Masspersonal Communication: Negotiating the Personal, Political, and Civil

Tomorrow, a group of my colleagues and myself will be in Frostburg, MD to present at a roundtable discussion sponsored by the Maryland Communication Association. The focus of this discussion is to unpack O'Sullivan's notion of masspersonal communication and apply the concept to understanding the influence of social media technologies in a variety of different communication environments. I'm going to try and live-tweet the conversation using the #masspesonal hashtag but I imagine I'll be too entrenched in the conversation to access my phone. Of course, this doesn't have to stop you from sending over questions and comments. Post feedback below or with the #masspersol hashtag (I'm at @bowmanspartan), and we'll look to answer emerging questions together. And if you're in the region, we hope to see you there! [map]

2011 Maryland Communication Association Conference
Roundtable Discussion: “Masspersonal Communication: Negotiating the Personal, Political, and Civil”

Moderator: Lori E. Vela, West Virginia University

Nick Bowman, West Virginia University
C. J. Claus, West Virginia University
John Lombardi, Frostburg State University
Elesha L. Ruminski, Frostburg State University
David Westerman, West Virginia University

This roundtable will begin with an introduction of the topic of masspersonal communication and move to discussion of interpersonal privacy, surveillance, and legal issues surrounding “personal,” “public,” and “mass” uses of social media as well as political correctness and civility in online postings. The question of censorship (self and imposed) will be discussed, with this central question under debate: “Does anything go with social networking?”

“Smallville – Population: 6,000,000,000”
Nicholas David Bowman, West Virginia University

Recent data from the Pew Charitable Trusts has suggested social media to play a binding role in society – drawing individuals together rather than separating them. While not surprising to those individuals accustomed to the ‘wired life’, these data might come as a surprise to those subscribing to Putnam’s assertions that mediated technologies have causes us to lose much of our social capital – a thought echoed to some extent by anecdotal evidence of the technology “geeks” as a socially-awkward and isolated lot. My discussion will focus on the binding role of today’s Web 2.0 technology, drawing on recent empirical and anecdotal evidence (such as the Arab Spring uprisings and the London riots) to explain how communication technology has drawn us closer perhaps than ever before.

“Masspersonal Communication within the College Classroom: The Tension between Instructor and Student Use of Facebook”
C.J. Claus, West Virginia University

The current college student has expectations that college instructors will use at least some form of technology during their courses (Witt & Schrodt, 2006), so long as the incorporation of such technology is relevant to the course objectives (Lane & Shelton, 2001). Given the prevalence of social media within the college population, certain instructors have begun to shift their mediated communication with students from e-mail to Facebook. However, Facebook, is mainly a social website designed to establish and maintain personal relationships and although instructors could use the site to provide information about the course, do students even want to be friends with their instructors? Furthermore, this channel is an excellent example of O’Sullivan’s concept of “Masspersonal” communication, where both private and public messages are manipulated. Thus, students have to then navigate and decide what content is posted for everyone to see and what content should be concealed. Depending upon how weak their security settings are, instructors could inadvertently stumble across information that is highly personal, not related to school, and result in a damaged image of the student. On the other hand, at the point that students block everything from their professors (i.e., status updates and photos), then how does this channel become any more effective or useful than e-mail or BlackBoard?

“Is the Medium Still the Message?”
John Lombardi, Frostburg State University

Perhaps lost in the discussion of the uses of social networking and where it fits academically or even hierarchically is the issue of the medium itself. The concept of “mass” communication is not necessarily tied to the number of recipients. Instead it’s generally from whom the message is sent and how the message is accessed that determine whether the communication is “mass.” The definition of mass communication presented by Baran and Davis (2009) is generally accepted: “When an organization employs a technology as a medium to communicate with a large audience, mass communication is said to have occurred” (p. 5). However, as technology changes it is becoming more possible to target messages to specific individuals. As such the issue of a “large audience” becomes more ambiguous. Of additional concern, though, is the issue of access. Generally speaking “mass communication” messages are reasonably accessible. Most social networking messages lie behind some type of barrier (generally the need to both subscribe to the service and become directly associated with the person creating the message). Within the social networking framework it is generally not possible for someone to simply happen upon a message. As such social networking should be viewed as a personal forum. Civility is not a requirement, at least no more than it is in any other part of our day-to-day lives.

“Situating Me and You (and I and Thou) within the Social Networking Transformation of the Public Sphere(s)”
Elesha L. Ruminski, Frostburg State University

With the rise and prevalence of social networking sites as primary communication channels, marketing forums, and virtual social communities today, we need more textured, ethical understandings of the theoretical and practical interdisciplinary intersection of mass communication, public communication, and interpersonal communication. Critical within this emerging “masspersonal” convergence is the study and application of interpersonal and public sphere ethics and “virtual civility”; drawing on Habermas’s proposals about the transformation of the public sphere and Buber’s impersonal-interpersonal construct of it-you-thou, social networkers might better be able to consider how they situate the self as embedded within multiple publics within the presence of many known and unknown “others.” An assignment that helps students explore how self is perceived, presented, and situated in relation to others within various publics within social networking sites will be shared.

“Masspersonal Communication: What is It, and Why Does it Matter??”
David Westerman, West Virginia University

O'Sullivan has recently discussed the concept of "Masspersonal" communication, suggesting that traditional lines of demarcation in the communication discipline (i.e., mass vs. interpersonal) have been surpassed by the technologies we use for this communication. In other words, many of our newer technologies (although past ones allowed this as well) allow people to use "mass" channels for "interpersonal" communication and vice versa. Thus, O'Sullivan points out that newer divisions may be more fruitful to consider, such as public vs. private interactions. This public vs. private dialectic is one that many people have to navigate today. Walking this tightrope will be discussed, as many people seem to fail at this navigation.