Transit Zones, Locales, and Locations: How Digital Annotations Affect Communication in Public Places
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Media and Communication (ISSN: 2183–2439) 2021, Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages 39–49 https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i3.3934 Article Transit Zones, Locales, and Locations: How Digital Annotations Affect Communication in Public Places Eric Lettkemann * and Ingo Schulz‐Schaeffer Institute of Sociology, Technische Universität Berlin, Germany; E‐Mails: [email protected] (E.L.), schulz‐schaeffer@tu‐berlin.de (I.S.‐S.) * Corresponding author Submitted: 15 December 2020 | Accepted: 16 April 2021 | Published: 23 July 2021 Abstract The article presents an analytical concept, the Constitution of Accessibility through Meaning of Public Places (CAMPP) model. The CAMPP model distinguishes different manifestations of public places according to how they facilitate and restrict communication between urbanites. It describes public places along two analytical dimensions: their degree of per‐ ceived accessibility and the elaboration of knowledge necessary to participate in place‐related activities. Three patterns of communicative interaction result from these dimensions: civil inattention, small talk, and sociability. We employ the CAMPP model as an analytical tool to investigate how digital annotations affect communicative patterns and perceptions of accessibility of public places. Based on empirical observations and interviews with users of smartphone apps that pro‐ vide digital annotations, such as Foursquare City Guide, we observe that digital annotations tend to reflect and reinforce existing patterns of communication and rarely evoke changes in the perceived accessibility of public places. Keywords annotation; civil inattention; Foursquare; locative media; perceived accessibility; public places; small talk; sociability; social worlds; Tabelog Issue This article is part of the issue “Spaces, Places, and Geographies of Public Spheres” edited by Annie Waldherr (University of Vienna, Austria), Ulrike Klinger (European University Viadrina, Germany) and Barbara Pfetsch (Freie Universität Berlin, Germany / Weizenbaum‐Institute for the Networked Society, Germany). © 2021 by the authors; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu‐ tion 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction ters to the “networked publics” (Varnelis, 2008) of social media platforms. However, we believe it is worth taking a Public places are the historical nucleus of the modern fresh look at some older literature. By confronting older public sphere. Scholars have pointed out the impor‐ concepts on encounter publics with new empirical obser‐ tance of public places as sites for encounters where vations, we expect to gain deeper insights about how mutual strangers can communicate face‐to‐face and profoundly those media have transformed the nature of experience a sense of belonging (e.g., Goffman, 1963; public places and face‐to‐face encounters. Jacobs, 1961; Lofland, 1998; Sennett, 1977; Strauss, Locative media are mobile apps utilizing the posi‐ 1961). Gerhards and Schäfer (2010) refer to this ear‐ tioning features of smartphones to provide their users liest and interpersonal level of the public sphere as with web‐content about their current position. An exam‐ “encounter publics” (p. 144). Most of the research on ple enjoying great popularity is mobile recommenda‐ encounter publics originated in the pre‐digital era. In the tion services that help users find restaurants, shops or wake of digitization, research on interpersonal commu‐ other places. In addition to pointing to nearby places, nication has largely shifted from face‐to‐face encoun‐ recommendation services provide users with various Media and Communication, 2021, Volume 9, Issue 3, Pages 39–49 39 information such as ratings, comments or photos left For the purpose of our discussion, we draw on find‐ by other users. In the context of locative media, these ings from ethnographic and interview‐based research on various kinds of digital information are usually labelled the use of annotation apps in Berlin and Tokyo. In terms “annotations” (see Frith, 2015, pp. 81–95). By linking of the use of locative media, Berlin represents a typi‐ GPS coordinates with user‐generated web content, such cally European metropolis offering numerous opportuni‐ as photos, reports, or ratings, annotations add digi‐ ties to study the effect of annotations on the perceived tal layers of meaning to urban public places, acting accessibility of public places. To avoid a Eurocentric per‐ as equivalents of physical display windows, posters, or spective, however, we added a contrast case. Tokyo is an graffiti. Predicting how the mass proliferation of anno‐ East‐Asian megacity, a characteristic of