Myra Day
December 2, 2002
Communication Freedom vs. Technical Control: The Ideology of Email
Technology
Since the first email message was sent on a network in 1972, human communication has been
experiencing phenomenal changes as large numbers of people join the ranks of email users each
year. In 1972 only a few researchers and academics used email. By 2001, 87 million Americans
were using email, and it is estimated that by 2006, 140 million Americans will be using email
(Festa). This burgeoning spread of a new communication technology has inevitably influenced
the way we communicate.
Some of the more evident changes, which result from the technical design (the coding and
equipment) that makes email technologically possible, include the ability to send instantaneous
text messages, send/receive more messages on a daily basis, send messages to numerous people
simultaneously, and send/receive messages at any time from various locations. These technical
possibilities insinuate that email is a freer way to communicate. The apparent freedom of email
is evident in recent studies which discuss how people can correspond with others around the
world at any time (Koku), and how email provides the opportunity for people to work more from
various places and not be tied to an office (Kanfer; Sproull & Kiesler).
Along with the sense of freedom has come a more informal style of communication, one aspect
of which is reflected in the way users format email messages (Angell & Heslop; Inkster). The
unprecedented informality allowed by email has led both users and scholars to conceptualize
email as free of traditional conventions that hampered communication via business letters. For
1
example, email users pay less attention to conventions of traditional, formal business
communication, such as salutations, structure, spelling, and grammar (Benjamin). The
informality of email and the breakdown of traditional conventions seem to denote that email
communication is less rule-bound and more “natural” (closer to spoken language) than
traditional communication and is thus evidence of the communication freedom provided by
email.
However, fewer studies have been conducted about the conventions of email and their social
implications. And apparently no studies have been conducted that discuss the possible existence
of a technological ideology underlying email that has supplanted and replaced traditional values
of business communication. This article will use the theory about communication and work in
Jurgen Habermas’ article “Technology and Science as ‘Ideology’” to analyze the creation and
development of email, the characteristics, and conventions found in email in order to reveal the
underlying ideology of email technology and determine if email’s focus is to increase freedom of
interaction (communication) or if email has a more capitalistic ideology and is focused on
increasing productivity and efficiency.
Before applying Habermas’ theory, this article will review some of the changes in individual and
corporate communication that have occurred because of email, along with the theories of
researchers and scholars about the existence of underlying ideologies of technology in general
and the impacts of such ideologies. Then the article will present a summary of Habermas’ theory
of communication and work, followed by an analysis of email technology using Habermas’
theory and the implications of the analysis.
2
Email Changes and Technological Ideology
For eons humans have created tools/technologies that serve as extensions of their own functions
enabling them to do more and making it easier to complete their work (Weizenbaum). Email
technology is no different; it is a technology that extends the human communication function,
which includes verbal communication (speech) and nonverbal communication (gestures, facial
expressions [to compensate for this, a whole vocabulary of emoticons has been developed
(Hafner & Lyon; Lamb & Peek; Schultz)]), that humans already possess. However, tools do not
serve merely as extensions. They also cause humans to engage in new “habits of behavior,”
including ‘new ways of talking and thinking’ and to create new institutions and technology to
accommodate and/or incorporate the new tool (Miller). And again, email is no different, for it
has created new patterns of human behavior.
Some impacts of email on communication behavioral patterns are due to the emphasis that
corporations are placing on email. Based on the amount of time employees spend on email, (the
amount of time spent on corporate writing reflects the importance attached to writing within
organizations, [S. M. Katz]) it is a significant writing focus in many corporations. Some
behavioral impacts of this focus on email are due to the time involved in dealing with email and
the attitude of “communication dependence” that people develop regarding email. One
behavioral change is an increase in the amount of time workers’ spend on communication
because of the volume of email messages that people are expected to handle and because of the
constant interruptions of new email messages. Studies have shown the typical worker spends at
least two hours daily dealing with email messages and is interrupted three times every hour by
email (Hallewell; Ferris Research). The time needed to deal with email will only increase as the
3
amount of email received by corporate users increases yearly by 35 to 50 percent (Ferris
Research).
Another change that affects people’s behavioral patterns is their attitude about email. Some
people expect immediate responses to their messages (this is not always a reciprocal expectation)
and feel that because of the instantaneous nature of email it is something they have to constantly
be aware of, just in case messages are waiting for them. As a result, people develop what
Schultz calls “communication enslavement” because they feel they need to send and receive
messages instantly (Schultz). This leads to people constantly checking their email. About 57
percent of users check their email hourly, and some even go so far as to have an email alert
system notify them by sound or by an icon on the screen whenever they receive a new message,
which of course adds to the interruption problem (Hallewell; Nchor).
Email has not only changed the communication behaviors of individuals, but it also has changed
the communication behavior of corporations. One example is that email has affected how
members of groups communicate in that it provides a space for more people to contribute to
discussions. Because of email it is technically possible for more people to participate in
discussions without the intervening factors of time and geographic boundaries (Kanfer).
However, studies have shown that email also increases the likelihood that people who normally
would not participate in face-to-face discussions will participate in discussions via email (Finholt
& Sproull; McCormick & McCormick; Sproull & Kiesler). One possible reason that more
people feel comfortable participating in email discussions is that they feel email enables them to
participate more on an equal level that is free of social domination (Boshier; Selwyn & Robson).
4
Email seems to create an equal level of participation because it is not so easy to determine
factors such as rank, gender, power relations, etc, that are often evident in face-to-face
communication (Dubrovsky, Kiesler, & Sethna; Huff & King).
Email also seems to create a more equal level of communication in the way it has changed
communication patterns within organizations. Email has created an environment where people
