Joachim Vlieghe

" I'm quite illiterate, but I read a lot. " JDS

“Rhetoric (I), Chapter 2 + Rhetoric (II), Chapter 22-23 + Rhetoric (III), Chapter 19” - Aristotle

Def.:

“Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This is not a function of any other art. Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own particular subject-matter; (…).  But rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us; and that is why we say that, in its technical character, it is not concerned with any special or definite class of subjects.” (A)

Central issue: “Every one who effects persuasion through proof does in fact use either enthymemes or examples: there is no other way. And since every one who proves anything at all is bound to use either syllogisms or inductions (and this is clear to us from the Analytics ), it must follow that enthymemes are syllogisms and examples are inductions.” (A, 1356b)
    » “I call the enthymeme a rhetorical syllogism, and the example a rhetorical induction.” (Ibid.)

             > Induction: “When we base the proof of a proposition on a number of similar cases, this is induction in dialectic, example in rhetoric; (…)” (Ibid.)
             > Syllogism: “(…) when it is shown that, certain propositions being true, a further and quite distinct proposition must also be true in consequence, whether invariably or usually, this is called syllogism in dialectic, enthymeme in rhetoric.” (Ibid.)

                          »> “Speeches that rely on examples are as persuasive as the other kind, but those which rely on enthymemes excite the louder applause.” (Ibid.)

On Persuasiveness:

“A statement is persuasive and credible either because it is directly self-evident or because it appears to be proved from other statements that are so. In either case it is persuasive because there is somebody whom it persuades.” (Ibid.)
   > Unique nature of rhetoric: “But none of the arts theorize about individual cases: (…)  individual cases are so infinitely various that no systematic knowledge of them is possible.” (Ibid.)
          » “In the same way the theory of rhetoric is concerned not with what seems probable to a given individual like Socrates or Hippias, but with what seems probable to men of a given type; and this is true of dialectic also. Dialectic does not construct its syllogisms out of any haphazard materials, (…), but out of materials that call for discussion; and rhetoric, too, draws upon the regular subjects of debate.” (Ibid.)

On enthymemes:

Central issue: “We now come to the Enthymemes, and will begin the subject with some general consideration of the proper way of looking for them, and then proceed to what is a distinct question, the lines of argument to be embodied in them.” (A, 1395)

General rule: “(…) we must not carry its reasoning too far back, or the length of our argument will cause obscurity: nor must we put in all the steps that lead to our conclusion, or we shall waste words in saying what is manifest.” (A, 1395b)
     » “It is this simplicity that makes the uneducated more effective than the educated when addressing popular audiences. (…) We must not, therefore, start from any and every accepted opinion, but only from those we have defined — those accepted by our judges or by those whose authority they recognize: and there must, moreover, be no doubt in the minds of most, if not all, of our judges that the opinions put forward really are of this sort. We should also base our arguments upon probabilities as well as upon certainties.” (A, 1395b-1396a)
               > The result: “(…) in handling the question whether justice is or is not a good, we must start with the real facts about justice and goodness. We see, then, that this is the only way in which any one ever proves anything, whether his arguments are strictly cogent or not: not all facts can form his basis, but only those that bear on the matter in hand: nor, plainly, can proof be effected otherwise by means of the speech.” (A, 1396a-1396b)

    > “Consequently, (…) we must first of all have by us a selection of arguments about questions that may arise and are suitable for us to handle; and then we must try to think out arguments of the same type for special needs as they emerge; not vaguely and indefinitely, but by keeping our eyes on the actual facts of the subject we have to speak on, and gathering in as many of them as we can that bear closely upon it: for the more actual facts we have at our command, the more easily we prove our case; and the more closely they bear on the subject, the more they will seem to belong to that speech only instead of being commonplaces.” (A, 1396b)

Elementary classes of enthymemes [1] (A, 1396b):

• The demonstrative enthymeme is formed by the conjunction of compatible propositions [thereby proving that proposition].
• The refutative [enthymeme is formed] by the conjunction of incompatible propositions [thereby disproving that proposition].

