal version of the concept. Pausing to reflect, these presencing technologies may or may not lead to greater intimacy between people. Presence is performative whether we like or not. For example, I know people that set their IM status to "in a meeting" when I know full well they are having a quiet cup of tea. If my status is set to "Matt is whitewater rafting" is that because I am genuinely whitewater rafting or that my life is excruciatingly dull and I want to persuade everyone that it is not?

These tools offer increased situational awareness but the potential of greater intimacy depends on us. For many of us, our work personas are more tightly managed than others we might maintain. And we tend to have a circle of people we are closer to than the others.

How about a status marker that varies depending on who the viewer is? For the general viewer, it says: "Working hard on presentation for CEO, do not disturb". For trusted intimates, the message says: "Terrible hangover after tequila binge with Gav last night - has anyone got panadol?"