no longer feel compelled to follow the “chain of command” as they send and receive messages
and thus they tend to ignore social and power hierarchies when they send email messages. These
messages tend to be more informal and involve more and faster communication between people
of different positions within the organization (O’Connell). The changes in communication
pattern seem to indicate that email has reduced the significance of social hierarchies within
organizations, and has therefore changed communication patterns in organizations to create more
and better communication between superiors and subordinates (Pratt; Schultz; Sproull &
Kiesler).
Although many of the changes produced by email seem to signify better communication, it is
important to consider past theories of researchers and scholars who have discussed the existence
of underlying ideologies of technology in general and the impacts of such ideologies, in order to
determine whether such ideologies are inherent in email technology. If ideologies exist in email
technology, it is necessary to decide whether the communication improvements offered by email
are overshadowed by the underlying ideologies or enhanced by them before concluding that
email is overall a communication technology that is improving the lives of people by providing
freedom in communication.
5
Several social critics and researchers (including many of those writing in the late 1950’s and
1960’s when computer technology development was just being to grow rapidly) who study the
impacts of technology argue that all the changes that technology has caused can be understood
by analyzing the social relationships and environments relating to behaviors (Contractor &
Eisenberg; Skinner). Social critics argue against the notion that began in the 18th century that
progress relating to improving the human condition is interrelated to discoveries of science and
technology. They claim that often, due to its political nature, the implementation of new
technology often leads to the domination of humans by the very technology that is intended to
help them (Johnson-Eilola; Skolimowski; Winner “Do Artifacts”).
Scholars have differing views about technology and its potential to benefit people. Some believe
that if technology is used correctly it can possibly benefit humans and free humans from labor
and lead to happiness (Marcuse; Winner “Autonomous”). These theorists argue that dangers
exist, but technologies and their political aspects must be understood and controlled by people in
order to shape the changes wrought by technologies rather than people being shaped by the
technologies (MacCormac; Turbayne; Skolimowski). The political aspects of technology are
often hidden from the people, who are too busy focusing on inconsequential goals and/or trying
to keep up with the changing technology and thus are prevented from recognizing and examining
the ways technology begins to control their lives (S.B. Katz; Johnson-Eilola; Skolimowski;
Wessels).
Some philosophers have focused on the dangers associated with specific technologies such as
communication technology. Theorists also emphasize the importance of studying and
6
understanding person-person communication that is computer-mediated, which would include
email communication (Moles; Weiner; Weizenbaum; Wessel). It is in this area that Habermas’
theory, with its emphasis on communication and work, is useful to analyze the ideology behind
email technology and what its implications are concerning the changes email has caused in
person-person communication.
Habermas’ Theory
Habermas believes the two most important human activities are interaction (communication) and
work. In his article “Technology and Science as ‘Ideology,” he discusses how society’s
acceptance of scientific and technological advances, which supposedly improve human
existence, eventually forces people to focus more on work rather than on a balance between
interaction and work. He argues that capitalistic ideology with an emphasis on increasing
productivity is embedded in essentially all technology and that it is the hidden ideology which
forces the society to focus on work and triggers changes in existing societal systems.
In the article, Habermas presents a model of how technologies affect the framework of societies
that accept the idea of scientific-technological progress. He describes two possibilities structured
around the difference between communication and work. One possibility is that technologies are
absorbed into a traditional institutional framework, which is a social system characterized by
interaction. The second possibility is that the subsystem technologies subsume the traditional
institutional framework and itself becomes a system of purposive-rationality, which is a social
system characterized by action for the purpose of achieving a goal (means-end relation). A
purposive-rational subsystem can exist within an institutional framework or the traditional
7
institutional framework can exist within the purposive-rational action. Habermas distinguishes
between the two systems in seven categories, which can be explained by the questions in Figure
1 that interpret the categories Habermas applies to both systems as depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 1: Interpretation of Habermas’ Categories
Habermas’ Categories
action-orienting rules
level of definition
type of definition
mechanisms of acquisition
function of action type
sanctions against violation of rules
“rationalization”
Questions
What governs actions?
What type of language is used?
What types of behavioral expectations exist?
How are behaviors acquired?
What is the purpose of actions?
What happens when rules are violated?
What is the reason for working within the system?
Figure 2: Habermas’ chart
Institutional framework:
Symbolic interaction
Systems of purposive-rational
(instrumental and strategic) action
action-orienting
rules
social norms
technical rules
level of
definition
type of
definition
mechanisms
of acquisition
intersubjectively shared
ordinary language
reciprocal expectations
about behavior
role internalization
context-free language
function of
action type
maintenance of institutions
(conformity to norms on
the basis of reciprocal
enforcement)
problem-solving (goal attainment,
defined in means-end relations)
sanctions against
violation of rules
punishment on the basis of
conventional sanctions:
failure against authority
inefficacy: failure in reality
“rationalization”
emancipation,
individuation; extension of
communication free of
domination
growth of productive forces: extension
of power of technical control
conditional predictions conditional
imperatives
learning of skills and qualifications
8
Institutional framework
Habermas defines an institutional framework as a “traditional society” in which interaction is
governed by social norms. A “traditional society” is one that has the following characteristics of
civilization: organizational ruling structures where local systems of power are established, but
are still part of a central system of power as opposed to a tribal society, socioeconomic divisions
that determine obligations and rewards rather than kinship, and systems of ideals (religion, laws)
that authorize political power. Subsystems of technology and production also exist in such
societies; therefore members of the society produce products necessary to satisfy the needs of the
society through their work with the technology but their behavior is still governed by social
norms.
Thus, the labor of the society, including its use of technology, is part of the symbolic interaction