On concluding an argument:
   “Finally you have to review what you have already said. (…) What you should do in your introduction is to state your subject, in order that the point to be judged may be quite plain; in the epilogue you should summarize the arguments by which your case has been proved.” (A, 1419b)
         > “The first step in this reviewing process is to observe that you have done what you undertook to do. You must, then, state what you have said and why you have said it.” (Ibid.)
                   » Method of the ironic man:
                         “Your method may be a comparison of your own case with that of your opponent; and you may compare either the ways you have both handled the same point or make your comparison less direct: “My opponent said so-and-so on this point; I said so-and-so, and this is why I said it.” Or with modest irony, e.g. “He certainly said so-and-so, but I said so-and-so.” Or “How vain he would have been if he had proved all this instead of that!” Or put it in the form of a question. “What has not been proved by me?” or “What has my opponent proved?” You may proceed then, either in this way by setting point against point, or by following the natural order of the arguments as spoken, first giving your own, and then separately, if you wish, those of your opponent.” (A, 1419ba-1420b)

[1] The topoi for real enthymemes are given in chapter II.23, for fallacious enthymemes in chapter II.24.

“The Field dependency of Online Credibility” – Barbara Warnick

Presumption: Traditionally “the credibility of a message was judged primarily according to attributes of the message source, especially expertise, reputation, believability, and trustworthiness.” (BW, p.46)
   > “(…) this way of proceeding is frequently problematic when applied to online environments because messages there are often coproduced by many individuals whose identities may or may not be known, and also because a substantial proportion of existing Web-based messages do not include information about the message source (Consumer s International).” (BW, p.46)

Central issue: “What I show (…) is that the role of field-related principles, practices, protocols, precedents and other assumed knowledge-generating elements in judging Web site credibility is significant.” (BW, p.54)
   > “Therefore, it is not feasible to insist on field-independent standards, such as the expertise and reputation of the source, for judging Web sites generally.” (BW, p.54)

Presumptions:
   >(Aristotle – Greek Rhetoric) “Audience perceptions were based on how the speaker constructed a view of himself as possessing such traits as courage, self-control, prudence, and liberality that were in accord with the values of the Athenian culture.” (BW, p.46)
   > (Blair – 18^th century) credible speaker = “(…) someone who understood the standards of taste of his time, was knowledgeable about the matters on which he spoke, and possessed the necessary education and refinement to construct speeches that were seemly, well styled, and suited to the tastes of the listeners.” (BW, pp.46-47)
                »> “Aristotle’s and Blair’s theories of ethos illustrate the idea that, prior to the eighteenth century, notions of ethos were embedded in the cultural and social mores of host societies. They remind us of the possibility that modernist theories of credibility also may be culture dependent.” (BW, p.47)

Observation: (Burbules) “(…) users make use of ‘distributed credibility’. That is, they rely on a number of factors that, taken together, enable them to make field-dependent, comparative judgments about the presumed credibility of a source.” (BW, p.48)
   > “[Credibility judgments] are always made in light of the user’s prior experience and knowledge, the immediacy of the user’s need, and a number of other factors.” (BW, p.57)

Suggestion for a new model for credibility assessment: FIELD-DEPENDENT MODEL (Toulmin)
   “(…) the credibility of an argument is evaluated according to standards indigenous to the field[1] in which the argument is made.” (BW, p.49)
                > (Toulmin) Field = “(…) an epistemological context in which arguments[2] took shape and which implied the criteria by which they were judged.” (BW, p.49)
                                > (Barthes) “(…) literary texts as a multidimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash.” (BW, p.48)

(Toulmin) Argument consists of (BW, p.52):

·         Evidence – accepted facts of premises

·         Backing – general theories, accepted protocols, precedents and principles supporting the warrant

