Advertisement

Contested norms of Presence

  • Christian LicoppeEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Medienkulturen im digitalen Zeitalter book series (MEDIZE)

Abstract

In the most common understanding of the term, presence is considered to be a state in contrast with absence. Presence and absence appear as the two terms of an opposition in which variables of spatiotemporal location play a fundamental role: we are either present here and now, or we are not. However, the use of communication technologies has made this common understanding more complicated and this is already apparent in the etymology of the word “telecommunication”, which refers to the idea of communication at a distance.

Keywords

Normative Perspective Digital Humanity Spatiotemporal Location Court Hearing Video Link 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. Voices of Modernity. Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bauman, Z. (1993) Modernity and Ambivalence. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boltanski, L., & Chiapello, E. (1999). Le nouvel esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  4. Callon, M. (2007). “What does it mean to say that economics is performative?” in Do Economics Make Markets? On The Performativity of Economics. D. MacKenzie, Muniesa, F., & Siu, L. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 311–357.Google Scholar
  5. Cardon, D. (2011). Internet et les réseaux sociaux. Paris: La Documentation Française.Google Scholar
  6. Crary, J. (1999). Suspensions of Perception. Attention, Spectacle and Modern Culture. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  7. Datchary, C. (2011). La dispersion au travail. Toulouse: Octares.Google Scholar
  8. Datchary, C., & Licoppe, C. (2007). «La multi-activité et ses appuis. L’exemple de la présence «obstinée» des messages dans l’environnement de travail.» @ctivités 4(1): pp. 1-29.Google Scholar
  9. Dumoulin, L., & Licoppe, C., Justice et visioconference : les audiences à distance. Genese et institutionnalisation d’une innovation, Contrat GIP Mission de recherche droit et Justice (ISP/Telecom Paris-Tech), Rapport final janvier 2009.Google Scholar
  10. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  11. Goodwin, C. (2000). “Action and embodiment within situated human interaction.” Journal of Pragmatics 32: pp. 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hayles, K. (2007). “Hyper and Deep Attention. The General Divide in Cognitive Modes.” Profession 13: pp. 187–199.Google Scholar
  13. Hochschild, A.(1997). The Time Bind: When Work Becomes Home and Home Becomes Work. New York: Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
  14. Hudson, J., Christensen, J., Kellogg, W., & Erickson, T. (2002). “ ‘I’d be overwhelmed, but it’s just one more thing to do’: Availability and interruption in research management”, Proceedings of ACM CHI 2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.Google Scholar
  15. James, W. (1950 [1890]). The Principles of Psychology. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  16. Lahire, B. (1998). L’homme pluriel. Les ressorts de l’action. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
  17. Lahlou, S. (2000). «Attracteurs cognitifs et travail de bureau.» Intellectica 30: pp. 75–113.Google Scholar
  18. Latour, B. (1991). Nous n’avons jamais été modernes. Essai d’anthropologie symétrique. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B., Jensen, P., Venturini, T., Grauwin, S., & Boullier, D. (2012). “The Whole is Always Smaller Than its Parts. A Digital Test of Gabriel Tarde’s Monads.” British Journal of Sociology.Google Scholar
  20. Licoppe, C. (2004). “Connected presence: the emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 22: pp. 135–156.Google Scholar
  21. Licoppe, C., & Smoreda, Z. (2005). “Are social networks technologically embedded? How networks are changing today with communication technologies.” Social Networks 27(4): pp. 317-335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Licoppe, C. (2008). «Logiques d’innovation, multiactivité et zapping au travail», Hermès 50, pp. 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Licoppe, C. (2008). «Communication et multi-activité au travail. Une approche écologique des dispositifs de communication et de leurs usages.» Hermès.Google Scholar
  24. Mondada, L. (2010). “Talking and driving: multi-activity in the car.” Semiotica.Google Scholar
  25. O’Connaill, B., & Frohlich, D. (1995). “Timespace in the Workspace. Dealing with Interruptions”, Proceedings of Human factors in Computing (CHI’95). Pittsburgh, PA., ACM Press.Google Scholar
  26. Piette, A. (2009). L’acte d’exister. Paris: Socrate Editions PromarexGoogle Scholar
  27. Powers, E. (2011). Hamlet’s Blackberry. Building a Good Life in the Digital Age. London: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  28. Simmel, G. (1989). La Ville. Philosophie de la modernité. Paris: Payot. .Google Scholar
  29. Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together. Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From each Other. Basic Books.Google Scholar
  30. Volosinov, V.N. (1986). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Whittaker, S., Frohlich, D., & Daly-Jones, O. (1994). “Informal workplace communication: What is it like and how might we support it?” Proceedings of CHI’94, New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ParisFrankreich

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options