within the institutional framework and is guided by socially agreed upon norms. The social
norms are established using a shared language, which has arisen from the shared social contexts
of the members. Based on the social norms, people have common expectations about how they
should behave and how others should behave in given situations. These common behaviors are
learned through acceptance of the social norms and through “role internalization” or imitating
others, such as one would do in an apprenticeship. If members of the society deliberately do not
observe the socially agreed upon norms, they are subjected to penalties that also have been
socially determined. The reason for establishing social norms is to create a society with a focus
on the individual and on providing a structure for communication that is free of domination, and
thus people participate in the society in order to ensure the continuation of the social institution.
The society continues to function as a traditional society as long as the characteristics of an
9
institutional framework prevail even if purposive-rational subsystems spring up within the
institutional framework (Habermas, 95).
Purposive-rational Systems
While in traditional societies the systems are governed by social norms, in technological
societies the systems are governed by technical rules, and thus, purposive-rational systems
emerge. The technical rules are determined by the technology itself and are based on “empirical
true or analytically correct” information, and are therefore not defined by social context, but
rather by scientific and technological contexts. In order to function in the purposive-rational
system, people must follow the technical rules by learning a set of skills and qualifications. As a
result, people’s behavior is regulated by “conditional predications” in which the desired outcome
determines their actions and also by “conditional imperatives” in which an existing condition
determines what the action should be. Both conditions are created by the technology itself – or
the socio-economical and political systems required to maintain it (Ellul; Skolimowski; Pacey).
The resulting types of conditional behavior demonstrate the means-end nature of the technology
which is established by the technical rules. If the rules are violated, either intentionally or
because a person does not have the requisite skills, the consequences, like the rules, are also
determined by the technology. Therefore, if the rules are violated, the technology does not work
properly and the consequence is that the person does not successfully achieve the desired “end.”
Since the only outcome of following the technical rules is a successful use of one’s skills to
achieve a goal, the underlying focus of purposive-rational systems is to increase productivity,
which results in an extension of technical control. The increase in technical control and
10
productivity does not threaten the institutional framework unless it challenges the underlying
ideas and social norms of the institutional framework. Since purposive-rational subsystems do
not generally challenge the traditional system, they instead function within the institutional
framework as a subsystem that incorporates capitalistic ideology within traditional societies to
expand technical control and increase productivity. However, when technical subsystems take
over the institutional framework, there is a transformation and the society is governed by
technical rules focused on increasing productivity.
Analysis of Email Technology
This analysis will attempt to reveal the ideology of email by examining email’s creation and
development, characteristics, and emerging conventions in light of Habermas’ theory defining
purposive-rational systems to determine whether email’s focus is to increase freedom of
communication or to increase productivity and efficiency. The first section in the analysis will
examine the creation and development in light of the rationality aspect of Habermas’ theory.
Creation & development
The ideas behind technologies can often be determined by looking at the reasons the
technologies were initially created, and/or the circumstances surrounding their creation. Email
was not an idea conceived by a group of inventors or business investors determined to develop a
technology to allow mass communication in order to increase their productivity. However, email
developed as a result of the ARPANET technology which was focused on efficiency and
productivity.
11
ARPANET was a network technology developed by computer engineers at the request and
expense of the United States Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), which was created
by the U.S. Department of Defense. The Defense Department wanted a way to connect
individual researchers from different laboratories/universities across the country in order to
economize and increase efficiency. The individual researchers were unaware of what others
were doing and were wasting time, money, and other resources duplicating efforts. The purpose
of ARPANET was to allow researchers to share technical resources (computer coding/software
and technical data) in order to economize and increase efficiency of the research they were
conducting and speed up the production of technologies they were creating.
The purpose of ARPANET did not include plans for researchers to communicate with each other
using text messages. People who used ARPANET could exchange messages with each other
using “intra-computer mail,” a technology that had existed since the 1960s which allowed people
using the same computer terminal to leave messages for each other. “Intra-computer mail” was
the only type of electronic mail available until 1971 when Ray Tomlinson developed “network
mail.” Tomlinson was working on a program to send technical information between computers
when he decided to alter the program’s code in an attempt to send a text message. His
modification worked and he sent the first email message on a network. He sent the first message
(the content was probably “qwertyuiop”) from himself to himself from one computer to another
computer, both of which were sitting side-by-side in the same room (Hardy; Hafner&Lyon).
Thus the first trial of network email was not an effort to communicate with another human, but to
see if the technical rules would allow the possibility. After Tomlinson’s success, email spread
through the users of ARPANET and they began to use text messages to communicate about the
12
research they were conducting (Hardy; Hafner&Lyon; Campbell et al). This history of the origin
of email shows that although there was no original “email idea” that focused on productivity,
email grew out of a situation and previous technology, the motivation of which was to increase
productivity and efficiency.
Since its inception within the context of ARPANET, the development of email has continued to
focus on increasing productivity and efficiency. This is evident in the way the two leading
messaging vendors, Microsoft, who has 83 million users, and IBM, who has 74 million users,
design their email technologies (Fontana). Microsoft and IBM both design their email products
to enable their users to increase productivity and efficiency, which can be determined from their
explanations of their goals and the descriptions of their email products.
Microsoft Outlook is Microsoft’s email software, and its focus is evident in the product guide for
Microsoft Outlook 2002, which states that “Outlook version 2002 can help users manage their
time and information more effectively” (MPG). The guide says that the goals for the new
version were:

