Flames: The What, Why, and How of Insults on the Web

Flames: The What, Why, and How of Insults on the Web
Short Essay #1
By: Jamie Wilson
COML 509 Social Dynamics of Communication Technology
Gonzaga University
May 30, 2009

Introduction

Chances are, Internet users may not know the term, but have felt the effects of one. Flames, as their name suggests, are heated remarks that surface in forums such as online discussion groups. The purpose of this paper is to explain why people resort to flaming, the research and psychology behind such actions, as well as ways in which to deal with these types of assaults.

Flaming Explained

Flaming falls in the third category of the “thrill-spill-and-kill myth” that the authors identify in Computer Mediated Communication (2004). “Flames (or flaming) are often understood to be hostile and aggressive interactions in CMC…” (Thurlow, Lengel & Tomic, 2004, p. 70). Safe behind the computer screen, flamers have resorted to insulting and harassing others while online. I have encountered such attacks in the personal, professional, and educational arenas. Attacks have ranged from name calling and sarcastic remarks to derogatory comments concerning my intelligence. All of these are examples of flames and vary on a scale from rude to obscene and threatening (p.70). In studying these, I wanted to explore why flames are thrown in the first place.

The reasons behind flaming are a little difficult to define. It may be hard to pinpoint the exact cause and effect nature of these wars, but some have offered an insight. “The blurring of geographic boundaries, the hybrid of nonface-to-face written communication and asynchronous multiparty verbal interaction, the breaking down of private and public boundaries, and the blurring of the real and virtual are involved in flaming in cyberspace” (Lee, 2005, p.386). In a sense, when you get people from a variety of backgrounds together and they open themselves up by voicing opinions, there are bound to be disagreements that inevitably can turn nasty and unruly.

Research

Scholars have completed research in this field and have presented information regarding flame interpretation. Patrick O’Sullivan and Andrew Flanagin (as cited in Thurlow, Lengel & Tomic, 2004, pp. 71-74) provide an Interactional-Normative Framework as a guide to this “online aggression.” In it, the four principles dictate that when considering flames, one must understand that people have different perceptions of language (p.72). What one person deciphers as a flame may not have been the original intent. These perceptions are also influenced by the relationships with the sender and receiver as well as what is considered a social norm within the group (p.72). Furthermore, by putting the words into context, a person can judge the message within those parameters (p.72). Without this background knowledge or if the words are viewed by an outsider greatly effects the interpretation. One of the most important pieces of information from their research is that messages can be deciphered in a variety of ways, depending on the individual’s perspective. Whether or not the intended message is meant to be a flame and whether is it received or perceived as one are some key ingredients to the equation (p.74).

In response to flames, I have tried a variety of approaches; never sure which one was best or most beneficial. Ignoring worked at times but I felt that this may have sent the attacker the message of acceptance. When I have made retorts back, either calm or aggressive, the flames usually just escalated and grew in intensity while never resolving the basic issue. Researcher Hangwoo Lee (2005) offers insight and strategies in dealing with flame wars after her two year observational period of a Usenet chat group (p.386).

Strategies: How to deal with flames

The first strategy, competitive-dominating, is when participants try to top each other with insults and slurs. Usually during these, someone intervenes using a variety of methods. These could include pointing out the alienation of the others in the group or by writing/posting poems expressing feelings (Lee, 2005, pp.388-391). Others take on another strategy – avoiding, which usually consists of withdrawing from the conversation or group (p. 392). Utilizing cooperative-integrating strategies as a means of coping with the flaming involves apologizing, involving a third party mediator, and joking to alleviate tension (pp. 393-396). Other times, it is necessary to involve others in the group to show support in a unified fashion against the attacks (pp. 396-397). Some have learned to brush off flames with the explanation that it is normal, expected, or playful due to the group’s familiarity with each other (pp. 397-400).

It may also be appropriate to establish a dialogue with the flame thrower. “If someone has blasted you or your organization, ask about the circumstances that led to the person’s dissatisfaction; come across as humane….Say you’re sorry about the situation, and ask how you might resolve it together” (Goldsborough & Page, 2005, p. 24). Using effective communication as a tool may be the most helpful tactic in analyzing the reason(s) behind the flame and bringing the conflict to an end.

Conclusion

While flame throwing is not a phenomenon based only in the Internet community, it is a dynamic that certainly can escalate and alienate those involved. It is imperative to understand the cause and effect relationships of the flames; what may have prompted the attack and how to address the situation. Understanding these issues can not only alleviate personal stress but may help to make cyberspace a bit friendlier.


References

Goldsborough, R., & Page, L. (2005, February). How to respond to flames (Without getting singed). Information Today, 22(2), 23-26. Retrieved May 27, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Lee, H. (2005). Behavioral strategies for dealing with flaming in an online forum. The Sociological Quarterly, 46, 385-403. Retrieved May 27, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

O’Sullivan, P.B. & Flanagin, A. (2003). Reconceptualizing ‘flaming’ and other problematic communication. New Media and Society, 5(1), 67-93.

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. London: SAGE.

