... As Melvin Kranzberg has pointed out, technology itself is neither good nor bad. But nor is it neutral! It is how we design, manage and use it that makes the difference. The effect that these emerging technologies will have in the future is a matter of the choices that we make today. Such decisions must be made from the social perspective. Without being overly dramatic, what we are doing is shaping social ecology in which our children will live. This we must do with care.

But who is making these choices, which versions of the future should we believe, and how do we determine whom to trust? First, let me emphasize the urgency of these questions. The decisions that will shape this future are being made today, and because of the scale of the initiatives, once made, their very inertia will make it difficult to change them after the fact. In simple terms, we are only going to get one kick at the can, and we'd better get it right the first time. My view is that we are at great risk of not doing so.

...
It is amazing the confidence with which people express their guesses as to the future as if they were facts. Perhaps taking one too many Tony Robbins course has given them an inflated view of power of their own vision. However, I'm a scientist, and I want something more. The best that we get from those bidding the billions is a poll underwritten by MCI and dutifully reported by the Globe and Mail. It attempts to allay our fears, and convince us that the highway really would be used for good and productive things. The results of their questionnaire reported that only 24% of the public want the information highway for shopping and video on demand, and that the rest want it for applications such as education, medicine and social services.

Without getting into the issues such as who was asked, what knowledge they had of the technology and its options or what the questions were, the results of such "research" are about as reliable as if you had of asked the same people in January if they planned to lose 10 pounds after the holidays. Feeble questionnaires, gut feelings, lobbyists, and futurist "gurus" (few of whom have any practical experience with either social science or living with such technologies) are not reliable sources for making such important decisions.

It is only by building the future and actually living in it that we can reliably understand it from the social or any other perspective. And the only people who can give you reliable accounts of what it will be like are those who have done so. At first glance, this may seem to provide little comfort. This seems to say that we have to wait for the experiences of tomorrow to gain the insights needed to guide our decisions today. But the sleight of hand that I want to play is to show that methods exist which enable us to live in the future yesterday so that we can engineer an appropriate future tomorrow. How? By adopting a human rather than technology centric view of research, and adopting what has been called a "Wizard of Oz" approach to research.

...
The means to make socially appropriate decisions are available, if we choose to avail ourselves of them. To do so, we must to do two things:

1. Shift from a technocentric to a human-centric frame of discourse. These are social, not technology issues. Technology is simply a "social prosthesis," and like any other prosthesis, before building it, we have to determine what purposes it is to serve.
2. Base our decisions on experience and science, not hype or some futurist's fantasies. Dreams are fine - in fact wonderful - but it is irresponsible to impose them on the public without doing the requisite underlying research.

...
We have a real opportunity facing us. However, there is a real chance that we will blow it. If we do, it will be too bad - especially for our children. The key message is this: since the knowledge to get it right is available, if we do blow it, it will be our own fault - not technology's. (1)

---

Lang tech

Some things have changed since 1994 -- for one thing, the phrase 'Information Highway' is extinct (ref. Norm Solomon) -- but Buxton is quite prescient in many ways.

Let's agree, the future effects of the Net are the result of "the choices that we make today, [which] must be made from the social perspective." So, have you made a choice today? Or rather, since indeed you are making it, are you making it consciously? Is it more honest to say it is being made for you?

What does a 'social perspective' consist of? He suggests it is a matter of judgement by people themselves whether technofix X or Y is better or more comprehensible as a part of their lives, and that the more sweeping the scale of change, the more valuable it is to prepare, anticipate, predict, and evaluate the possible effects before they become 'fixed.'

I think he has a point, and while he was focussed on the sell-out of the 'bottom-up' approach to the vested telecom interests who have 'decided' on our behalf what our future shall be, I find his thinking applies quite nicely to my theme that language is technology, too:

    It is only in constructing the language by our actual use of it that 
    we  understand anything. Only people who have understood can 
    reliably explain their present understanding. Yes, this says that 
    we have to have feedback to see what we 'should have' said -- 
    but it is the same 'method' which enables each of us to anticipate (project)
    what will be understood (by 'you,' of 'my' present), so that we can build on it
    appropriately in a future exchange (that is, projection). This is what it
    means to have a human rather than a techno-centric view of
    communication.

