It doesn’t require a linguistic anthropologist to understand and declare that life is
dominated by the process defined in the English language as discourse. Discourse itself
is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “A spoken or written treatment of a
subject”(OED), or, to paraphrase the further definition, as a talk or dialogue. Basically
discourse is an exchange of ideas. Hegel, in examining life, decided that the means by
which human society achieves progress was a concept that he called dialectical idealism:
a thesis clashing with an antithesis, producing a synthesis. The synthesis, being the
prevailing idea or mix of ideas, then becomes the new thesis; thus, society advances and
continues. This concept of a virtual marketplace of ideas is paramount to the concept of
progress in the human sense.
The mediums through which the human species conveys their thoughts or ideas,
the mediums through which our theses and antitheses are relayed, are for the most part
verbal language and its written counterpart. Initially, man used spoken words or noises in
conjunction with movement. His language then became more complex and took on
symbolic forms. Finally, the Phoenician people created an alphabet; language was
fundamentally changed becoming written in a more standard and complex form
developing over the years. Once language had reached what would be considered the
pinnacle of its form, communication became advancement.
The pertinence of communication to human society can be seen through our
development over time as a response to trends. As man’s language began to spread and
develop into areas, tribes became cities; with the domestication of animals such as the
horse and bird to carry messengers and or messages, we saw the rise of the city state. As
more organization was achieved mankind moved on to the nation and the country. As the
telephone was invented the sense of country became stronger. With the development of
the Internet, the term country has far less meaning in today’s world. Globalization had
brought human society to an ultimate conflict of ideology ending with the cold war;
consequently, creating what Francis Fukuyama, a former Rand Institute policy analyst
and upper level director at the State Department, has termed as the end of history. His
thesis stated something to the point that we have witnessed, “an unabashed victory of
economic and political liberalism”(Fukuyama).
What has meaning today is Culture, as argued by Samuel Huntington in his article
“The Clash Of Civilization.” The question is why? The answer, I believe, is that
Fukuyama’s end of history and Huntington’s cultural lines are the result of the
advancement of media and communication. The line of the nation is no longer evident
because with the Internet I can be in the U.S. and anywhere else in the world at the same
time in a sense. With instant messenger I no longer need to pay to make a long distance
call across states or overseas. I simply look at who is on my buddy list and literally
communication is a click, a few keystrokes, and the enter button away.
This ease of use and commonness in global communications, via the internet, is
epitomized in the instant messaging system. The history of instant messaging, as
explained by Boston Globe staff writer D. C. Denison, extends to the first days of the
internet in the form of early technologies such as, “Unix talk and Internet Relay Chat,”
which he further explains, “made it possible for users to track when other people were
online and engage them in real text conversations”(Denison). Internet messaging for
many years was not in the realm of practical for the vast majority of regular internet
users, especially with the slower dial up technology that was initially available. Email
reigned as king, and is still an essential part of internet communication today.
Denison went further to inform that “AOL introduced instant messaging to a
general audience in the mid-1990’s, when the service rolled out the ‘buddy list’ as a way
to track users currently logged on to AOL”(Denison). The “buddy list” was an instant
success, and led to what Denison described stating, “a surprised AOL quickly introduced
an Internet version, available as a free download”(Denison). The service, being free, was
not surprisingly an overwhelming success and AOL shortly bought out its only major
“IM” competitor, ICQ, to solidify its stance in the market. Subsequently, other
companies, just beginning to gain foothold in the market, seized the opportunity to
release their own instant messenger programs, such as the more popular Yahoo and MSN
messengers. AOL still remains in preponderance with 100% of the instant messaging
population using one of the three main AOL supported programs, most often with
individuals using two(PR Newswire).
Instant messaging has several obvious advantages. To start with, it has the largest
advantage of the internet for individuals attempting to remain behind close doors:
anonymity. Anonymity is a great equalizer in any playing field where image is a
preponderant factor, particularly that of intimate interest which is a great attractor of
individuals online. Simple logic would indicate that individuals, in a state where they
feel unlabeled or tracked, online would be more open to addressing certain things and
releasing certain information that they would be too embarrassed or feel shame at
speaking otherwise. As quoted by Meghan Ward, in the Daily Bruin of the University of
California-LA, “Steve Friess of the Advocate, a national gay and lesbian news magazine,
explains that chat rooms are particularly attractive to marginalized communities. For
‘people of color, older people, the disabled, the overweight, people with HIV - the online
world provides slightly more equity in the dating games’ says Friess”(Ward). As a result
of the simple fact that you are nothing more than a screen name and words online
individuals are judged solely by their type, what they have to say.