CMC, F2F, and Personality

Is CMC a richer form of communication than face-to-face?

Face-to-face communication is a medium that I would once say that I always preferred. Since beginning my online education at Gonzaga, my view has been altered because of the friendships I have been able to form and the conversations I have been a part of. Depending on the type of CMC, I would venture to say that it can be a richer form when compared to face-to-face communication in some instances. This is due to the ability to “see” the person with such technologies as Skype or the ability to “see” emotions through emoticons or netspeak. Chatting in virtual chat rooms or through instant messaging is also a rich environment where a person can have a conversation with many people at once, from the comfort of their home behind a computer. It gives many people the confidence to speak when they may be less likely in face-to-face situations.

What is lacking in CMC is the ability to detect hostile words or those perceived to be hostile by the receiver. Using the Box BT6:4: Multiple Perspectives on Flames (Thurlow et al, 2004, p.74), as a guide, it is easy to discern where messages seem to get mixed. If a message is unclear, then it may be easier to misinterpret words. This is especially true if sender and receiver are not familiar with each other or with the respective style of writing and therefore, one can easily become withdrawn, confused, or angry.

To what extent is your Internet personality a construction?

Recently, I have started writing true stories from my life on my family blog. My personality can be seen everywhere –from the pictures I post and the font I use to the wallpaper that lines the background (p.99). While my online personality and real-life one are synonymous, I do practice varying “degrees of anonymity” (p.62).

I have seen firsthand the advantages and disadvantages of anonymity on the Internet. Because I keep a family blog, I am very careful of a few facts. I never state full names and I do not publish where I live. In this case, I want to preserve my sense of safety and security, especially since I have a small child. It may seem like a contradiction in the sense that I am putting a lot of information for all to see while being mindful of revealing too much.

On the positive side, the site allows for a creative outlet to reveal personal stories or anecdotes, all of which I would share face to face with another person if they were interested. It is a way to connect with family, friends, and strangers and enhance “comradeship” and “inspiration” over common ground, such as motherhood (p. 59).

I am also very aware that people leave rude anonymous comments on such sites because they feel safe behind the computer screen (p.62). As the site administrator, I have attempted to thwart such attacks by approving all comments before they are published on the site. This is an attempt of controlling some form of my online identity. “The fact is, however, that identity isn’t only a matter of what we think about ourselves or what we tell others about ourselves. Other people too have a say in our social identity…” (p. 96).

Thurlow, C., Lengel, L., & Tomic, A. (2004). Computer mediated communication: Social interaction and the Internet. London: SAGE.

Are scientists and engineers responsible to the culture for their discoveries?

“Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen and thinking what nobody has thought.” Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, 1937, Nobel Prize Winner
When an inventor creates - whether it is a hammer, a bomb, a computer, or a phone, there is a notion that it will be used. It is their responsibility to ensure that it is of sound quality. Building upon ideas, as many great inventors have done, allows others to create, explore, and learn. It is their responsibility to not only take credit for the item's successes, but also for its failures. (Example: Poorly designed vehicles)

"Technology giveth and technology taketh away" (Postman, 1998, p.2).
Our culture incurs great responsibility with the addition of discoveries and technology. If we use the invention in a way that was not intended by the inventor, then how can we hold the creator responsible? It's like holding God responsible for the evil in the world. People have free-will an will do with it as they please and we cannot hold scientists and engineers responsible for this. (Example: Chat rooms are places where people gather to converse, share ideas, and passions. When cyber-bullying takes place, many young people are so badly affected by these virtual assaults that some resort to suicide. Can we hold responsible the inventor(s) of chat rooms and the internet? No.)

What is Technology - My Thoughts

What is Technology – My thoughts
I think this is a very tough question because technology can be many things for different people. For my grandfather, it is his home telephone, remote control, and the satellite dish. For me it includes such things as my cell phone, the internet, my blog, Shutterfly, Facebook, and Skype. To my former students, it’s online gaming, music sharing, texting, and instant messaging. Technology is a medium, a tool in which you use to communicate, share, and receive information.

Culture
I think our culture shapes how we use and interpret technology. If your demands are high, such as mine, then the technology is used more and it reflects the culture and world in which I choose to work and live in. But on the flip side, my grandfather’s world and culture is very different. He has no draw to that world and sees no point in connecting in that manner.

Mixed benefits
With that being said, I do believe technology has mixed benefits, as illustrated in the posting detailing, “Not all tech users sold on benefits, study says” (Associated Press, 2007). I would categorize myself somewhere between an “Omnivore” and a “Connector.” I use technology all day long but I strive to be mindful not to lose the human connection. That is where I think the biggest mixed benefit resides; with all of the technology we have at our fingertips, it’s easy to stop the face to face interactions for a quicker and easier method.

Example - Email
For example, I used to sit in a large room with four other desks and instead of turning around and talking to my coworker, I would sometimes shoot her an email. How many people can say that they do the same thing?
Email is a powerful tool that can get work done across the miles in a fraction of a second, but when does email inhibit the verbal communication? When does email create miscommunication when we depend on our written word to be determined by others? How has email affected the culture of grammar conscience individuals?