“to make working with email, tasks, contacts, and appointments more intuitive without
requiring users to learn new ways of accomplishing their tasks or spend time searching
for these tools” (MPG, 1)

“to enable users to spend time working rather than worrying about their software”
(MPG, 9)

“to make sure setup and configuration was made simpler so that users could stay focused
on being productive instead of worrying about their software” (MPG, 11).
13
The purpose of the email technology is also evident in the list of descriptions, included in the
product guide, for thirty-four new or improved features. Twenty-one of the descriptions
explicitly describe how the features allow workers to complete tasks more productively and
efficiently by using words such as “easily,” “efficiently,” and “quickly” in phrases such as,
“Users can more easily find important messages…” (MPG, 4), and “you can look up contact
entries more efficiently” (MPG, 7) to describe how the feature allows the user to complete the
necessary task. The remaining thirteen descriptions are still focused on how the features increase
productivity, but they are more subtle. For example, some descriptions assert that the feature
would allow the user to complete tasks more quickly and easily:

“AutoComplete Addressing” feature – “This enables users to quickly send e-mail to
others without spending time searching for e-mail addresses” (MPG, 2)

“Find” feature - “Users can more easily find important messages, appointments, or
tasks” (MPG, 4).
The fact that it is now technologically possible for users to complete tasks faster and easier
seems to signify that users can now be more productive. In fact, two of the descriptions directly
emphasize that the feature keeps the users working/producing:

“Cancel Request to Server” feature - “This allows Outlook version 2002 to be more
resilient to network or server disruptions and enables users to stay working” (MPG, 8)