Moreover, instant messaging is also considered to be a safe haven for the socially
anxious. Socially anxious individuals are typically characterized by excessive worry of
negative evaluation or evaluation in general by people around themselves. Usually the
socially anxious person has an inferiority complex as well, resulting in the constant belief
that those around themselves are superior and will look down upon them. The anonymity
of instant messaging provides a safe zone where such individuals are unknown to the
people they are speaking to; thus, easing the inferiority complex at least slightly.
Additionally, the socially anxious person has the chance to review what they wish to say
before they send it and, by doing so, can eliminate the feel of insufficiency in review to a
degree if not totally. Research conducted by, University of Pennsylvania student, Robert
Daniel Levy indicated that online individuals felt “45% more extroverted, 40% felt no
change, and 15% felt more introverted”(Levy 3).
Secondly, instant messaging allows for a great ease of communication. The
telephone introduced the timelines of electronic speed. The internet wielded it for
information transfer. Instant messaging takes electronic speed to multiple conversations
and with the fact that “Over 50 million Americans are registered under some kind of
instant messaging service,”(Levy 1) it is no wonder that its popularity at least doubles
yearly. With instant messenger the limit of conversations one can hold simultaneously,
without the incoherency of speaking with more than two individuals on a phone line, is
the individual’s typing speed and capability to multi task. Alison Hoff in her paper “The
Effects of Instant Messaging on College” addresses the simplification this technology
creates exclaiming, “It is much easier to quickly instant message five people and ask, ‘Do
you want to go eat dinner?’ than to look up their phone numbers, and call each one, one
at a time”(Hoff 2). Furthermore, through the internet or over a network, one may link to
another user and transfer data. Instant messaging naturally overtook email as a standard
between friends with time for conversation, because it is a real-time process with more
interactive capability.
Finally, in terms of the business world instant messaging has great advantages.
To begin, simply the ease of information transfer is amazing. Certain services such as
AOL instant messenger or AIM, offer a stock ticker and a news ticker as well. Tischelle
George and Sandra Swanson, in their joint article, inform us “For stock and bond traders,
the right information can be worth millions at the right time- and worthless minutes
later”(George, Swanson). They then go on to inform us of a stock trading company
known as UBS Warburg, who has set up a system where their representatives and
customers are instant messaged stock information the minute it is available and pertinent.
It is no far fetched idea to see that this company’s service would promote grandiose
success. Also as opposed to a conference phone call, having an executive “chat session”
could cut down on interfering noise and allow for a written document that could be saved
and archived for future purposes.
As great as instant messaging is the system has its downsides as well. Examining
the Sam Ash music corporation, they have used software to block all instant messaging
software announcing, “The chief operating officer doesn’t want workers sitting by
computers the whole time using instant messaging. He’d rather have them dealing with
customers in the store”(George, Swanson). Instant messenger is a powerful social force
and has lead in many cases to productivity being damaged by social use. The anonymity
is a problem as well. Peter Harker, chief of development at Communicator Inc., is quoted
by D.C. Denison of the Boston Globe stating, “Instant messaging makes a lot of sense in
a business setting, but you want the conversations to be secure: You want to know whom
you are talking to. You don’t want to be trading sensitive information with someone with
a screenname of ‘Scooby8’”(Denison). Businesses would have to go through pains to
either set up or purchase their own customized program to avoid the anonymity of AOL,
Yahoo, or MSN.
It is also true that instant messaging provides for great, great access to other
individuals, making it particularly useful at the college level. However, the use of instant
messenger can be very addictive and become routine. Zach Medford, a student at North
Carolina State University, writes, “[…] I think my roommate and I spend a combined 12
hours a day talking online”(Medford). Medford goes further to explain, “One of my
suitemates has removed Instant Messenger from his computer because he realized the
amount his grades have fallen because of it”(Medford). Many times students argue that
they can type a paper and talk to people online at the same time. I myself once debated
the case before my parents in High School. The result: a paper begun at 8 pm is finished
around 3 am. This paper is not finished so late because it was a complex assignment; it
was finished at three because I was distracted and inefficient.