which is that the tations will change encounters in public places as a various public encounters occur in a spatially condensed whole is difficult. In our empirical research, we narrow form. In addition, our decision for the city was based on our focus on two closely related questions. We inves‐ Japan’s (and especially Tokyo’s) reputation as a techno‐ tigate how digital annotations affect the perception of logically pioneering society. Considering the spatial con‐ accessibility of public places and how this perceived densation of public encounters there, we assumed we accessibility, in turn, affects communicative patterns in would find more creative appropriations of digital anno‐ face‐to‐face encounters. tations in Tokyo than in Berlin, although, with regard to Accessibility is a concept describing the likelihood the perceived accessibility of public places, this assump‐ that an urban place will provide a social entry point tion has not been confirmed. for encounters between strangers (Lofland, 1973, pp. 19–20). Public places are, by definition, legally acces‐ 2. A Typology of Public Places sible for every inhabitant or visitor of the city. However, the de facto accessibility of a place is difficult to assess According to Lyn Lofland (1973, p. 19), public places are without taking into account the city dwellers’ percep‐ defined by the criterion of legal accessibility. In contrast tions. As Anselm Strauss (1961, pp. 59–61) has shown, to private households or the workplace, public places people who belong to different social worlds perceive are, in principle, freely accessible to the urban popu‐ the accessibility of public places differently. This dif‐ lation. However, only some of them are perceived as ference is particularly evident when considering the equally accessible from the perspective of the mem‐ meeting places of marginalized social worlds, such as bers of the different social worlds inhabiting the city. those of drug addicts or the homeless. Although these In contrast, many public places, though legally accessi‐ places are legally accessible, many city dwellers avoid ble for everybody, are actually visited only by small sec‐ them because they attribute a poor reputation to these tions of the urban population. Strauss (1961, pp. 59–67) places. This example also clearly shows that percep‐ considers this is a result of urban places being associ‐ tions of accessibility are less a matter of personal experi‐ ated with different meanings that attract some social ence and more a result of knowledge circulating within worlds while repelling others. Places gain their mean‐ social worlds. Many city dwellers know about places to ing from knowledge. This can be general knowledge avoid without having personally experienced them. This or more elaborated knowledge shared only within spe‐ knowledge also includes the “genres of communication” cific social worlds. The concept of ‘social worlds’ orig‐ (Bergmann & Luckmann, 1995) that are appropriate for inated in the Chicago School’s approach to capturing addressing strangers in certain places. the segmentation of urban life into relatively indepen‐ Digital annotations have the potential to transform dent “universes of discourse” (Strauss, 1993, p. 210). these knowledge‐based modes of perceiving accessibil‐ Social worlds organize around core activities concerned, ity because they provide city dwellers with new channels for example, with the production of certain goods or a for creating and sharing knowledge about public places. way of living. Examples from urban life are the worlds To investigate this transformative potential, we proceed of arts, scenes, gangs, sports, or ethnic communities in two steps. The first part of the article presents the (e.g., Becker, 1982; Irwin, 1977; Whyte, 1943; Zifonun Constitution of Accessibility through Meaning of Public & Naglo, 2019). Depending on the degree of involve‐ Places (CAMPP) model. This step is necessary to counter ment in a social world’s core activities, sociologist David the widespread impression that public places are a Unruh (1980) distinguished four roles: At the inner cir‐ homogeneous phenomenon in terms of their perceived cle of social worlds are “insiders’’ (p. 282) with spe‐ accessibility. Instead, we develop a typology that dis‐ cialist knowledge. They are the key representatives of tinguishes different types of public places with respect this world’s lifestyle. Insiders get support from “regu‐ to their perceived accessibility and the way it is consti‐ lars” (Unruh, 1980, p. 281), who habitually participate tuted by ascription of meaning. In the second part, we in the core activities. At the fringes of social worlds, discuss how the annotation features of contemporary “tourists,” and “strangers” (Unruh, 1980, p. 281) can smartphone apps affect the meaning attached to pub‐ be found. While tourists