·         Warrant – reasoning link between data and claim

·         Claim – proposed conclusion/resolution

“In Toulmin’s model, the locus of field dependency is to be found in the backing for the warrant[3](or reasoning) that is used to support the connection between the argument’s starting point, or evidence, and the claim that it makes.” (BW, p.53)

[1] (Wathen & Burkell) For online environments, judgments are (most oftenly) based on (BW, pp.50-51):
                - interface (appearance and functionality)
                - content (source, relevance, recency, accuracy)
                - congruency (with prior knowledge) and applicability of content
      (Rieh)
                - interest/affective aspect of content (matters related to leisure activities)
                - cognitive aspect of content (financial, health or work related matters)
     (Fogg, Soohoo & Danielson)
                - visual cues (cf. interface appearance)
                - information design and structure
                - information focus (cf. content relevance)
                - scope of the site

[2] “(…) two or more arguments can be said to belong to the same field when they draw on the same principles, procedures, and protocols.” (BW, p.49)

[3] “Toulmin noted that backing is often tacit and only made explicit when a warrant is challenged.” (BW, p.53)
                > One can expect to find more such challenges and requests to indicate the backing in environments where institutionalization has yet to commence or be accomplished.
                          > This can be related to the importance of ‘tacit knowledge’ and offering support to learn to express this knowledge in words.

“A Medium Theory Approach” - Barbara Warnick

Presumption: “(…) I consider rhetoric in a broad, Burkean sense as ‘the use of language as a symbolic means of inducing cooperation [or response] in beings that by nature respond to symbols’ (A Rhetoric, 43).” (BW, p.25)

Central issue: “The purpose of this chapter is to identify those dimensions of Web-based discourse that make it necessary to adapt rhetorical theories to the study of persuasion[1] on the Web.” (BW, pp.26-27)
+ “How can existing rhetorical theories be modified and reshaped for the analysis of new media?” (BW, p.26)
    > focus: “(…) how such characteristics as nonlinearity, differential access, instability, and dispersion of Web texts affect the processes of Web production as well as users’ experiences of and responses to Web-based messages.” (BW, p.27)
      or else: “(…) it is necessary to consider how the shapers of online texts exploit the structure and properties of this medium.” (BW, p.27)

Communication process (BW, p.27-28):

·         Reception: user experience (influence of non-linearity and coproduction)
                > “The text offers pathways, structures[2], expectations, and frames of reference. The reader, in response to the text, creates meaning by exploring some possibilities (and not others) in light of his or her on experiences.” (BW, p.33)
                                >“Writers and readers of Web texts anticipate that texts will be read in the sequence chosen by the user.” (BW, p.29)
                                                > “Writing content for the Web requires an understanding of modular writing that can be read out of sequence and has few content-related prerequisites.” (Ibid.)
                                                                > “What may be needed for the study of online rhetoric, (…), is greater emphasis on reader response to the text because, as I have noted, online texts are often customized for specific audience members.[3]” (BW, p.31)
                                                > “(…) different users construct individuated pathways through hypertexts, assembling different texts as they read (Chen & Macredie).” (BW, p.31)
                                                Or else: The lack of predetermined trajectories for reading forces readers to “(…) continually make choices about what to read next.” (BW, p.29)
                                                                > “(…) readers can (…) take up different meanings of intertextuality based texts depending on their experience with prior texts and the number of textual allusions they can follow.” (BW, pp.31-32)
                                > Both require: weighing alternatives, constructing forecasts, and continually modifying expectations. (BW, p.29-30)

·         Source: function and credibility (influence dispersed authorship)
                > “(…) it has become a convention to attribute credibility to messages based in large part on the expertise and reputation of the message source.” (BW, p.33)
                                > Implications of digitally mediated content production:
                                   “(…) the role of the author as message source is displaced by group authorship, automated assembly, and reliance on database elements such as generic templates and scripts (Manovich).[4]” (BW, p.35)
                                                » “The text that the user reads is a product generated by Web designers, browser settings, and automated page assembly processes containing content customized for the reader’s needs.” (BW, p.35)
                                                                > “(…) it may be advisable to rethink the modernist conception of credibility as reliance on the message source and to shift to a framework for judging the credibility of messages that arise in the context of a distributed field of production oriented to specific purposes, functions, and values. The means for evaluating message credibility in this framework would grow out of the context in which online content is produced.” (BW, p.36)