“Document Recovery” feature – “As a result, users spend less time recreating their email
messages and spend more time working” (MPG, 9).
These descriptions of Microsoft Outlook’s features along with the goals of the software very
obviously depict a technology with a focus on increasing productivity and efficiency.
14
IBM’s email software, Lotus Notes, shows the same focus on increasing productivity and
efficiency. In an article describing the impact of Lotus Notes and Domino 6 (Domino is the
email software for the server), IBM states that they developed the latest version of Lotus Notes
based on research about customer needs. The research revealed that customers wanted browserbased email, which would allow them to check email from any location that had a web browser
without requiring special software. The ideology of Lotus Notes is implicit in the way IBM
describes the product. The descriptions emphasize productivity overall with phrases like

“With the arrival of Lotus Notes and Domino 6, we’re able to raise the level of
collaboration and productivity to new heights,” and (IBM)

“we are seeing major performance improvements and reductions in costs from 25 to 40
percent” (IBM).
The descriptions also expose a viewpoint in which the workers are viewed as merely resources
by the use of phrases such as,

“we’re offering our customers the ability to significantly drive cost out of their
organizations, to increase productivity, and to maximize their returns on investment in
their people,” and (IBM)

“now they can get significant improvements in performance on the server side – plus a
set of client capabilities that really unlock the productivity of their organization” (IBM).
These viewpoints along with the descriptions of Lotus Notes’ goals and product descriptions
reveal that the ideology behind IBM’s email technology is shaped by the desire to increase
productivity of businesses and employees.
15
By designing their email software to help companies increase productivity and to help workers
become more efficient, IBM and Microsoft are developing email products that continue to be
based on the “productivity ideology” that has been inherent in email since it was created as an
extension of ARPANET whose purpose centered around efficiency. Therefore, according to
Habermas’ theory, since they have been based on increasing productivity, the origin and the
ongoing development of email technology demonstrates that the “rationality” of email is
productivity-oriented.
Characteristics
Due to emphasis on productivity that is embedded in the goals and development of email
technology, many individual characteristics of email allow for and indeed almost demand
increased productivity. Such email characteristics not only have impacted the way people
communicate, but they have also impacted expectations of how people should communicate with
others. These new expectations are determined by technical conditions established by the email
technology, rather than by reciprocal expectations about behavior that are based on traditional
social norms. For example, the instantaneous nature and the continual accessibility of email are
characteristics resulting from the technology of email itself that have led to many changes in
communication and behavioral expectations.
The ability of email technology to deliver messages almost instantly has changed the way people
communicate in many obvious ways. People can now send messages anywhere in the world that
has Internet access within minutes and often within seconds. It is the design of email software
and hardware that creates the ability to communicate at instantaneous speeds and thus that
16
technological ability results in technical rules that lead to expectations of email communication.
(An argument can be made that these rules in turn are inherent in technology [S.B. Katz,
Skolimowski; Winner “Do Artifacts”].)
As a result, the speed of email has led to behavioral expectations that are not defined by
reciprocal expectations, which are established by social norms of an institutional framework.
Instead, the technical ability of speed itself, which is made possible by the technical rules that are
inherent in email software and hardware, has established the behavioral expectations. Some of
the behavioral expectations regarding the speed of email are based on what Habermas terms
“conditional predictions,” which is when people found behavioral expectations on the logic of
‘if I/they take action X, then condition Y will be the result.’ For example, since email is
generally delivered almost instantaneously, many people hold the expectation of ‘if I send an
email about situation A to person B, then person B will know about situation A instantaneously’
(an expectation which is obvious in the almost inevitable response when person B states that he
or she does not know about situation A and the sender says, ‘but I sent you an email about it’)
(Dobrian; Graham).
Another behavioral expectation resulting from the speed of email is that people can handle more
pieces of communication on a daily basis. This behavioral expectation is based what Habermas
calls the “conditional imperative,” which is the logic of ‘if condition X exists, then I/they will do
action Y.’ For example, due to the characteristic of email being able to deliver numerous
messages quickly to a person, many people expect that ‘since people receive messages faster and
receive more messages, then they should be able to respond to more messages faster because it is
17
technically possible’. Therefore, since both condition X and action Y are made possible by the
technology, the expectation is built into the technology.
Other behavioral expectations which result from the technical characteristics of email and that
can be framed as conditional predictions or conditional imperatives are that since email is
“always” accessible, people feel like they have to continuously check email, often setting up
email notification systems that alert them when they have new messages (Hallewell; Schultz).
The characteristic of accessibility also sets up the behavioral expectations that people are always
within reach even if they are not physically at work and people are often expected to respond to
email from home in the evenings, on weekends, and even on vacations. These behavioral
expectations are encountered frequently because they have developed and spread along with the
rapid development and expansion of email use.
Conventions
Email as a new way to communicate has developed quickly and thus guidelines and conventions
are just emerging that are comparable to those governing business letters (Benjamin; Lamp &
Peek; Terminello & Reed). Writing letters was a skill that took centuries to spread to large
numbers of the population because of illiteracy, and its progress was extremely different from
the recent explosion, over only a few decades, of millions of people communicating via email.
Due to this rapid expansion of email, people have not had time to develop rigid, social
conventions for using email; however, the technological characteristics of email itself seem to be
creating a set of emerging conventions. These new conventions seem to be reflecting a meansend ideology that is based on technical rules.
18
An example of how these conventions are governed by the technology can be seen in formatting
conventions, such as the way technical rules determine the format of the memo header. The
memo header section of an email message generally includes the following fields that can be
seen by the sender: “From,” “To,” “Subject,” “Cc,” and “Bcc.” This format has been built into
the email technology by the developers, and to a certain extent, technical rules establish what
must occur regarding the header because there is no possibility of deviation from the memo
header format whether the sender leaves it blank or not. The email software must be able to
automatically enter the sender’s email address in the “From” field, and the sender must enter an
exact address in the “To” line or the message will not reach the receiver.
If these fields are used correctly, the message will usually reach the receiver whether or not the
sender uses the remaining three fields: “Subject,” “Cc,” and “Bcc.” If the “Cc” and/or “Bcc”
functions are used, the technical rules require the sender to enter address(es) in those fields.
The sender may or may choose not to enter text in the “Subject” field; however, if no subject is
entered, the email software not the sender determines whether the field remains blank or enters a
subject such as “?” or “none” to show the receiver that the sender did not enter a subject heading.
If the “Subject” field is left blank, most email software will query the sender to enter an
appropriate subject line, and thus, in a sense, the software is asking whether the sender really
wants to circumvent the convention. The technical rules allow the sender to ignore the subject
line convention of traditional memos; however, the sender’s message is impacted by the
technical rule whether or not it is followed in two ways: 1) violating the technical rule, could
result in an ‘inefficiency failure’ because the receiver would have to open the message to
19
determine the subject; and 2) violation of the technical rule does not change the “memo format”
of the email because the space for the subject line is still there.
Since the email header mimics the traditional memo, all email messages are in the “form” of a
meme. However, even though the email header, with the exception of the “Bcc” function, is
based on the traditional memo heading format, the email header is not based on traditional social
norms and expectations (Hafner; Hardy). The fields of the email header that the receiver can see
resemble a memo because historically when the members of ARPANET first began to use email,
60-70 percent of the messages were sent internally to people in the same general area (Hardy,
31). Traditional norms and expectations, as is evident in business communication writing
handbooks, would require the memo format to be used for internal messages in business
communication and the business letter to be used for external messages (Baugh; Inkster). Now
that email is used both internally and externally, the format of the email header is thus based on
the development of a technology of email, and its use is based on technical rules that have
blurred the distinction between internal and external messages. The result is that the email user
is forced by the technology to use part of a memo format instead of being able to choose the
format of the message based on social expectations surrounding the context and destination of
the message. The email technology itself, not the social context, chooses how the message will
look because the technology determines that it will look like an internal memo, which has
traditionally been a more informal style of business communication than the business letter. The
traditional intent of an internal memo is to communicate something quickly to accomplish a task
(Baugh; Benjamin). Therefore, since email users employ an informal, internal style to
communicate both internally and externally, email exhibits a means-end/problem-solving
20
characteristic, which is indicative of a purposive-rational system, rather than the traditional
characteristic of maintaining institutional norms (in this case – memos for informal, internal
communication and business letters for formal, external communication). As a result, email has
apparently flattened the traditional internal and external boundaries of business communication
through the memo header formatting convention.
Another formatting convention that has resulted from technical rules is the guideline regarding
how text should be formatted. While users can often determine text formatting on their machine,
they are ultimately not in control of how it will look on the receiver’s machine. The format of
the text that the receiver sees often depends on email software compatibility. This compatibility
both instantiates and creates the set of expectations that constitute technical rules and to some
extent govern behavior. For example, some email software will automatically format the spacing
of the text by allowing for text wrap and will allow the user to format text in ways similar to that
of word processing software, such as using bold, italics, underling, bulleted list, different font
sizes, colors, and types. However, the email software used by the receiver may not be able to
decipher the formatted text and the text may appear as plain, unformatted text or may include
gibberish characters in place of the formatted text. Therefore, email manuals tend to stress that
formatting is not important since the sender cannot control how the receiver will view the text,
but rather they advise the user to focus on making the content of the message clear by using a
direct, concise style (Benjamin; Bly). Consequently, the text formatting conventions are similar
to the email header conventions in that to a certain extent their format is dictated by the technical
rules or the technology of email.
21
If the non-optional rules regarding the format of the header are not followed exactly, the email
will not reach the receiver. If other rules are not followed, the message may still reach the
receiver, but the message may not be as efficient as it would be if the sender had followed the
essential technical rules. According to Habermas, if the technical rules in a purposive-rational
system are violated, rather than the consequence of traditional, socially agreed upon
punishments, the consequences are inefficiency and/or “failure in reality.” Both inefficiency and
failure can be consequences of not following the technical rules relating to formatting. Violation
of the technical rules could cause serious problems and result in actual failure in that the message
never reaches the inbox of the receiver. Examples of failure would include:

