Phatic communication is a mode of communication where the significative content of the used utterance gives way to the social bonding function of the utterance itself. This mode of communication appears to be increasingly common in our current media culture and is exemplified by frequent photo sharing through applications such as Snapchat. However, most theoretical discussions on phatic communication have taken place in the context of linguistic expressions. In this theoretical article, we broaden the focus to visual interpersonal communication by way of photography theory. We suggest that photographic phatic communication is based on the indexicality of the medium itself and the sense of presence it produces. We argue further that, contrary to previous literature, photographic phatic communication is not without meaningful content. However, we propose that it is connected, primarily, to the material indexicality of the photograph and only secondarily to the signifying function of the iconic content.
AtkinA (2005) Peirce on the index and indexical reference. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society41(1): 161–188.
2.
BaradK (2012) On touching – the inhuman that therefore I Am. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies23(3): 206–223.
3.
BarthesR (1983) Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. New York: Hill & Wang.
4.
BayerJEllisonNSchoenebeckS, et al. (2016) Sharing the small moments: ephemeral social interaction on Snapchat. Information, Communication & Society19(7): 956–977.
5.
BodenDMolotchH (1994) The compulsion of proximity. In: FriedlandRBodenD (eds) Nowhere Space Time and Modernity. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 257–286.
6.
BoudanaSFroshPCohenAA (2017) Reviving icons to death: when historic photographs become digital memes. Media, Culture & Society39(8): 1210–1230.
CareyJW (2009) A cultural approach to communication. In CareyJW (ed.) Communication as Culture: Essays on Media and Society. Revised ed. New York; London: Routledge, pp. 11–28.
9.
CouplandJCouplandNRobinsonJ (1992) ‘How are you?’ Negotiating phatic communion. Language in Society21(2): 207–230.
10.
EdwardsE (2012) Objects of affect: photography beyond the image. Annual Review of Anthropology41: 221–234.
11.
EdwardsEHartJ (eds) (2004) Photographs Objects Histories: On the Materiality of Images. London: Routledge.
12.
ElkinsJ (ed.) (2007) Photography Theory. New York: Routledge.
13.
FetveitA (1999) Reality TV in the digital era: a paradox in visual culture?Media, Culture & Society21(6): 787–804.
14.
FeynmanR (1988) QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
15.
FrizotM (2007) Who’s afraid of photons? In: ElkinsJ (ed.) Photography Theory. New York: Routledge, pp. 269–283.
16.
JakobsonR (1960) Linguistics and poetics. In: SebeokTA (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 350–377.
17.
JakobsonR (1971) Linguistics and communication theory. In: JakobsonR (ed.) Selected Writings, Vol 2: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 570–579.
18.
JakobsonR (1980) Metalanguage as a linguistic problem. In: JakobsonR (ed.) The Framework of Language (Michigan Studies in the Humanities). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, pp. 81–92.
19.
JerslevAMortensenM (2016) What is the self in the celebrity selfie? Celebrification, phatic communication and performativity. Celebrity Studies7(2): 249–263.
20.
JohnN (2012) Sharing and Web 2.0: the emergence of a keyword. New Media & Society15(2): 167–182.
21.
KeightleyEPickeringM (2014) Technologies of memory: practices of remembering in analogue and digital photography. New Media & Society16(4): 576–593.
LangloisGElmerG (2013) The research politics of social media platforms. Culture Machine14: 1–17.
25.
LaverJ (1975) Communicative functions of phatic communion. In: KendonAHarrisRKeyM (eds) Organization of Behavior in Face-to-Face Interaction. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, pp. 215–238.
26.
LehmuskallioAGómez CruzE (2016) Why material visual practices? In: LehmuskallioAGómez CruzE (eds) Digital Photography and Everyday Life: Empirical Studies on Material Visual Practices. London: Routledge, pp. 1–16.
27.
LevinsonS (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
LicoppeCSmoredaZ (2005) Are social networks technologically embedded? How networks are changing today with changes in communication technology. Social Networks27(4): 317–335.
29.
LobingerK (2016) Photographs as things – photographs of things. A texto-material perspective on photo-sharing practices. Information, Communication & Society19(4): 475–488.
30.
MalinowskiB (1989) The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In: OgdenCKRichardsIA (eds) The Meaning of Meaning. San Diego, CA: Harvest/HBJ Book, pp. 296–336.
31.
ManovichL (2009) The practice of everyday (media) life: from mass consumption to mass cultural production?Critical Inquiry35(2): 319–331.
32.
MascheroniGVincentJ (2016) Perceptual contact as a communicative affordance: opportunities, constraints, and emotions. Mobile Media & Communication4(3): 310–326.
33.
MillerV (2008) New media, networking and phatic culture. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies14(4): 387–400.
34.
MurrayS (2008) Digital images, photo-sharing, and our shifting notions of everyday aesthetics. Journal of Visual Culture7(2): 147–163.
35.
PeirceCS (1960) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
PetersCAllanS (2018) Everyday imagery: users’ reflections on smartphone cameras and communication. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies24(4): 357–373.
38.
RubinsteinDSluisK (2013) Algorithmic photography and the crises of representation. In: MartinL (ed.) The Photographic Image in Digital Culture. New York: Routledge, pp. 22–40.
39.
SandbyeM (2012) It has not been – it is. The signaletic transformation of photography. Journal of Aesthetics & Culture4(1): 18159.
40.
SaranojaA-HIsomursuMHäkkiläJ (2013) Small talk with Facebook – phatic communication in social media. Proceedings of International Conference on Making Sense of Converging Media10: 118–121.
41.
SenftG (2009) Phatic communion. In: SenftGÖstmanJVerschuerenJ (eds) Culture and Language Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 226–233.
42.
SeppänenJ (2017) Unruly representation: materiality, indexicality and agency of the photographic trace. Photographies10(1): 113–128.
43.
SofferO (2016) The oral paradigm and Snapchat. Social Media + Society2(3): 1–4.
44.
SuH (2015) Constant connection as the media condition of love: where bonds become bondage. Media, Culture & Society38(2): 232–247.
45.
VilliM (2012) Visual chitchat: the use of camera phones in visual interpersonal communication. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture3(1): 39–54.