·         Message: form (influence fragmentation, dispersion and remix culture)
                > Convergence culture, remix/transculturation
                “(…) remediation of media content has led to fragmentation of message texts as content is dispersed into many media forms and variations.” (BW, p.37)
                                TRANSMEDIA
                                “(…) the form of the message has changed, since messages in Web environments become fragmented because they are so easily dispersed, altered, reshaped, and transformed into new contexts.” (BW, p.27)
                               INTERTEXTUALITY [5]
                                “In its intertextuality, performative forms, and indeterminacy, the web text is more like an organism than alike a ‘work’.” (BW, p.29)
                > Intermediality
                “(…) shifts from one medium to another over time are made possible by conflating one medium with elements of another earlier medium so as to naturalize it in the experience of readers and consumers.” (BW, p.31)

·         Time: user experience (influence temporality and vastness[6] )

·         Space: user experience (influence geographical/physical separation and attention economy)
                > (Manovich) Spatial wandering (BW, p.41)
                   “(…) users constantly have the option of leaving [the authors/producers] site and going elsewhere.” (Ibid.)
                                > “Web authors cannot assume that readers will remain engaged with what they read, and so authors must expend a good deal of effort just to sustain their users’ interests.” (Ibid.)
                                                > Imagined audience:
                                                “The absence of immediate physical presence (…) means that Web authors must work from attributions about users’ attitudes, values, and beliefs. They must proceed on the presumption that the audience they imagine will resemble the one they are addressing and that their appeals will resonate with the users’ interests.[7]” (Ibid.)

[1] Study of the persuasive dimension of discourse traditionally focuses on the following aspects of the rhetorical process:
   - (Aristotle) speakers use of:
                * credibility
                * logic
                * emotional appeal
   - (St. Augustine) the speaker as a medium for persuasion
   - (Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca) shaping discourse in correspondence with the ‘imagine audience’
   - (Burke) appeal through mutual identification

[2][3][4][7] “By considering how the textual structuration anticipates user response, reader-centered criticism can consider how the text prestructures its readers’ experience and also incorporates their active role in the coproduction of meaning.” (BW, p.33)
    > “(…) some of the strategies that Web authors use to influence user reaction and to craft a coherent, although often oblique, message (…) include use of clever visual design, parody, pastiche, and allusion that appeal to what the user ‘always already’ knows and thus can convert the online experience into a puzzle or game that keeps him or her involved.” (BW, p.41)
                > “Web sites exist in a larger cultural and textual context, and site authors can draw on this context through allusion, parody, pastiche, and other forms of humor. The intertext in which the site exists thus becomes a resource for content development, and adroit use of this context is a form of invention in much the same way that the use of common topics served as reservoir for argument in Aristotelian rhetoric.” (BW, p.43)

[5] Intertextuality = “(…) a form of interreference among texts in which an already familiar text is invoked or played upon in a new textual context.” (BW, p.43)
   > “Fiske’s insistence that intertextuality is ‘inescapable’ (115) grows out of the realization that all texts, be they electronic, print, or oral, are understood primarily by their relationship to other texts. Instead of being fixed in a universal empirical reality, meanings emerge from interpretations of socially and historically situated viewers.” (BW, p.44)

[6] “The work of critics, (…), will be vital in preserving records and commentary on online public discourse.” (BW, p.27)

“The Internet and the Public Sphere” - Barbara Warnick

Central issue: “(…) I believe that critics should not look to the communication platform or its features as per se good or bad when making attributions about how its use affects society. Instead, they should consider how its affordances are shaped and applied by users to address social problems when considering the nature and effects of public discourse in the public sphere.” (BW, p.22)
   > “(…)  a good deal of vibrant and effective public discourse in the forms of social activism and resistance occur online, (…) such discourse has had noticeable effects on society, and (…) is therefore worthy of careful study by rhetoricians.” (BW, p.3)

Challenges of online data collection (methodology, WB, p.21):
   - recording analyzed texts,
   - accessing analyzed texts,
   - read access to data[1],
   - over generalization of limited case studies.