A sender does not follow the email header rules and the message either is not sent or
reaches the wrong inbox.

A sender uses a nonstandard font or other formatting that the receiver’s email
software cannot read and the receiver sees only “nonsense characters” in the message.
A less serious violation of the rules could result in the failure of inefficiency. Examples of
“inefficiency consequences” would include:

A sender does not use a specific subject line, and as a result the receiver does not read
a message or ends up being unclear about the content and/or purpose of a message
even after reading it.

A receiver’s email software does not have text wrap and the receiver is forced to use
the horizontal scroll bar to read long lines of text instead of being able to see the
message in one glance.
The consequences of inefficiency and failure in reality if the technical rules regarding email
formatting are broken, and the fact that these actions relating to email are governed by technical
22
rules, demonstrates how the conventions of email, especially those conventions that sanction a
general lack of formality in order for the sender to quickly and concisely state the purpose of the
email, portray a social system of communication that appears to be similar to Habermas’
definition of a purposive-rational system.
Salutations
Another convention that suggests email technology may be a purposive-rational system is the
convention regarding salutations in email messages. These conventions can be determined by
analyzing how people are addressing others in their email messages and what communication
experts who write articles and books about emails guidelines are recommending about email
salutations. Email guidelines state that the writer might want to include a traditional salutation in
an email the first time they send a message to someone and then afterwards it becomes
unnecessary and the sender may use the receiver’s first name or omit the salutation entirely
(Angell; Locker & Kaczmarek).
According to Laurie A. Pratt, the salutation recommendations of the communication experts are
reflected in the writing practices of email users, as only 3.9 percent of messages include the
standard greeting format “Dear Mr./Ms. X:” that is common in traditional business letters.
Instead, people tend to use a more informal salutation style, which is evident in research that
shows 46.8 percent of messages use a more informal salutation by only including the first name
of the receiver and 48.3 percent of messages do not include a standard salutation or the receiver’s
first or last name (Pratt).
23
These new email salutation conventions depict a departure from the traditional rules governing
the salutations of business letters. The traditional conventions about business letter salutations
were based on social norms that mirrored a firmly entrenched social hierarchy, which is
characteristic of Habermas’ institutional framework.
Malcolm Richardson and Sarah Liggett conducted a study analyzing social hierarchies by
comparing medieval letters with modern letters. They looked at how the style of the letters
differed if the writer was addressing a superior or a subordinate and showed that the format of
the letter reflected unequal relations between the readers and the writers. The hierarchical
differences between people were especially evident in the formal wording of the salutations,
which were governed by formulas dictating how a writer should address the reader based on the
reader’s societal position. These traditional formulas were used in correspondence at different
levels of the hierarchy, from the King who addressed his chancellor in a business letter as
“Worshipful father in God, right trusty and well-beloved,” to a son writing a personal letter to his
mother in which he addressed her as “Right worshipful mother” (Richardson & Liggett, 119).
Distinctions in salutations were also discussed in the article by Anonymous of Bologna, who
presented a hierarchical list of salutation formulas of how people of different ranks should be
addressed and also how they should address others. His list included formulas starting with the
Pope and the Emperor and moving down the societal ranks to salutations among nobles, and
clergy, and then to teachers, parents, and children (Anonymous, 11-15). Part of his formula for
salutations was that the writer should always include the social positions of the reader and writer.
For example, if a lord were writing to a servant, the salutation should read, “N___, son of Guido,
24
N___, loyal servant” or “devoted follower,” and if a noble were writing to another noble, the
salutation should read “To the vigorous soldier and noble friend, Earl N____, P____, the Duke of
Venice sends greetings” (Anonymous, 13-14.)
Although the elaborateness of the medieval salutation conventions as set forth by Anonymous of
Bologna were not evident in the modern letters studied by Richardson & Liggett, emphasis on
position has carried over into the modern conventions of business letter salutations regarding
some socially prestigious positions such as President, Dr., Dean, Senator, where the salutation
would be formatted “Dear Position Name:” (Dear Senator Smith). However, the majority of
positions would not be stated in the salutation; instead, the person’s courtesy title (Mr./Ms./Mrs.)
and name would be the salutation. However, if the person’s name is not known it is acceptable
to address a letter to a position, as in the case of a cover letter for a resume when a writer might
use “Dear Human Resources Manager:” as a salutation (Locker & Kaczmarek).
Email salutation conventions do not follow the traditional conventions of business letters, which,
to some extent, still embed social and power hierarchies in their salutations. This change from
traditional conventions indicates that new email salutations conventions are based on a language
that is free of social context since a sender can usually address both superiors and subordinates
by their first names in email messages, without fear of reprisal because they have violated a
social norm and social interactions are now governed by “technical rules” that grow out of the
ideology of technology. The resulting communication style depicts a flattening of traditional
social hierarchies with less emphasis on a traditional approach where an “intersubjectively
shared language reflects social norms and hierarchies” (i.e. writers addressing readers based on
25
their title and/or hierarchical position). Therefore, the email conventions regarding salutations
provide one example of how the type of language being used within the email system is free of
social context, which is another characteristic of Habermas’ purposive-rational system.
Analysis Summary
The characteristics of Habermas’ purposive-rational system can be seen in email technology by
analyzing email’s origin and development, which started with a focus on increasing efficiency
and productivity. This focus of email development has created a situation where knowledge of
the “technical rules” and the behaviors relating to email characteristics and conventions must be
acquired by users learning the necessary skills in order to perform tasks associated with using
email software. Thus users are internalizing the procedures of a technology/machine instead of
internalizing the roles of people through imitating the behaviors of people. The users learn the
skills in order to perform actions to solve problems, not to maintain the traditional norms of an
institutional framework. These actions occur in a context-free language and are governed by
technical rules and based on conditional predictions and conditional imperatives. If a user’s
actions violate a technical rule the result will be inefficiency or failure and the message will not
be intelligible or will not be sent. Therefore, the initial penalty is a failure relating to the task or
goal, but a subsequent “punishment” is reflected in the lost productivity (loss of profit - money
and/or time.) However, if the user’s actions follow the technical rules and behavioral
expectations that have evolved from the technology, the result will be an increase in productivity
because the user will be able to send and receive more communications faster than before and
will arguably be able to complete more work. All of these relations between email technology
and Habermas’ purposive-rational system are shown in figure 3.
26
Figure 3: Habermas Translated: Systems of Purposive-rational (Instrumental and Strategic) Actions in Email
Habermas’ Categories
Action-orienting rules
(What governs actions?)
Habermas’ Characteristics
Technical Rules
Definition of Characteristics
Rules that are inherent in the
technology
Examples of Characteristics
Format of email header
(To/From...)
Text formatting
Level of definition
(What type of language is
used?)
Type of definition
(What types of behavioral
expectations occur?)
Context-free language
Language that is free of social
context
Conditional predictions
If I take this action then this
condition will be the result
Lack of recognition of
social/power hierarchies in
salutations in email messages
If I send the message via email it
will get there instantly.
Conditional imperatives
If condition exists then I will
perform this action
Learning how to perform tasks
necessary for production/work to
occur
Actions geared towards achieving
objectives
If I get this message immediately,
then I will answer it immediately.
Learn to use and understand the
equipment/software
When rules are violated, the
objective (end) is not attained.
Message unintelligible (gibberish)
Mechanisms of acquisition
Learning of skills and qualifications
(How are behaviors acquired?)
Function of action type
(What is the purpose of
actions?)
Sanctions against violation of
rules
(What happens when rules are
violated?)
“rationalization”
(What is the reason for
working within the system?)
Problem-solving (goal attainment,
defined in means-end relationship)
Inefficacy: failure in reality
Growth of productive forces;
extension of power of technical
control
Focus on increasing production
through technology and adherence
to technical rules
Email to request action or
accomplish other work-related task
Message not sent/received/acted
upon
Amount of time spent on email
Checking email on vacation/after
hours/continually…addiction
Increase in # of communications
able to “handle”
27
Conclusion
The findings of this analysis are that: 1) email’s conception and development was and for the
most part continues to be motivated by the desire to increase productivity, 2) in corporate
contexts, the characteristics of email improve the efficiency of the users, enabling them to be
more productive, and that 3) emerging conventions in email messages stress efficiency and
flatten traditional social hierarchies. The implication of these findings is that the way people and
businesses currently use email technology, by adjusting their behaviors and attitudes to
accommodate the technology of email rather than collectively deciding how to implement email,
is creating an extension of technical control.
Allowing email technology to expand its technical control is already creating problems that
people may be unaware of or ignoring until it is too late and even some supposed benefits of
email may have problematic implications. One benefit of email is that it allows people to
communicate more freely. However, this aspect of email can also lead people to ignore the
social norms of politeness for interpersonal communication and to indulge in flaming (Sproull &
Kiesler; Hallewell). Another benefit is that email use increases productivity, which is evident in
studies that show the use of email technology has increased the productivity of individual
laborers and thus in turn the productivity of businesses. Email saves the average employee 326
hours each year, which results in a 15%-20% increase in productivity for each worker (Ferris
Research). The increased productivity of individuals results in an increased productivity gain for
businesses. Even when businesses subtract the time workers spent dealing with nonessential
email, such as spam, they still see a productivity gain of $9000.00 per employee per year because
of email (Ferris Research).
28
A third benefit of email is that it creates the possibility for communication with people in
numerous geographical locations. Although this is beneficial for both business and personal
reasons, some studies have shown that regular email users speak to fewer friends, immediate
family, or neighbors face-to-face during the week and have weaker ties with their
communication partners than do people who do not use email (Kanfer). These studies support
the theories of social critics and researchers who make the following arguments about problems
relating to technology:

