top of page
Search
Evan

mark as unread

In his discussion of GIF exchanges in instant message conversations, James Hodge remarks that “receiving a text message with a reaction GIF feels good, but it also produces a demand to reciprocate that often feels like a small burden” (4). In this blog post I’d like to expand upon the nature of this “small burden”—particularly its capitalist resonances—by taking a look at a related and perhaps even more taxing social media phenomenon: the read receipt.



We likely all grapple with read receipts. They alter the ways in which we interact with our devices and manage our various communication channels. I would contend that, given the choice, most of us elect not to have read receipts active across our various platforms and in our myriad conversations (the exception perhaps being the parent-child relation, in which the need for proof of life trumps the comforts of avoidance). Message previews are a saving grace in the context of apps with integrated read receipts: a chance to know without broadcasting or committing to the knowing, to have one’s cake and eat it, too. Read receipts come hand in hand socially with a duty, even an obligation, to respond—they represent a relational debt to be paid. Shirking or refusing one’s obligation to respond, on the other hand, represents an active, rather than passive, social move: it signals to the other—regardless of the actual circumstances surrounding the silence—that their message has, in fact, hit its target, and that it still does not warrant reply. The pending contract is underwritten with constant low-level anxiety for both parties concerned: the receiver, having triggered the read receipt, now senses the clock ticking and the pressure mounting for a timely and adequate response, while the sender, seeing their message read, experiences a growing sense of uncertainty and self-doubt as to the reason behind the delayed reply. We take very much for granted the immense comfort behind the mirrored excuses, “they’ll think I haven’t seen it/they probably haven’t seen it”… As Hodge contends, “this dynamic isn’t a problem per se, but it becomes one when the network or channel sustaining the possibility of this exchange never turns off” (4).


Quite literally, read receipts turn communications into transactions: the sender receives a receipt for the consumption of their message, a receipt that implies an amount paid and a service owed. I tie this indebtedness to Wendy Chun’s discussion of habit: “habit has moved from habes(to have) to addictio(to lose—to be forfeited to one's creditor). Habit is now a form of dependency, a condition of debt” (4). Do read receipts turn conversations into debt-driven networks of neoliberal internet culture? And if they do, what can we make of the different levels of obligation—or habituation—that various apps afford? Facebook messenger and Instagram direct messages include read receipts by design; platforms like iMessage allow curated read-receipt relations—maybe a significant other gets to see when you’ve read their messages, but an acquaintance or a colleague does not.


Chun contends that “social media are driven by a profound confusion of the private and public” (12). Read receipts operate in this zone of slippage. If privacy resides in the benefit-of-the-doubt buffer generated by leaving read receipts off (which is really an affordance for all parties to buy into a lie), then does the public equate the transparency of having them on? In Instagram direct message, for instance, the message is not marked as “read,” but rather as “seen.” It is not entirely clear, however who exactly is doing the seeing: the message is seen by the recipient, but it is the sender who sees that it has been seen. Read receipts, then, allow for a build-up of gazing vectors, and constitute a networked surveillance of micro-relations and social behaviors.

24 views4 comments

Recent Posts

See All

4 comentários


benny vanderburgh
11 de nov. de 2018

I agree that the three dots are a useful extension of what Evan opens up here. The way that one alters their behavior depending on the medium is striking: drafting an important text in your Notes to avoid the dots (either for their feelings or to control one's own timing/perceived investment in the text message); the inflexibility of iMessage where one can't mark a text as 'unread' like in other apps, which seems to lead to a different type of ghosting/reply potential disaster; the way that Facebook messages get tucked away for non-friends and the emotional results for those unaware of it. It makes me think of what Hodge said during our Skype talk as well -- designers are clearly…

Curtir

Dana Glaser
Dana Glaser
08 de nov. de 2018

I agree that there's a flip side to the anxiety produced by non-compulsory read receipts, which is the comfort provided by the compulsory read receipt. Did anyone else have bbm? I loved bbm and still miss it: I think there can be a lot of anxiety attached to sending a message into what silence turns into the ether and not being able to manage or watch its delivery. Read/not read shades and eliminates the imaginative possibilities of what's going on at the other end of the text thread (i.e.: someone meeting you is late; if you text them sans read receipts and get silence, you have no idea what's going on; if you bbm them and they read it --…

Curtir

gaboj
07 de nov. de 2018

I think "debt" is a really good way to think about this because the read receipt connotes an absence. "Being left on read" means not being replied to. It's like a receipt without a product. The person who has been read feels that they are owed something. I also agree with your choice to bring that quote from Hodge where the problem is if this type of exchange never turns off. It's something worth further investigation, since I imagine that unresponded-to letters were extremely common, but unresponded-to messages are considered more of a slight because it is so convenient and immediate to respond.

Curtir

cgortmaker
07 de nov. de 2018

Evan, I was really struck by the way you expanded on this blog post in class today. Your idea of the compulsory read receipt is a really good example of how Chun's radical digital publicness might be put into practice. You speculated that as a formal feature of a messaging platform like Facebook Messenger or iMessage, the compulsory read receipt might short-circuit the anxiety and logic of debt that attends the instantaneity of digital communication. The compulsory read receipt would make attention—the emotional or affective labor of always-on networked communication—part of the information conveyed by a digital message. This might allow the public of a digital messaging platform to perceive what Hodge calls the "central problem of always-on computing... th…

Curtir
bottom of page