Socio-cultural continuance (and change) through public discourse and the affordances of digital media:
“Habermas noted the importance of the private sphere – the realm of commodity exchange and social labor imbedded in the conjugal family – as it related to salons, the theater, reading practices, and social gatherings. It served as a resource for the public sphere, a space in which people read, discussed, and wrote about opinions, issues, and ideas in coffee houses and public meeting places.” (BW, p.1)
   > “(…) in his conception of the public sphere, Habermas emphasized the importance of open public discourse to apply the will of the people to formulation of the policies and laws that govern them.” (BW, p.2)
                > “The mere existence of public communication is not enough to ensure the viability of a public sphere, however. It’s continuance relies as well on the extension of a common culture, shared experience, communal values, skill in and commitment to the processes of deliberation, access to news and information, and the public’s ability to influence social institutions and government policy.” (BW, p.2)
   >“Although it is true that television and traditional media provide some relatively open venues for discussion of public issues, many citizens are dissatisfied with the kind of coverage the social issues and politics provided by corporate media.” (BW, p.5)
                »> “(…) it is the case that Web-based affordances[2]offer a number of advantages for public discourse that are unavailable in mass media. Among these are affordability, access, opportunities for horizontal communication and interactivity, online forums for discussion and mobilization, networking capacity, and platforms for multimedia.” (BW, p.6)
                                »> “While the internet does not, in itself, constitute a public sphere, its potential for point-to-point communication, worldwide access, immediacy, and distribution facilitate offline and online protests and participation by widely distributed groups. Calhoun concludes that ‘one of the most important potential roles for electronic communication is … enhancing public discourse … that joins strangers and enables large collectivities to make informed choices about their institutions and their future.’” (BW, p.8)

Presumptions:
   (Kress) “Thus, substantive, integral texts in speech and writing have been displaced, as electronic and Web-based communications are parsed into sound bites, hyperlinked lexias, media clips, and images. As a result, identifying a source or author for a text is becoming difficult or less possible for coproduced or corporate-authored texts. Online audiences and readers of hyperlinked texts select their own point of departure for reading the text and organize it through their reading practices. In many communication environments, writing is no longer unquestionably the dominant mode of communication, having been overtaken by the image [3].” (BW, p.12)

   (Burke) “Burke emphasizes that rhetoric is a function of language use rather than a discrete genre of communication, and it is concerned with ‘the persuasive aspects of language, the function of language as addressed, as direct or roundabout appeal to real or ideal audiences, without or within’ (44). An implication of this broad and inclusive conception of rhetoric is that persuasion is not only constituted of words, but also of many forms of symbol use, including images, nonverbal and verbal communication, explicit, sophistic forms of advertising and propaganda, and oratory and public address.” (BW, p.13)

»> Persuasion and credibility of multi-authored content:
(Bostdorff) Due to blurring of boundaries of authorship (through extensive co-authorship and other unique qualities of digitally mediated content production) the assessment of perceived ‘credibility’ by users is interesting. (BW, p.20)
   > “[Bostdorff’s study] reminds us that the affordances of the internet and the Web can play a significant role in shaping the rhetorical appeal of message content and channeling user response to it.” (BW, p.20)

[1] “Precise citation is necessary because rhetorical and textual critics advance claims about the texts they analyze, and readers must be positioned to evaluate these claims by comparing them with the texts described.” (BW, p.21)

[2]“The Web’s linking capacity fosters cross-fertilization of ideas by referring users, not only to other sites, but also to messages on the other media such as low power radio and public access television.” (BW, p.20)

