Computer networks and other various forms of electronic communication are increasingly hyped as a new medium of democratic and social discourse. Many believe that these new virtual communities promote fraternity and civic participation and soothe the anomie and coarseness of contemporary life. Electronic conversations on the Internet and other computer networks such as America On Line and Compu-Serve are a new and interesting feature of contemporary social life and manners. The systems are engaging millions of people in ongoing, semi-organized forums. Topics ranging from politics to gardening to astronomy all find a niche in the ever increasing public dialogue.
While the new electronic medium is having a liberating effect for many, it is also producing discouraging and even alarming displays of public virtue among many. The growing phenomenon of flaming- insulting, argumentative or chastising replies to previous messages- is now developing as a sociological issue of concern. Flaming is developing as a net tradition complete with its own distinctive rituals, jargon, custioms and dynamics. Use-Net news groups have become vast libraries of pyrotechnic insults. (Chapman, 14) In Mark Dery's article entitled "Flame Wars", he provides a few choice examples of a flame: "You syphilitic bovine harpy", "You heaving purulent mammoth", "You twitching gelatinous yolk of rancid smegma". It is hard to imagine such exchanges occuring at a cocktail party or in the supermarket.
The role of flaming is still somewhat ambiguous. Some believe that it is the Net's way of regulating itself. (Kozma) Cyberspace has evolved with no central authority and therefore no way of enforcing "netiquette" or the normal conventions for proper behaviour. The responsibility for correct conduct therefore falls upon the individual. As a result, certain individuals have taken it upon themselves to flame others who violate group norms. The flames can range from wild rebukes to venomous personal attacks. The flamers may utilize devices such as humour, irony, or sarcasm to make their point, though profanity and name calling are not uncommon.
One can be flamed for a variety of reasons. Some types of flames are so common that they have been given their own names. Spelling Flames point out spelling errors and even simple typos have resulted in absurd flames. Ironically, these types of flames almost always contain mistakes of their own. (Kozma) Dictionary Flames correct a definition or questions the use of a term, sometimes as a tactic for side-tracking the central issue under debate. (Kozma) Other classic reasons for flaming include bandwith waste, incorrect use of technology, ethical violations, inappropriate language, factual errors, and breaches of net-work or group-specific standards.
Netters, however, do not flame soley in response to violations of netiquette. Many do it for fun. Flaming is an opportunity to express their creativity with words, to perform before an audience and a chance to receive noteriety on the net. This type of recreational flaming involves individuals attempting to provoke each other with witty comments. Sometimes, the goal is not to flame, but to be flamed. Some messages are even designed to lure flames from other readers. They usually express some controversial statement in a manner designed to annoy or anger others.
Electronic conversations appear to be prone to misrepresentation, sudden and rapidly escalating hostility between the participants, and a weird kind of implosion when the conversants express their anger with sulking silence. (Chapman, 14) This may be because, unlike face to face conversation, electronic medium contains no visual cues. The letter characters cannot carry body language or tone and are therefore prone to misunderstanding. Writers tend to bungle their attempts at sarcasm and the readers tend to bungle their detection. This invariably leads to hurt feelings which in turn leads to network "flame wars". Flame wars can involve dozens of people and can go on for weeks or even months. Most end purely because the participants grow bored of the topic. Issues which tend to ignite flame wars include abortion, gun control, homosexuality, freedom of speech, and religion.
Techniques such as Emoticons and various acronyms have been devised in an attempt to overcome this growing problem of misunderstood communication. Emoticons are nothing more than characters that look like a face when viewed side-ways. They are commonly inserted at the end of a sentence that is meant to be interpreted as sarcasm or more generally are used when the writer fears that his words will be miscontrued. A smiley face has the ability to transform a cutting remark into a comical jest. Acronyms also attempt to diffuse the problem of flaming. Abbreviations such as IMHO (in my humble opinion), PMFJI (pardon me for jumping in), are used by individuals who wish to express an opinion but wish to avoid being flamed by others for their comment. These techniques are an ongoing attempt to overcome the lack of visual cues on electronic communication systems.
In his papers, Erving Goffman studied the techniques of impression management. He described how people negotiate and validate identities in face to face encounters, and how people establish "frames" within which to evaluate the meaning of encounters. He concluded that one of the things that people need to do in their interactions with others is present themselves as an acceptable person. There are a number of techniques and resources available to a person to allow them to do this. The most important of these resources is the distinction between back region and front region in each individual. This distinction minimizes the chance of presenting an unacceptable self by reducing situations that may be embarrassing.
