Implications of mobile phones on social interactions, social cohesion and collective action

(1)

Implications of mobile phones on social

interactions, social cohesion and

collective action

Rich Ling

(2)

Outline

• _Introduction

• _{Ritual interaction and social cohesion}

–

Social cohesion

–

Bounded solidarity and mobile communication

• _{Technologies of social mediation}

• _{Conclusion (a not very day‐to‐day illustration)}

(3)

Outline

• _Introduction

• _{Ritual interaction and social cohesion}

–

Social cohesion

–

Bounded solidarity and mobile communication

• _{Technologies of social mediation}

• _{Conclusion (a not very day‐to‐day illustration)}

(4)

To what extent and how do mobile phones

really change the ways in which citizens co‐

(5)

Outline

• _Introduction

• _{Ritual interaction and social cohesion}

–

Social cohesion

–

Bounded solidarity and mobile communication

• _{Technologies of social mediation}

• _{Conclusion (a not very day‐to‐day illustration)}

(6)

Durkheimian rituals •The elementary forms of religious life Goffmanian everyday ritual interaction •W. Lloyd Warner (Yankee city) • ”The nature of deference and demeanor” Direct and mediated friendships •Early internet dating studies by Spears, Milardo, Duck •Teen studies of friendship circles Bounded solidarity •An instrument of the intimate sphere •Digital‐Gemeineschaft Collins and ritual interaction •Failed rituals •Copresence

Mobile telephony facilitates

sociation/cohesion in the intimate sphere

(7)

Sociology and the electronic revolution

• Technology and social cohesion: A major project

of sociology

– Mechanical and organic solidarity (Durkheim) – Bourgeoisie and the proletariat (Marx)

– Gemeinschaft and geselleschaft (Tönnes) – Traditional and rational society (Weber)

• Simmel’s question “How is society possible?”

• Durkheim’s answer: Ritual

(8)

By themselves, individual consciousnesses are actually closed to one another. . . For the communication . . . to end in a communion — that is, in the fusion of all the individual feelings into a common one — the signs that express those feelings must come together in one single resultant . . . It is by shouting the same cry, saying the

same words, and performing the same action in regard to the same object that they arrive at and experience

agreement.

(9)

Durkheimian ritual

• Not obsessive behavior • Ritual interaction – It is the mutually recognized focus on a process that engenders a common mood – Barriers to those who are not a part of the group – Ritual interaction creates a common recognition of shared status – A minor transgression against norms – Gain comadarie by mutual participation – Power dimensions – Failed rituals (Randall Collins) •Ritual is a catalyst for social cohesion •Most successful rituals are copresent (Collins)

(10)

From Durkheim to Goffman

• Durkheimian rituals are

authored by third parties

– Priests – Rock musicians – Political operatives – Empresarios

• Goffmanian rituals

–

authored by the participants

–

Small scale or one on one

• For Goffman ritual is a continual part of daily life

(11)

. . . rituals performed as stand-ins for supernatural entities are everywhere in

decay, as are extensive ceremonial agendas involving long strings of obligatory rites. What remains are brief rituals one individual

performs for and to another, attesting to civility and good will on the performer’s part

and the recipient’s possession of a small [sense of] of

sacredness. What remains, in brief, are interpersonal rituals

(12)

Outline

• _Introduction

• _{Ritual interaction and social cohesion}

–

Social cohesion

–

Bounded solidarity and mobile communication

• _{Technologies of social mediation}

• _{Conclusion (a not very day‐to‐day illustration)}

(13)

Rituals and mobile communication

• _{Durkheim, Goffman and Collins did not}

examine electronically mediated interaction

–

Durkheim worked in an era before large scale

mediated interaction

–

Goffman focused on face to face situations

–

Collins was dismissive of mediated ritual

– Ling in New Tech, New Ties. . .

(14)

New Tech New Ties

• Point of departure is ritual interaction as

in Durkheim, Goffman and Collins

• _{Mobile communication encourages social}

coordination

• A venue where we engage in ritual

interaction

– Humor, gossip, flirting, touching bases, sharing cultural artifacts

• Mobile communication tightens social bonds in the

intimate sphere and encourages bounded solidarity

(15)

Special characteristics of mobile telephony

• _{Call to people, not to places}

• One to one interaction (á la Goffman)

• _{Able to have more continual and nuanced}

interactions

• _{Interlaced within the context of other}

copresent situations

• _{Can be problematic for local interaction}

(16)

Percent of texts/calls (cumulative) going to

“friends”

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 Percent of all texts/calls

Link strength (decreasing)

Calls SMS

(17)

Outline

• _Introduction

• _{Ritual interaction and social cohesion}

–

Social cohesion

–

Bounded solidarity and mobile communication

• _{Technologies of social mediation}

• _{Conclusion (a not very day‐to‐day illustration)}

(18)

Personally useful

Necessity

Structured part of social interaction:

Taken for granted

(19)

Durkheim on social facts

Facticity Social facts: “They come to each one of us from outside and can sweep us along in spite of ourselves. If perhaps I abandon myself to them I may not be conscious of the pressure that they are exerting upon me, but that pressure makes its presence felt immediately [when] I attempt to struggle against them” (Durkheim 1938, 53). “The first and most fundamental rule is: Consider social facts as things”

(20)

Weber’s “iron cage”

Evolution

. . . the care for external goods should only lie on the

shoulders “. . .like a light cloak, which can be thrown

aside at any moment.” But fate decreed that the

cloak should become an iron cage.

(21)

Technologies of social mediation

(Technologies with which we mediate sociation)

• _{Critical mass}

• _{Supporting ideology}

• _{Changes in the social ecology}

• _{Reciprocal expectations}

(cohesion?)

(22)

“You are a problem for me if you don’t have a mobile phone”

(23)

Mechanical timekeeping as a

technology of social mediation

• Replaced the audible system

with the more abstract system

of time

• Used for the coordination of

different tasks

• Cut through the need for a lot

of different audible systems

• _{Allowed for the coordination}

of more complex (factory

based) activities.

(24)

(25)

(26)

Mobile communication as a social

mediation technology

Mechanical time keeping Mobile communication Critical mass Legitimation Social ecology Reciprocal expectations

(27)

Outline

• _Introduction

• _{Ritual interaction and social cohesion}

–

Social cohesion

–

Bounded solidarity and mobile communication

• _{Technologies of social mediation}

• _{Conclusion (a not very day‐to‐day illustration)}

(28)

(29)

Call sequence by link strength, 22 July

2011 in Norway

0,85 0,9 0,95 1 1,05 1,1 1,15 1,2 ‐19 0 ‐17 0 ‐15 0 ‐13 0 ‐11 0 ‐90 ‐70 ‐50 ‐30 ‐10 10 30 50 70 90 0₁₁ ₁₃0 ₁₅0 ₁₇0 ₁₉0 ₂₁0 ₂₃0 ₂₅0 ₂₇0 ₂₉0 ₃₁0 0₃₃ ₃₅0 ₃₇0 ₃₉0 ₄₁0 ₄₃0 Fraction of people contacting their friend (compared to average) Dt in minutes (where Dt=0 is time of explosion) 5 4 3 2 1 Based on 1.6 million active subscribers

(30)

14:30-15:26 15:26-16:30 16:30-17:30

Distance from bomb (km) - callers

Distance

from bomb (km)

-receivers

17:30-18:30

Calling between people outside Oslo to others also outside Oslo increased by a factor of 4

Calls to Oslo and from increased by a factor of 4 Calls within Oslo increased by a factor of 4