[3] “In the domain of representation and communication, the crisis manifests itself at every point: genres are insecure; canonical forms of representation have come into question; the dominant modes of representation of speech and writing are being pushed to the margin and replaced … by the mode of image and by others.” (Kress, p.17 in BW, p.13)

“Authenticity Online - using webnography to address phenomenological concerns” - Leighton Evans

Central issue: In the past years “(…) it should be argued that online communities have become a fundamental, rather than exceptional, part of user’s experience and lives, (…)” (LE, p.1)
                > “(…)a webnography based approach to exploring issues of authenticity of being in online spaces.” (ibid.)
                                > in other words: execution of virtual ethnography to “collect information of sufficient length and depth necessary to infer the phenomenological aspects of belonging to an online community, and how being in an online community affects people in their average everydayness.” (LE, p.11)
                                                > “(…) does being online lead to an intensification of Enframing?” (LE, p.12)
                                                > “(…) does being online lead to an intensification of inauthentic modes of being as exemplified through fear as opposed to resoluteness?” (ibid.)
                                                > “(…) does being online lead to a different type of alterity when considering other users?” (ibid.)

Ethnography = “(…) any qualitative research project where the purpose is to provide a detailed, in-depth description of everyday life and practice.” (LE, p.1)
   > “(…) strives to create descriptions of individual or collective subjectivities for the purpose of understanding different cultures.” (LE, p.2)
                > “(…) explain how these experiences represent what can be called ‘webs of meaning’ (Greetz, 1973: 5), the cultural constructions, in which people live.” (ibid.)
                                > (Kozinets) quality depends on credibility and dependability <> validity and reliability
                                                » Insured by:
                                                                - detailing the ethnographic process
                                                                - returning to the studied community for comments and analysis
                                                                (hermeneutic ft.) > assessing “whether the experiences of users is reflected in subsequent hypotheses and theory developed from the ethnography.” (LE, p.8)
                                > (Shadish) quality depends on transferability (of ethnography as a methodology and the used methods) <> generalization (of theories and hypotheses)
   » (Brookfield) Critical research attitude (LE, p.8-9):
                - identifying and challenging assumptions (of ordinary perceiving, conceiving and acting)
                - recognizing the influence of history, culture and social positioning on beliefs and actions
                - imagining and exploring extraordinary alternatives (even if potentially disruptive)
                - being appropriately skeptical about claims of ‘absolute truthfulness’.
    > (Thomas) “(…) what utility does ethnography have for an audience, especially when considering relevance to the world?” (LE, p.9)

Virtual ethnography = ethnographic study “using the virtual, online environment as a site of research”. (ibid.)
   > “Just as ethnography is both a method and a product, the internet is both a way of conducting social interactions and a product of those interactions.” (LE, p.6)
   (Hine) “(…) the internet a place of performance spaces and performed spaces (…)” (ibid.)
                > Facilitates the collection of pre-existing information (easy to locate and archive).
                > Participant observation (becoming involved)
                                > “Discursive or communicative research, the active involvement of the researcher in the environment being researched, can lead to the subjectivity of the actors begin revealed (Schwara 1999: 271) – enabling the researcher to have theoretically a better understanding of the identity performance of the user, and the significance of the interactions taking place (…)” (LE, p.4)
                                                > Profiling (of a community) is complicated by the alteration of the notion of ‘the field’ (cf. Hine)
                                                “(…) the field is now text on a screen and the group of people involved in the community can be scattered worldwide in physical geography – however, sharing the same space as one another thanks to the use of the technology.” (LE, p.3)
                                                > Simultaneous comparative ethnography by a single researcher becomes possible due to the nature of the virtual ethnography, which is a process of intermittent engagement. (also reduces/removes the risk of inter-reporter reliability) (LE, p.6)

(Hair & Clark) Conducting (virtual) ethnography:
   - Identifying proactive communities.
   - Negotiating access (necessity : openness aims and objectives + research about and for the community + ethics publication and withdrawal).
   - Establishing contact (both with the culture (action) and its participants (interaction) [1]) .
   - Conducting electronic depth interviews (allows question shaping over time + auto-transcription).
   - Returning results and analysis to the community.