Its a rough translation, because the 'condensation' of timescale is not as seamless as it might be, but I think the idea comes through. In his sketch, decisioning and living are completely separate activities; one can simulate a future life, make the decision now, and then 'in the course of time,' act on it -- realise what one had decided. In 'language tech,' decision and action are infinitely closer together; the present progressive tense is used literally, rather than as a kind of reportorial voice of 'what is going on as we speak.' Isnt 'languaging' the going-on of speech? One imagines ('simulates') what might be meant, selects certain words ('decides'), and then waits for the other to respond (in the course of time) in order to realise what what 'it' meant (to the other) -- one sees what was understood (and what was not) differently than before.

The difference is that the Ontario Telepresence Project was a one-off, 'experimental' research consortium, and I suppose participants signed up for a day or a week and then were done with it. The 'language project' is a continuous experiential consortium; once one has 'signed,' there is no 'done,' no going back. One can only continue, until everything that can be said has been said. (Scary thought, eh?)

Frankly, his second point is not one I thought I could translate so easily, but there it is. I could chop it out, and figure that no one would notice (who has the time to go to these URLs, anyhow?); otoh, if his first works so well, doesnt it deserve to be thought through?

In fact, it makes perfect sense:

If one bases one's [language] on experience and [thus-far-gained 
understanding], not [book-learning] or fantasies [of what words are 
'supposed' to mean], then one *cannot [use it with ('impose it on' is 
confusing, see below) another] without [being present in, subject to] 
the requisite [i.e. current, interaction]. 

In other words, socially appropriate language is that in which one 'chooses' to participate as an equal. This condition is violated by either not allowing the other at least the same opportunity to change her words -- without changing what was intended by them -- as one expects for ones own; or not allowing ones own words (for a given intention) to change under feedback. To claim lang as a constant, or lang as a linear function (i.e. of a single variable, 'I'), is to castrate it, petrify it, mortify it, putrefy it, reduce it to only 'palliative noise.'

=============

Techno talk

Buxton adds:

... There is a side issue that emerges from the previous discussion of the Internet being transformed into a "tollway." It is important to think of the Internet as a community, not a piece of technology. As such, it is suceptible to many of the same social pressures and trends that occur in more conventional ones. Of concern to me is the phenomenon of "gentrification," where the members of a community are displaced due to cost pressures deriving from more wealthy would-be occupants.

From a social perspective, the Internet, as we know it, is extremely vulnerable. And if the current occupants are pusshed out, what will be the cost? From a short-term economic perspective, one could argue, "but these people don't pay, or at least, don't pay enough. Let market forces prevail and let's maximise profit. After all, we have to recoup our investment." However, I would argue that this is a poor argument from both a social andi an economic perspective. The current Internet community is not a community of techno-welfare freeloaders. Rather, it is a community of pioneers. In technospeak, they are "early adopters." They are largely knowledgable people who will put up with prototye systems and give valuable feedback on what works and where the "sweet spots" are. In short, they are one of the most valuable assets that we have to help realize the potential of the technology. They should be nurtured and listened to, not priced out of the market...

-- which also has some relevance to our present circumstances. In picking names out of Devel-L, I chose those I recognized. I recognized them because they are posters over time -- and are thus Buxtonian 'pioneers.' Whether it is what B.B. had in mind or not, it is not at all inconceivable that the days of our use of the Net as an open channel of 'social intercourse' are numbered. Certainly, as long as the 'curve' suggests that email is a 'winner,' email access will remain -- but if numbers are all that count, what happens then? Cleveland Freenet is down; AOL and Time-Warner are merging; Devel-L is moribund -- how are other systems and lists faring?

For all the growth in 'access,' I dont see any growth anywhere in actual 'exchange of ideas and information' -- do you? If traffic had an 'ideational' dimension by which business decisions could be made, wouldnt we already be sweetly paying by the byte (the obvious rubber-meets-road point)? Is there nothing we can do to improve the 'ROI' (return on investment) of attention? Is there a 'decision' to be made today?

