Interactivity
The Fallacies and Fortunes of 'Interactivity ' in
Communication Theory
David Holmes
Communications and Media, Monash University
David.Holmes@arts.monash.edu.au
The term ‘Interactivity’ persists as both a buzzword and a fraught concept within communication theory. For 1950s information theorists (e.g. Shannon and Weaver,
1949) interactivity denoted two way communication between either humans, animals or machines, but today it has become exclusively hardwired to the telecommunications and computing sectors. The use and misuse of the term in ‘new media age’ discourses is problematised in this paper by showing that traditional media can enable interactivity – whilst exploring accounts that new media do not, in themselves, guarantee interactivity.
The limitations of the concept of interactivity becomes apparent the more it is empiricised or made exclusively reducible to one or other technical medium. This in turn underpins the historicism of second media age thinkers, for whom interactivity becomes synonymous with the ‘interactive society’. (Castells, Van Dijk)
Interactivity has almost turned into a dull buzzword. The term is so inflated now that one begins to suspect that there is much less to it than some people want to make it appear. No company would fail to claim that it is keen on feedback. No leader would fail to praise the arrival of a new communication era. Apparently
1
interactivity has hardly any threatening meaning for the elites. (Schultz, 2000: 205
)
‘Interactivity’ has recently appeared as both a buzzword and a fraught concept within communication theory. For 1950s information theorists (e.g. Shannon and Weaver,
1949) interactivity denoted two way communication between either humans, animals or machines, but today it has become exclusively hardwired to the telecommunications and computing sectors. In information theory, the content of communication is separated from the means of communication, and the aim of
Communication Theory
David Holmes
Communications and Media, Monash University
David.Holmes@arts.monash.edu.au
The term ‘Interactivity’ persists as both a buzzword and a fraught concept within communication theory. For 1950s information theorists (e.g. Shannon and Weaver,
1949) interactivity denoted two way communication between either humans, animals or machines, but today it has become exclusively hardwired to the telecommunications and computing sectors. The use and misuse of the term in ‘new media age’ discourses is problematised in this paper by showing that traditional media can enable interactivity – whilst exploring accounts that new media do not, in themselves, guarantee interactivity.
The limitations of the concept of interactivity becomes apparent the more it is empiricised or made exclusively reducible to one or other technical medium. This in turn underpins the historicism of second media age thinkers, for whom interactivity becomes synonymous with the ‘interactive society’. (Castells, Van Dijk)
Interactivity has almost turned into a dull buzzword. The term is so inflated now that one begins to suspect that there is much less to it than some people want to make it appear. No company would fail to claim that it is keen on feedback. No leader would fail to praise the arrival of a new communication era. Apparently
1
interactivity has hardly any threatening meaning for the elites. (Schultz, 2000: 205
)
‘Interactivity’ has recently appeared as both a buzzword and a fraught concept within communication theory. For 1950s information theorists (e.g. Shannon and Weaver,
1949) interactivity denoted two way communication between either humans, animals or machines, but today it has become exclusively hardwired to the telecommunications and computing sectors. In information theory, the content of communication is separated from the means of communication, and the aim of
References: Calhoun,C. (1986) ‘Computer Technology, Large-Scale Social Integration and the Local Community’ in Urban Affairs Quarterly 22 (2): 329-349. Calhoun,C. (1992), ‘The Infrastructure of Modernity: indirect social relationships, information technology, and social integration’ Castells,M. (2001) The Internet Galaxy. London: Oxford UP. Gilder,G. (1994) Life After Television. New York: Norton. Poster,M. (1995) The Second Media Age. Cambridge: Polity Poster,M Rafaeli, S. 1988. Interactivity: From new media to communication, In Sage Annual Review of Communication Research: Advancing Communication Science, Vol Rafaeli,S. and Sudweeks,F. (1997). ‘Networked Interactivity’. Journal of Computer Mediated Rheingold,H. (1994) The Virtual Community. London: Secker and Warburg. Schultz, T. (2000) ‘Mass media and the concept of interactivity: an exploratory study of online forums and reader email’ Shannon, C. and Weaver,W. (1949) The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Silverstone, R. (1999) Why Study the Media? London: Sage. Slevin, R (2003) The Internet and Society. Cambridge: Polity. Thompson, J. B. (1995) The Media and Modernity: a social theory of the media. Turkle, S. (1984) The Second Self. New York: Simon and Schuster. Turkle, S. (1995) Life on the Screen: identity in the age of the internet. New York: Simon and Schuster.