(Hine, 2000) 10 Principles of Virtual ethnography (LE, p5):

   1. Ethnography to investigate the ways in which use of the Internet becomes socially meaningful.
   2. Interactive media (eg. the Internet) can be understood as both culture and cultural artefact.
   3. The ethnography of mediated interaction necessitates mobility both virtually and physically.
   4. Virtual ethnography follows field connections.
   5. Boundaries, especially between the “virtual” and the “real”, are not to be taken-for-granted.
   6. Virtual ethnography is a process of intermittent engagement.
   7. Virtual ethnography is necessarily partial. (Strategic relevance rather than faithful representations of objective realities.)
   8. Intensive engagement with mediated interaction adds an important reflexive dimension.
   9. This is ethnography of, in and through the virtual – we learn about the Internet by immersing ourselves in it and conducting our ethnography using it, as well as talking with people about it, watching them use it and seeing it manifest in other social settings.
   10. Virtual ethnography is an adaptive ethnography which sets out to suit itself to the conditions in which it finds itself.

Remarks on following quotes:
 - “By adopting the critical approach, the produced ethnography can also be redistributed amongst the participants to assess their final product, and the authenticity of the final ethnography can then be assessed (…)” (LE, p.13)
                                > Caution is needed: overenthusiastic uses of the ‘return’-interaction runs a high risk for Social Desirability Bias.
                                I previously wrote about this in “De paradox van seksuele vrijheid, openheid en tolerantie  – Een wijsgerig-pedagogische analyse van seksualiteit en de rol van seksuele opvoeding en de pedagoog als deskundige” (Vlieghe 2010). The piece in question has been posted in an earlier blog entry, but is equally relevant in this case.

   - “EVS’s response points to a revealing of a world that is in necessity superficial, and has the essence of unabashed self-disclosure.” (LE, p.14) + “The world EVS describes is one of being-with rather than Dasein-with – entities existing with one another but in a radically atomized manner, without significant interaction or understanding.” (LE, p.15)
                                > The following excerpts from the same interview (printed in the article) suggest something on the contrary:
                                “For me, a daily user it is like an extension of myself and if I don’t have it then I do go slightly mental and feel terribly cut off from everything.” (ibid.)
                                “The added part is social networking and it is like a metallic brain part. (…) practically everyone I know at my fingertip.” (LE, p.16)
                                “It can sometimes give an insight into other people’s thoughts/feelings/actions but that’s about it.” (LE, p.17)
                                “I think to a lot of people I know, I exist more in Facebook than I do in real life.” (ibid.)
                                > Yet the interviewee also ushers statements which do support Evans’ thesis:
                                “Facebook has made me more socially awkward than I have ever been in my life.” (LE, p.17) (Suggesting a certain form of isolation)
                                “I think Facebook is very(…) kind of superficial (…) kind of where you only see the surface of people, it’s not that deep, but i suppose thats all its for. It would take one hell of a comment or post to make me think twice about one of my friends, then again it’s only really the people I see outside of Facebook which I really worry about, (…) It’s nice to see what they are up to but not everyone is relevant or important to me, so i’m not worried about how i feel about them.” (LE, p.17-18)
                                                > The question remains whether (in relation to this last statement) this is really significantly different from a previous social practices concerning friendship and acquaintance.
                                                (Studies to support or disprove this thought?)

[1] Additional quote: (Singh & Dickson) “(…) ‘observations… have then to be translated into intense reflection on reasons for the behaviors and events observed. This allows the researcher to speculate and then seek confirmatory and non-confirmatory evidence about the phenomena.’ This is not a license to be unsystematic, but to take advantage of the uniqueness of each case and how they might relate to the themes of the research, allowing potentially for a more representative theory.” (LE, p.10)