============
In another sidebar, Buxton writes:

For example, experience with cellular phones is getting to that stage of maturity where it is largely unacceptable to have your phone on in a restaurant. That is to say, we are learning when and how to use that most important control, the on/off switch. By doing our homework, we can identify such problems before releasing technologies onto the general public, and take steps to accelerate the adoption of socially appropriate conventions. As a society, we shouldn't have to live though two years of intrusive, offensive or inappropriate use because the designers felt that the social component of technology was not their responsibility. Given the means available today, there is no excuse for blindly throwing technology at society. It is bad design, bad manners, and ultimately, bad business.

-- which neatly provides us with a bad example. It may have been hastily written, but it does not gel in the language-is-socially-defined/social-definition perspective:

For example, experience with [some word, X] is getting to that stage of 
maturity where it is largely unacceptable to [use it]. That is to say, we 
are learning when and how to use that most important control, the on/off 
switch.

So far, so good -- but then the authorial voice changes. It is no longer human participatory, public, socio-centric language, but prime-cut technocratese:

By [knowing more than you do], [I] can identify such problems before 
[letting you know what I mean], and take steps to [control] the adoption 
of socially appropriate conventions. [You] shouldn't have to live though 
two years of intrusive, offensive or inappropriate use [should you, dear?] 

In other words, his indignation boils up in the voice of the opposition!

I therefore do not translate but explain: He's saying, it's not anything you, dear reader, knew or didnt know, said or didnt say, but the 'designers' -- in Canada, MTT/ ATT/ CANARIE, but also the rest of the transnational complex; not even 'content' or 'service' providers, but the owners of the hardware, the 'channels,' cables, 'airwaves' and satellite links through which all this lucrative bandwidth passes -- who (as he saw 6 years ago and the rest of us are only now able to understand, eh, Sam?) rolled the government(s) over on this detail of whether it was to be a two-way information highway 'of the people, by the people, for the people,' or a one-way commercial 'Data Tollway.'

Then he subsides (i.e. rewrote ;-)):

... because the designers [were not either you or me]. Given the means 
available today, there is no excuse for [aggrandizing] technology [over] 
society. It is bad design, bad manners, and ultimately, bad business.

========

Confusion, how to address, example of

On this neutral ground (after all, we all agree on the 'political' implications of his saying anything at all), I now take another shot at explicating how some expression is not communication -- despite what its author may say 'in situ,' and despite it's all being called language.

0. Are you there, Bill Buxton?

The difference between 'reading' a text and exchanging remarks is that one is stuck with confusion when there is no alternative. The universally available alternative to reading is writing -- but in a culture of reading (more generally, of consumerism) it is reduced to a nullity -- thus the ironic quotes.

It is all too easy to change voice. One does it naturally, 'all the time,' in f2f interaction -- and the 'body language' of gestures and intonations which are lost in CMC pertain entirely to such changes. They 'signal' to the other that a voice is 'put on', that one is 'adopting' a viewpoint.

They are meta to the 'content' of the statements. They are an alternative medium.

When a change of voice is 'stuck,' when media-count = 1, the result is deconstruction, because one can have no investment in the author's understanding, or his changing his expression. When one is in communication (see collab3, note2, the construction process is exactly the working through, unsticking, understanding, the confusions. To so decontextualize is to abort that literal interaction for the sake of a 'resource' -- as reprehensible and disgusting a sell-out as anything a TNC could do. Which is cause and which effect is immaterial; the point is, you have the scales of equity on your desk, and you use it for an ashtray.

OK. Here, now, I say Buxton's text presents, on a kind of mid-range scale between the author's 'future of the Net' vision and my 'dialogue as creative action' hammer-and-tongs, the opportunity to be a reader -- declining which, I speculate instead on the nature of confusion.

1.
What happens when a veritable mob of f2f-acculturated folks get on the Net? Dont you know? - delete the wry humour, the sarcasm and all local references, insert ironic quotes to signal that while it isnt exactly the word you want to defend, it is anyhow defensible -- and tack smilies onto anything that could possibly be ambiguous, to signal it isnt meant nastily. In place of a literate tradition of metasis, by which (at the very least) 'the narrator' was distinguishable from the narrative, colon-hyphen-parens suffices for the felt needs of these techno-children.