Instant messaging may provide great benefit for the socially anxious, yet could it
not also cause and or prolong the effect of social anxiousness? Psychologically speaking,
social anxiousness is a fear based disorder. It is common knowledge in psychology that
to conquer a fear based disorder the fear must be faced. That is just not achieved behind
the curtain of a screen name and the internet. The question then becomes what of young
children, that are still developing socially? When they lack the interaction provided by
more personal forms of communication, how can they hope to develop proper social
skill? The fact is that they can’t. In a world of AOL Instant Messenger you are not a
person. The individual is reduced to four to sixteen letters appearing on the screen in
blue.
Instant messaging has also been addressed as a new and powerful tool for those
looking for a relationship. This process has a tendency of going awry as well. Initially,
there is the obvious risk of the disturbed individual. Considering that a great number of
children use the internet, there have been many cases of abduction and danger being put
in children and teenagers’ ways from individuals considered to be mentally unstable,
luring them from their homes. Instant messaging and chat rooms are a cesspool for such
disturbing activity. The trend of internet dating among adults brings with it, its own host
of issues mostly stemming from misperception. Robert Gregonis, of Albion in Northern
California, had met an individual named Christie and had fostered a relationship online.
Having seen a picture of her that she sent he found her quite attractive and continued
building this relationship. His visit to her hometown to see her was a different story.
Meghan Ward of the Daily Bruin quotes him as commenting, “When I got off the plane,
the picture and the person didn’t match. I freaked out. For some strange reason, the
photos that I got were not very good detail. They were either kind of fuzzy or at a
distance”(Ward). Gregonis developed an excuse for why he had to return home early and
left, as one of many examples of misperception.
Instant messaging possesses great advantages. It brings to the table a very
positive ease of use, a lack of social pressure, and a genuine communicative speed. Yet,
it also brings a powerful propensity for abuse and addiction to the system, its anonymity
brings a whole new set of problems, and the lack of security and privacy is less than
desirable. Regardless of the disadvantages, as a tool for communication, instant
messaging more than excels. It is doubtful that Instant Messaging will be replaced soon.
With such numbers as those cited by Brian Mcneill of The Collegiate Times informing us
that “There are 600 million instant messages sent every day, which is up from 400
million last year,”(Mcneill) and a report from the Jupiter Media Metrix contending “Total
time spent using Instant Messengers jumped 110% at work and 48% at home in
2000,”(PR Newswire) juxtaposed with predictions of a 134% increase in use each year
over the next five years, the presence of instant messaging is undoubtedly powerful.
Overall the Instant Messenger is a good tool, yet just as any tool posses certain risks and
potential for negative use.
Works Cited
Denison, D.C. “Instant Messaging’s Promise Takes Tech World By Surprise.”
The Boston Globe. Technology/Innovation pg. C1, 25 March 2002.
“Discourse n.1” Oxford English Dictionary. http://dictionary.oed.com/entrance.dtl
13 March 2003. Howard U. 11 March 03 www.howard.edu
Fukuyama, Francis. “The End Of History.” The National Interest (Summer 1989).
George, Tischelle, and Swanson, Sandra. “Not Just Kid Stuff--- Businesses are finding
There’s more to instant messaging than exchanging social chit-chat.”
Information Week. Instant Messaging pg. 37, 3 Sept. 2001.
Hoff, Alison. “The Effects of Instant Messaging on College Students.”
Calvin College. Home Page. 9 Dec. 2002.
http://www.calvin.edu/~abh2/ritpaper.htm 11 March 2003.
Levy, Robert D. “When the Feet Twirl the Dancers: How Instant Messaging Affects
People and Their Relationships.” Home Page.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~rdlevy/acad_projects_IMpaper.html 11 March 2003.
Mcneill, Brian. “On-line Messages connect distanced students.” The Collegiate Times.
3 Feb. 2000.
Medford, Zach. “Instant Messaging.” Technician. 11 April 2002.
“Total Time Spent Using Instant Messengers Jumps 110% at Work and 48% at Home
Versus Last Year, Reports Jupiter Media Metrix; AOL remains the leading brand
at home and work, but MSN and Yahoo! Are aggressively growing their reach
and total usage minutes; the percentage of messenger users that use two or more
competing brands at home increased from 24 percent in September 2000 to 29
percent in September 2001.” PR Newswire 14 November 2001.
Ward, Meghan. “Some relationship seekers try cyberdating, a whole new level of online
Browsing.” The Daily Bruin. 11 Feb. 1998