Technology leads to an increase in depersonalization in communication (Habermas;
Marcuse)

People form a more direct relationship with the machine than they do with their readers
because the machine interferes (Miller; Skolimowski)

Use of technology (especially uses relating to increased productivity) can lead to changes
in people’s behavior (Skinner; Ellul; S.B. Katz).
Many of these researchers have stated that while people may notice some of the problematic
changes occurring, they are frequently unaware of the implications of those problems, and this
seems to be happening regarding some of the obvious problems that are being created due to
email use.
People are also often unaware of other less noticeable problems that are being created by email,
such as “email dependency.” People apparently have an increasing dependency on email, both
psychologically and logistically to complete their work (Hallewell). They often express that they
cannot resist checking email, and that it is the first thing they do upon reaching the office or
returning home. Many email users state that it is their preferred way to communicate and that
29
they would be unable to complete their work if the email system were down and would be upset
about the loss of email capabilities (Lamb & Peek; Collin). Another less noticeable problem,
which is becoming more apparent, is that of “communication overload.” While email users send
and receive substantially more communication than nonusers, they overestimate the amount of
email they actually send and receive, which may relate to feelings of “communication overload”
and be a factor in email being one of the top ten stresses in the work environment (Kanfer;
Hallewell).
All of these problems are results of the expanding technical control of email in the corporate
environment, and they are affecting the way people work by increasing the expectations of the
amount of work required and the amount of time people must spend working. People gradually
become used to working more as the number of messages in their inboxes increase and they
become able to access email at home or on vacations using laptops provided by their companies.
Most people, if they think about the increase in work at all, probably see it as just an incidental
effect of email use, and not part of the essential nature of email technology. However, this
analysis revealed that increased productivity is not a coincidental extension of email technology;
rather increases in productivity occur because the underlying ideology of email is based on
increasing productivity.
This analysis focused on email as it specifically relates to business communication; and
therefore, these conclusions may only apply specifically to email in business communication. In
order to determine whether, and if so, how much the capitalistic ideology of email permeates the
personal use of email as well as business use, future research could be conducted using
30
comparison analyses of personal email and business email. One possible way to do so would be
to take the analysis method used in this article and create a way to apply Habermas’ categories to
the content of email messages and determine if the categories hold true based on the content of
both business and personal and email messages. It is important that such research be conducted
because the numbers of people and businesses using email are continuing to increase, and unless
societies consciously decide how to control the ways email is used, the ideology of technology
underlying email will continue to pervade the lives of people. The question thus may be: are
social systems governed by socially agreed upon conventions, in which people have the freedom
to consensually choose how technology is to be used; or are social conventions in a technological
society determined by technology.
31
Bibliography
Angell, David, and Brent Heslop. The Elements of E-mail Style: Communicate Effectively via
Electronic Mail. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1994
Anonymous of Bologna. The Principles of Letter Writing. James J. Murphy (Trans.) Three
Medieval Rhetorical Arts. James J. Murphy (Ed.) Berkley: University of California Press. 1-25.
1971.
Baugh, L. Sue, Maridell Fryar, and David A. Thomas. How to Write First-Class Business
Correspondence. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Publishing Group. 1995.
Benjamin, Susan. Words at Work: Business Writing in Half the Time with Twice the Power.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 1997.
Boshier, Roger. Socio-psychological Factors in Electronic Networking. International Journal of
Lifelong Education. 9(1) (1990): 46-64.
Bly, Robert W. The Encyclopedia of Business Letters, Fax Memos, and E-Mail. Franklin
Lakes, NJ: Career Press. 1999.
Campbell, Patty G., Thomas Housel, and Kitty O. Locker. (Eds.). Conducting Research in
Business Communication. Urbana, Illinois: The Association for Business Communication. 1988.
Collin, Simon. Integrating E-mail: From the Intranet to the Internet. Boston: Digital Press.
1999.
Contractor, Noshir S., and Eric M. Eisenberg. Communication Networks and New Media in
Organization. Organizations and Communication Technology. Janet Fulk, and Charles
Steinfield (Eds.) Newbury Park: CA. 1990. 143-172.
Dobrin, Joseph. Business Writing Skills: A Take-Charge Assistant Book. New York:
AMACOM. 1998.
Dubrovsky, V., S. Kiesler, and B. N. Sethna. The Equalisation Phenomenon. Human-Computer
Interaction. 6 (1991): 119-146.
Ellul, Jacques. The Technological Society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. 1976.
Ferris Research. “Email Boosts Employee Productivity.” NUA.com. www.groupweb.com/cgibin/search/groupweb.cgi?ID=998113370. 2000.
Ferris Research. “Summary: How Email Affects Productivity.” NUA.com.
www.ferris.com/rep/20000202/SM.html. 2000.
Ferris Research. “Summary: Quantifying the Productivity Gains of Email.” NUA.com.
www.ferris.com/rep/20000121/SM.html. 2000.
32
Ferris Research. “Volume of Corporate Email Still Growing.” NUA.com.
