Screen-based interaction retains the emotional exposure of bodily copresence.

Evidence

Pure response-presence–based interactions do not exclude, but continue to evoke, the feelings of physical exposure and vulnerability that Goffman saw as characteristic of situations of bodily copresence. This is another sense in which global microstructures can be seen as extended beyond the face-to-face situation. — Karin Knorr Cetina & Urs Bruegger, Global Microstructures, 103

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Goffman’s face-to-face interaction theory and to the reader’s screen-based-market ethnography canon; also resonates with Knorr Cetina’s and Beunza’s work on trading rooms. — connects to: Trivial social media posts create emotional intimacy through ambient awareness — Alice E. Marwick, Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity,…, 562; Distraction and mediation can be emancipatory rather than merely degrading — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 351; Smartphone touch operates without sensuality, as digital relays rather than felt contact — Mark Fisher (edited by Darren Ambrose), K-Punk: The Collected and Unpublished…, 1768
• DEEPTHINKING: A dense claim about how disembodied electronic interaction preserves the felt vulnerability of copresence — challenges the easy assumption that online markets strip away the body’s stakes.

Related

• Response presence can sustain intersubjective social forms across global distances (similarity 0.80)
• Distraction and mediation can be emancipatory rather than merely degrading (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Distraction and mediation can be emancipatory rather than merely degrading #qualifies (0.75) — Yves Citton, The Ecology of Attention, 351