Sign in or 
Share this
Koobecaf: a Change in Communicating
Erin Waymire
Mike Wesch and Frankie Morales (U 10:30)
Anthropology 204
20 September 2008
Mike Wesch and Frankie Morales (U 10:30)
Anthropology 204
20 September 2008
Koobecaf: a Change in Communicating
Advanced in technology, the Koobecaf culture focuses on the use of a retupmoc, through which the actual Koobecaf is accessed. Using what they call the Tenretni, Koobecaf allows people from all distances apart to communicate with each other through mostly text and photographs. But this change in communication is also bringing about changes in the society, as all changes in communication do.
Face-to-face communication is quite radically different than communication through Koobecaf. Beyond the descriptive linguistics of phonology, morphology, syntax and grammar, communication involves a combination of extra elements including kinesics, proxemics, paralanguage, and tonal language. Face-to-face communication involves all of these elements, but the conditions for Koobecaf differ. The element of proxemics is completely eliminated, and the other elements become extremely limited. There are ways of recreating parts of these elements, however they are also much easier to hide, look over, or cover up. Text and symbols simply can't replicate each and every aspect communicated through all of the human senses. In the end it's the situation that determines whether this difference in communication is a blessing or a curse.
In a society where people are raised in a competitive mindset, failure and rejection is a major fear, and any way to avoid it looks appealing. The limitations created by communication through Koobecaf make people feel less vulnerable to rejection, judgment, and humiliation. For example, a young male of this society is expected to ask the female he is interested in to spend time with him in certain socially acceptable relational activities, but the male is often nervous for fear of rejection. The tahc function on Koobecaf permits the male to communicate with the female in real-time text without being afraid that she will laugh at his voice that cracks when he's nervous or look at him with eyes that scream, “You're such a dork!” And even if she does turn him down, he can walk away from the retupmoc without having to show anyone his pain.
On the other hand, the loss of parts of communication also has a downside. Koobecaf can't communicate the embrace of a hug when a person is in need nor the message from a gentle expression and a pair of eyes that reaches deep into a person's soul and reassures them that everything will be alright. As a result, face-to-face relationships may be suffering in this society. When people frequently use Koobecaf as form of safer communication, they begin to rely on it for that purpose, but in doing so, face-to-face relationships may be slowly losing the depth and meaning they once had. Consider another relationship between a male and female in which they use Koobecaf each time they have something difficult to discuss. A week earlier, they ended up hurting each other's feelings, so they work it out later over Koobecaf and tell each other their apologies. They even use words to suggest giving each other a hug. But even though the other person believes the words that say, “I'm sorry for what happened,” in text to be genuine, the text just can't heal the heart as strong as the soft, lamenting tone of a voice that says the same while the eyes show the true internal feelings of regret.
In conclusion, Koobecaf can be both helpful and hurtful in the ways it is modifying communication. As long as the members of the society are aware of it's potential benefits and faults, they can work together to prevent unwanted changes, but it's their vision for the future determines the end result.
Face-to-face communication is quite radically different than communication through Koobecaf. Beyond the descriptive linguistics of phonology, morphology, syntax and grammar, communication involves a combination of extra elements including kinesics, proxemics, paralanguage, and tonal language. Face-to-face communication involves all of these elements, but the conditions for Koobecaf differ. The element of proxemics is completely eliminated, and the other elements become extremely limited. There are ways of recreating parts of these elements, however they are also much easier to hide, look over, or cover up. Text and symbols simply can't replicate each and every aspect communicated through all of the human senses. In the end it's the situation that determines whether this difference in communication is a blessing or a curse.
In a society where people are raised in a competitive mindset, failure and rejection is a major fear, and any way to avoid it looks appealing. The limitations created by communication through Koobecaf make people feel less vulnerable to rejection, judgment, and humiliation. For example, a young male of this society is expected to ask the female he is interested in to spend time with him in certain socially acceptable relational activities, but the male is often nervous for fear of rejection. The tahc function on Koobecaf permits the male to communicate with the female in real-time text without being afraid that she will laugh at his voice that cracks when he's nervous or look at him with eyes that scream, “You're such a dork!” And even if she does turn him down, he can walk away from the retupmoc without having to show anyone his pain.
On the other hand, the loss of parts of communication also has a downside. Koobecaf can't communicate the embrace of a hug when a person is in need nor the message from a gentle expression and a pair of eyes that reaches deep into a person's soul and reassures them that everything will be alright. As a result, face-to-face relationships may be suffering in this society. When people frequently use Koobecaf as form of safer communication, they begin to rely on it for that purpose, but in doing so, face-to-face relationships may be slowly losing the depth and meaning they once had. Consider another relationship between a male and female in which they use Koobecaf each time they have something difficult to discuss. A week earlier, they ended up hurting each other's feelings, so they work it out later over Koobecaf and tell each other their apologies. They even use words to suggest giving each other a hug. But even though the other person believes the words that say, “I'm sorry for what happened,” in text to be genuine, the text just can't heal the heart as strong as the soft, lamenting tone of a voice that says the same while the eyes show the true internal feelings of regret.
In conclusion, Koobecaf can be both helpful and hurtful in the ways it is modifying communication. As long as the members of the society are aware of it's potential benefits and faults, they can work together to prevent unwanted changes, but it's their vision for the future determines the end result.
ruane |
Latest page update: made by ruane
, Oct 22 2008, 11:12 AM EDT
(about this update
About This Update
Moved from: Koobecaf Ethnography Instructions
- ruane
No content added or deleted. - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
Communication
Facebook
Koobecaf
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
