The topic of human interaction is highly individual and subjective when analysis comes to practice. Nevertheless, attempts by scientists to identify general patterns result in several theories that must be used comprehensively in any situation to get as many answers as possible to the questions posed by the motives and actions of people. This knowledge has an important impact on the movement of science forward, and there is still much work to continue to assess situations at the same level. This issue is incredibly complicated in the era of the emergence of the Internet and the possibility of remote communication, which is an entirely different phenomenon compared to personal communication. Although many basic concepts can be retained in this mode of interaction, theories focused on non-verbal signs lose their force. There is a need for an even more comprehensive approach, taking into account both, for example, ethnomethodology and the specifics of impersonal interaction.
I am ready to agree with the power of persuasion of the theories listed in this course regarding face-to-face communication. Distance, will, and predisposition are aspects that must be taken into account in any such study since they can be the engines of the motives, actions, and words of the dialogue participant. Numerous works in this area confirm this thesis, which has brought these concepts to a number of the most used ones, not only in sociology (Hammersley, 2018, Prachthauser et al., 2020). However, interaction on the Internet creates a unique communication environment, which in its structure can vary significantly depending on the context. This aspect also plays a vital role in personal interaction, which is confirmed by many theoretical foundations, highlighted in separate terms from civil inattention to regionalization.
However, in face-to-face communication, a person can use tools to maintain their role and status is limited. Communication on the network has these boundaries in a completely different way. Non-verbal signs are an advantage of face-to-face interaction, while online, people can be depersonalized and deprived of preliminary information about the interlocutor, appearance, and emotional mood. At the same time, the Internet makes it possible to diversify data transmission channels, ranging from plain text to video messages.
I agree with the thesis that behind the problems of abuse and other communication ailments, there are questions that should not be looked for specifically in these microcontacts. They are more global and subject to external factors, which instead lie in the plane of the scientific interests of ethnomethodology: historical stereotypes, the influence of eugenics and education, and much more. However, I cannot entirely agree that online texting contributes to gender inequality. It is essential to emphasize the causal relationship here: the society in which this disease exists was in this position even before the advent of the Internet. In turn, technology can also build more loyal relationships in the same way when interlocutors, without visual contact, first get to know the person’s personality better, and not some demographic data that can interfere with a contact at an early stage. Therefore, the ways and means by which, in a global sense, interaction is clouded by such behavior may change, but the correspondence itself is not the cause of increasing gender inequality.
Generally, this material is highly brief and informative regarding concepts covered exclusively in a theoretical aspect. The scarcity of data on their projection to online interactions suggests that, at the moment, there is a gap in the adaptation of concepts. However, at the same time, the Internet and the rapid development of technology, in general, have given researchers many tools that allow, for example, to significantly increase the scale of surveys, the speed and quality of their receipt, and the convenience of respondents for completing them. In my opinion, a step-by-step analysis of concepts in terms of segregation of concepts of interaction phenomena can be studied in more detail, given that research on each of them is carried out separately (Gregory & Antolin, 2019). Even concepts such as civil inattention, primarily based on non-verbal signs, are being studied in Internet communities, where people communicate via video in a dialogue with many interlocutors at conferences.
In addition, the diversification and complexity of social roles are difficult to classify when it comes to global systems. Here, the thesis that microcontacts are not a place to search for the causes of incorrect and destructive behavior becomes contradictory. They create a precedent from which it is possible to build on the study of non-obvious correlations in interaction. Society is highly dynamic, and detailed case studies can provide important insights that may not have come to light. In other words, science needs microcontacts to preserve and update systematized knowledge, but the reasons should be looked for firmly outside one dialogue.
This course’s most convincing arguments and hypotheses seemed to me to be the conclusions from studies conducted parallelly to assess behavior in people’s interactions on the street and online. This approach is the most promising since the knowledge base for face-to-face communication is already full of many concepts and classifications that are still not adapted to the network. The subject of the research should be people, and not just their direct actions and words, because it is these same people who themselves master technologies and create a cultural background. One of the shortcomings of the method is the process of globalization, which has become uncontrollable and rapidly developing thanks to the Internet, and it is almost impossible to take into account all aspects and factors of influence. However, point work on already known concepts can significantly expand the information of this course, which does not yet create the feeling that online interaction has become prevalent over live.
References
Gregory, N. J., & Antolin, J. V. (2019). Does social presence or the potential for interaction reduce social gaze in online social scenarios? Introducing the “live lab” paradigm. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 72(4), 779-791.
Hammersley, M. (2018). The radicalism of ethnomethodology: An assessment of sources and principles. In The radicalism of ethnomethodology. Manchester University Press.
Prachthauser, M., Cassisi, J. E., Le, T. A., & Nicasio, A. V. (2020). The social distance scale (V1): A screening instrument to assess patient adherence to prevention strategies during pandemics. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(21), 8158.