Task 7: In search for my own understanding of interactivity

The two articles on interactivity previously studied, „Interactivity: Tracking a New Concept in Media and Communication Studies“ by J. F. Jensen and „Interactivity: A Concept Explication“ by S. K. Kiousis, both confirmed that the concept of interactivity is certainly multi-discursive and thus depends to a very large extent on the context in which it is used for the meaning to be clear. This makes the search for our own understanding of interactivity a great quest to take on where no interpretation can be wrong.

According to J. D. Peters, author of the prophetic book called “Speaking into the Air: A History of the Idea of Communication”, the ideal of interactivity, the search for instantaneous contact with others, has a long and fraught history in western culture. He traced it back to St Augustine, for whom the epitome of perfect communication was the angel, a word derived from the Greek for “messenger”. Coming back to the 21st century, Jensen writes, “The culture has lived out what we might call an interactive turn“. Because interactivity as we know it today is so closely tied to technology, many of the explications – including the one elaborated by Kiousis – make mediated communication via technology a central attribute defining interactivity and exclude pure interpersonal communication.

Or as Peters argues, the aim of modern media has been to “mimic the angels by mechanical or electronic means”. To illustrate the situation, I would like to share a video recently reviewed by one of my fellow students on his blog. The video that brought goosebumps to me, reminds us that interpersonal communication, even though often substituted – or, as it would be more correct to say, mediated – by the various means of interactive computer technology, continues to play an important role in our life.

From the academic perspective, we may analyze the term interactivity referring, first and foremost, to the fields of sociology, communication studies and informatics (including information and computer science), but when we think of interactivity, in search for our own understanding of one of the media community’s most used buzzwords, we often perceive it best in the context of personal experience. As the second half of the definiton by Kiousis explicates, „With regard to human users, it [interactivity] additionally refers to their ability to perceive the experience as a simulation of interpersonal communication and increase their awareness of telepresence.“ Moreover, most interactive computing systems are for some human purpose and interact with humans in human contexts.

Interactivity is a central concept in new media. In simple words, interactive new media holds out a possibility of on-demand access to content any time, anywhere, on any digital device, as well as interactive user feedback, creative participation and community formation around the media content. It also breaks the connection between physical place and social place, making physical location much less significant for our social relationships, and has the ability to connect like-minded others worldwide. Social interaction, using web-based technologies to turn communication into interactive dialogues, has become part of our personal and professional life. Popular networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter as well as personal weblogs are commonly used for socialization and connecting with friends, relatives, and employees, wherever in the world they may currently be.

Interactivity, the way I feel and perceive it, even though closely tied to technology, is a measure of a media’s potential ability to help the user connect, interplay, socialize, retrieve, personalize and exchange information, give feedback, form and participate in communities, or in other words, a means that helps to keep the interpersonal communication alive at any time, anywhere, with anyone we choose to. This communication is hoped to be a mutual (reciprocal) lively action, just like the words ’inter’ and ’activity’ presume and just like we expect communication to always be. True, we can also communicate and interact with a computer software, Internet website, or whatever other artifact, but I find the social connotations more cherished.

To answer the question whether interactivity as a concept has changed in the past 10, 100 or 1000 years, I believe the heart of it has remained the same. What changes constantly is the technology we employ to interact and the degree to which this technology makes the interaction possible. Patently, the level of interactivity varies within different media and is ever higher as more advanced technologies are introduced. Theoretical and operational definitons are useful to understand the background behind the concept, however, interactivity must be "touched and felt" (perceived) as part of our life to mean more than a concept explication to us.