In face to face interactions, attempts are made to present an "idealized" version of the front, more consistent with the norms, mores, and laws of society than the behaviour of the actor when not before an audience. Any information dealing with peculiar behaviour of the individual is concealed from the audience while those characteristics which are socially sanctioned are made more prominant. While individuals may display a "socially acceptable" front stage presentation to their audience, their back stage preparation often contradicts the impression they have fostered. This indicates that the back stage is the more "truthful" type of performance. It is within this region, absent from social responsibility, that conflict and indifference towards societal values and norms are more fully explored. There is, however, pressure to display this idealized self when interacting with others and so back stage performance is often supressed. We can see that those who display their back stage performance to others are stigmatized and discredited by society. Therefore, in order to acheive full acceptance by society, the actor is forced to assimilate into it.
Electronic communication has established a new range of frames of interaction with developing etiquette. On systems such as Newsgroups, the problem of establishing and maintaining an acceptable self becomes less important. Over the Internet, place and distance become largely invisible. The communications can be one-to-one but they may also be one-to-many, one-to-anyone, or one-to-no one. Finally, due to the lack of frames of reference over the Internet, individuals are not able to frame their interactions with others appropriately. These issues combined present restrictions for problem-free communication on the computer.
In face to face interactions, the performer and the audience normally utilize techniques for "saving the show" or avoiding likely interruptions. Over electronic communication, the accomodation process becomes much less defined. Due to the anonymity on the Internet, individuals feel less pressure to follow societal rules of politeness and decorum. The ambiguous nature of self over electronic communication decreases the desire to maintain a working consensus between the performer and the audience. The attitude which the performer would normally express in the absence of the audience begins to emerge. The distinction between the "back region" preparation and the "front region" presentation become blurred. The individual feels less need to hide his abnormal or socially unacceptable thinking and behaviour. The back region preparation comes to the forefront and those feelings which are normally supressed begin to emerge while the front region's socially sanctioned behaviour becomes discarded. This phenomenon accounts for the preponderance of flaming and flame wars which pervade much of the electronic highways. The individual feels less constraint to present themselves as "normal" to others. A popular explanation for the preponderance of flaming on the Internet is that flaming is a by-product of the medium itself- that the decontextualization and anonymous nature of computer mediated conversation leads to the tendancy to forget that there is an actual human being at the receiving end of one's emotional outbursts. (Chapman, 14)
Susan Herring has written an article entitled "Gender Differences in Computer-Mediated Communication: Bringing Familiar Baggage to the New Frontier". Within her work, Herring reveals that women and men have noticeably different styles in postings to the Internet. She found that styles of interaction on electronic medium are stereotypically gendered. The male style of communication is characterized by an adversarial style: Put downs, lengthy and/or frequent postings, and sarcasm. The female-gendered style, in contrast, is typically supportive and positive. Herring goes on to discuss the work of Erving Goffman and how it can help explain the behaviour of the sexes. She mentions that the female style of interaction takes into consideration what Goffman calls the "face" wants of the addressee or the desires of the addressee to feel liked and ratified. The male style, in contrast, confronts and threatens the addressee's "face" in the process of engaging him in antagonistic debate.
Given these differing styles of communication and interaction, it is not surprising that men seem to be doing most of the talking and attracting the most attention to themselves on mixed-sex lists. Men tend to dominate discussions even on women-centred topics while women are often ignored or criticized by men. Much of the literature has revealed that it is virtually only men who flame. A possible explanation for this pattern is that male ethical ideals can be evoked to justify flaming. Men assign a great deal of value upon open expression and antagonistic debate and they therefore both justify and tolerate flaming over electronic communication.
Debates regarding the prevalence and the function of electronic flaming are increasing in size and intensity. The questions on whether the peculiar features of computer communication are amplifying the decline of our traditional mores and manners or whther they are merely providing a glimpse of what is already smoldering in the minds of many has evoked fierce argumentation. Utilizing Erving Goffman's theory on the presentation of self, we have suggested that these outbursts of hostilities over electronic communication do not represent new emotions. Rather, the decontextualized nature of computer mediated conversation makes it possible for "some" to disregard the socially sanctioned behaviour of the front region, and instead display what may be brewing, heretofore unsaid, in the back regions of many individuals.