www.nua.com/surveys/index.cgi?f=VS&art_id=905357026&rel=true. 2001.
Festa, Paul. “E-mail Has Come a Long Way in 30 Years.” CNET News.com.
news.com.com/2100-1023-274170.html?legacy=cnet. 2001.
Finholt, Tom, and Lee Sproull. Electronic Groups at Work. Organization Science, 1 (1990): 4164.
Fontana, John. IBM, Microsoft Shift Battle Lines. Network World.
www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/0930battle.html. 2002.
Graham, John R. It’s Changed the Way We Think and Behave: Who Do We Thank (and Curse)
for Email? The Sales Trainer. 22(2). www.nbmda.org/what/trainer/Trainer_July_Aug02.pdf.
2002.
Hallewell, Bob. Softening the Organisational Impact of Email. Training Journal.
www.trainingjournal.co.uk/articles/hallewell.htm. 2002.
Huff, Chuck, and R. King. An Experiment in Electronic Collaboration. Interacting by
Computer: Effects on Small Group Style and Structure. Symposium conducted at the meeting of
the American Psychological Association. Atlanta. 1988.
Habermas, Jurgen. Technology and Science as “Ideology.” Toward a Rational Society: Student
Protest, Science, and Politics. Boston: Beacon Press. 1970. 81-122.
Hafner, Katie, and Matthew Lyon. Talking Headers. The Washington Post Magazine.
www.olografix.org/gubi/estate/libri/wizards/email.html. 1996.
Hardy, Ian. The Evolution of ARPANET Email. www.ifla.org/documents/internet/hari1.txt.
1996.
IBM. Looking at the Real Impact of IBM Lotus Notes & Domino 6.
www.lotus.com/news/news.nsf/link/aidantroy. 2002.
Inkster, Robert P. and Judith M. Kilborn. The Writing of Business. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
1999.
Johson-Eilola, Johndan. Wild Technologies: Computer Use and Social Possibility. Computers
and Technical Communication: Pedagogical and Programmatic Perspectives. Greenwich,
Connecticut: Ablex Publishing. 1997. 97-128.
Kanfer, Alaina. It’s a Thin World: The Association between Email Use and Patterns of
Communication and Relationships. Urbana-Champaign, IL: National Center for Supercomputing
Applications. archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/edu/trg/info_society.html. 1999.
33
Katz, Steven B. The Ethic of Expediency: Classical Rhetoric, Technology, and the Holocaust.
College English, 54(3) (1992): 255-275.
Katz, Susan. The Dynamics of Writing Review: Opportunities for Growth and Change in the
Workplace. Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation. 1998.
Koku, Emmanuel, Nancy Nazer, and Barry Wellman. Netting Scholars: Online and Offline.
American Behavioral Scientist. 43(10) (2000): 1681-1704
Lamb, Linda, and Jerry Peek. What You Need to Know: Using Email Effectively. Sebastopol,
CA: O’Reilly & Associates, Inc. 1995.
Locker, Kitty O., and Stephen Kyo Kaczmarek. Business Communication: Building Critical
Skills. Boston: McGraw-Hill. 2001. 148-165; 255-267.
MacCormac, Earl R. Men and Machines: The Computational Metaphor. Technology in Science,
6 (1984). 207-216.
Marcuse, Herbert. Toward a Critical Theory of Society: Collected Papers of Herbert Marcuse.
Ed. Douglas Kellner. London: Routledge. 2001.
McCormick, N. B. & McCormick, J. W. Computer friends and foes: content of undergraduates'
electronic mail. Computers in Human Behavior. 8 (1992). 379-405.
Miller, Carolyn R. Technology as a Form of Consciousness: A Study of Contemporary Ethos.
Central States Speech Journal, 29 (1978): 228-236.
Moles, Abraham. Information Theory and Esthetic Perception. (Joel E. Cohen, Trans.). Urbana,
IL: University of Illinois Press. 1966.
Microsoft. Outlook 2002 Product Guided (MPG).
www.microsoft.com/office/outlook/evaluation/guide.asp. 2001.
Nchor, Joseph. Email and Productivity. Groupweb.com.
www.emailtoday.com/emailtoday/pr/email_productivity.htm. 2001.
O’Connell, S.E. Human Communication in the High Tech Office. Handbook of Organizational
Communication. G.M. Goldhaber and G.A. Barnett (Eds). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 1988. 473-482.
Pacey, Arnold. The Culture of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1983.
Pratt, Laurie A. “Impression Management in Organization E-Mail Communication.”
http://www.public.asu.edu/~corman/scaorgcomm/pratt.htm. 1996.
Richardson, Malcolm, and Sarah Liggett. Power Relations, Technical Writing Theory, and
Workplace Writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7(1) (1993): 112-137.
34
Schultz, Heidi. The Elements of Electronic Communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 1999.
Selwyn, Neil, and Kate Robson. Using E-mail as a Research Tool. Social Research Update.
www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU21.html. 1998.
Skinner, B. F. Whatever Happened to Psychology as the Science of Behavior? American
Psychologist. 42(8) (1987): 780-786.
Skolimowski, Henryk. Technology and Human Destiny. India: Avvai Achukkoodam. 1983.
Sproull, Lee, and Sara Kiesler. Connections. New Ways of Working in the Networked
Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1991.
Terminello, Verna, and Marcia G. Reed. E-mail Communicate Effectively. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall. 2003.
Turbayne, Colin Murray. The Myth of Metaphor. Columbia, South Carolina: University of
South Carolina Press. 1962.
Weiner, Norbert. The Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics & Society. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin. 1950.
Weizenbaum, Joseph. Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation.
New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. 1976.
Wessel, Milton R. Freedom’s Edge: The Computer Threat to Society. Reading, Massachusetts:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1974.
Wessells, Michael. Computer, Self, and Society. Eaglewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
1990.
Winner, Langdon. Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political
Thought. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. 1977.
Winner, Langdon. Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus. 109(1) (1980): 121-136.
35