But misunderstanding happens anyhow. How, then, does one 'explain' when the tools of explanation have been removed -- because why else does one change voice? It's not just to pass the almighty time; its because your brain is going too fast. Youre getting ahead of itself, there are certain phrases that would fit, but they havent been 'assimilated yet - - so you echo them, and you wiggle your eyebrows or your hands or your larynx to say "This is not me speaking, despite all other appearances." Meta lang is explanation. Explanation is meta lang. (Few 'artists' explain their work: it has to 'speak for itself,' no? Heck, that's how you know they're artists! See Tooleys.)

If one cant explain what one says, then what does one say? 1.a
One says: things which dont need explaining ('news'), things for which explanations would be so long and tiresome they are more trouble than theyre worth ('jokes'), things which some people understand and thus one asking for explanation reveals hyrself as not-an-insider -- and thus doesnt deserve to get an explanation ('code').

1.b
Or one says nothing. One scans the news, laughs at the jokes, ponders the code, and goes to sleep. The dynamic loop is interrupted: the 'writer' gets no practice reading, the 'reader' gets no practice writing, and the ideational stock index drops like a stone.

1.c
Or one works out a methodology by which it is possible to explain explanation, so that others may appreciate what theyd been missing -- what they knew theyd been missing, but didnt know they knew what to do about it being missed. One launches a metarevolution, because there is no future in the way things are going. The only ingredient that is missing from its realisation is -- the other.

2.
What happens when somebody else muddles his voice but can't explain, and you, trying to respond, "take it as read"? You are going to 'be confused' because you fused together two voices, two viewpoints, and what you start to say about one is contra-indicated when you look at the other. Then you guess, you assume, you impute 'what they must have meant,' and you go on from there. If you're lucky, you guess right. If not, then they are confused by the product of your confusion -- and you have to be very lucky to ever get it sorted out, because if you understood why you were confused to start with, you wouldnt have guessed. You'd have asked, wouldnt you? (3)

A question mark is the best (most reliable) signal of a change of voice in CMC, bar none.

There is no CMC guarantee of a different voice, but generally speaking, a different address is a pretty good guide.

2.a
One, knowing one is confused -- knowing in fact that confusion is rampant -- takes a stab in the dark. When the other asks for clarification, one can then explain, not the 'misunderstanding' but the ambiguity (cf organizational learning) -- and show that one simply took a guess. There's nothing wrong with guessing, we do it all the time, its just that when the guess is wrong, when the outcome confuses, it takes more time to sort it out when 'bandwidth' is limited.

CMC proceeeds much more slowly than f2f conversation, its 'instantaneity' notwithstanding, than most folks are prepared for.

2.c
One, having kept several conversations carefully sorted out, knowing it is possible to be unconfused, thus having all the time in the world (or at any rate demonstrably more than another), explains explaining using as little confused/ confusing language -- that is, in as consistent a voice -- as possible. (Another voice adopted to relieve the 'monotony' can be as 'broad' as possible, and still someone wont recognize it as distinct, so forget it. Q&A is far more fun, anyhow!)

But this 'carefully,' now, where did that come from? Like 'complex,' its one of many words that signal real but unreferenced experience; in contrast to 'complex,' it signals unconfused experience. Thus here it is redundant; ie, for emphasis, which also signals 'split-level ahead' if you want to pursue it.

For instance, one can use 'horizontal rules' such as ========== to separate trains of thought, or numbers and letters to indicate some kind of relatedness other than strict linearity. Here (having already written the 'original punch-line for the piece), I can thus go poking off into some of the implications I hadnt thought to spell out before, without their 'getting in my way, i.e. confusing me -- and if they're not enough for you, would you like to collaborate on a better system?

Notes

    1. W. Buxton, [ Social Planning and Communities Along the "Information Highway"], 1994 Back <--
    2. 'Consciously,' like 'carefully,' infra, is a 'signal identifying the context' (SIC) - that is, a pointer to a change of logical level and likely of vocabulary. It does not change ones responsivity or 'ethical responsibility'. <--
    3. Or worse, a mob whose idea of f2f was learned from television.<--

Comments? Contributions? Write to Serchan.