Dear Charles, I would say that this one is easiest to understand using a theoretical framework. For example in a mailing list communicating open source you have no argument telling that an application is economically seen the best solution - you have to talk about effective/not effective. Or in a newsgroup communicating love you have no argument telling that one relationship would be more rational than another. Many social systems can be described as linked to a special symbolical generalized communication medium like technology (effective/not effective), and the others, you know Luhmann describes about 10 power, love, economy& as I have been discussing with you in Copenhagen. I have found that the group about animals (that I mentioned to Emilie in the former mails) has an interpretation scheme linked to their history of interaction were you e.g. must love your pet, you must pay what it cots if it get sick etc. So in relation to the different symbolical generalized communication media there are formed what I call a border of meaning through the online communities history of interaction, describing what arguments that have the best probability for acceptance in different groups. Power is a symbolical generalized communication medium (position/ opposition) itself and many online communities discuss politic, but in every social system power like the other codes are in play: In the group communicating open source, people that can handle the code of technology will keep position as long as the border of meaning supports it, no matter what moral etc. arguments you have. In the group about pets you have to handle all the codes in relation to pets that are provided by the history of interactions in that group. I think that the social has become much more selective with the digital interaction media now communication can be cut down to a very narrow definition on what we can talk about and in what tone but ok this also enable discussions between like minded about very specialized and differentiated topics without interruptions. Have a nice weekend Jesper Charles Ess wrote:
Hi all,
One of my undergraduate students (and, indeed, for another class) would like to research message boards (as a lurker - though I've apprised her of the AoIR guidelines) to determine what relationship(s), if any, may exist between amount/kinds of information under discussion and the emergence of hierarchical / power structures.
I just know that there must be a thousand citations out there that she should look at - if you have any to recommend, I'd be grateful if you could forward those to me.
Many thanks! And cheers,
Charles Ess
Distinguished Research Professor, Interdisciplinary Studies Drury University 900 N. Benton Ave. Voice: 417-873-7230 Springfield, MO 65802 USA FAX: 417-873-7435 Home page: http://www.drury.edu/ess/ess.html
Co-chair, CATaC'06: http://www.catacconference.org Co-chair, ECAP'06: http://www.eu-cap.org
Professor II, Globalization and Applied Ethics Programmes Norwegian University of Science and Technology NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway http://www.anvendtetikk.ntnu.no/pres/bridgingcultures.php
Exemplary persons seek harmony, not sameness. -- Analects 13.23
_______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/
-- Jesper Tække - MA. Ph.D.-Student - IT University of Copenhagen - Dept. of Digital Aesthetics & Communication - Rued Langgaards Vej 7 - DK-2300 Copenhagen S - Phone +45 7218 5000 - Direct +45 7218 5037 - Fax +45 7218 5001 - http://home16.inet.tele.dk/jesper_t/ - e-mail: jespert@itu.dk