Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2017-5
From “connected presence” to “panoptic presence”: Reframing the parent–child relationship on mobile instant messaging uses in the Chinese translocal context
In the high-speed translocal social setting, intergenerational solidarity is arguably weakening in Chinese society. The proposed study adopts an interactionist perspective, using semistructured interviews as well as communicative behavior records provided by interviewees to analyze the interactions between young adults and their geographically distant parents through a mobile instant messaging (MIM) service application. Taking WeChat as a case, this study focuses specifically on the use of MIM to manage and maintain parent–child relationships in a translocal context. Findings confirm the interaction patterns of “connected presence” and further suggest an emerging “panoptic-presence” consciousness among the young adults, leading to a performative mode of interaction with their parents. Meanwhile, though individualism prevails among the younger generation, family values and norms rooted in traditional Chinese culture are found to be both explicitly and implicitly practiced. Limitations and future directions are also discussed.
AxelssonA. (2010). Perpetual and personal: Swedish young adults and their use of mobile phones. New Media & Society, 12(1), 35–54.
2.
BengtsonV. L.RobertsR. E. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in aging families: An example of formal theory construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(4), 856–870.
3.
BüscherM.UrryJ. (2009). Mobile methods and the empirical. European Journal of Social Theory, 12(1), 99–116.
4.
CaoJ. (2009). The analysis of tendency of transition from collectivism to individualism in China. Cross-Cultural Communication, 5(4), 42–50.
5.
CarbaughD. (2007). Cultural discourse analysis: Communication practices and intercultural encounters. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36(3), 167–182.
6.
CaronA.CaroniaL. (2007). Moving cultures: Mobile communication in everyday life. Montréal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
7.
CastellsM.FernándezM.QiuL.SeyA. (2007). Mobile communication and society: A global perspective: A project of the Annenberg Research Network on International Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
ChangH.HoltG. (1991). More than relationship: Chinese interaction and the principle of Kuan-Hsi. Communication Quarterly, 39(3), 251–271.
9.
ChenG. M. (2002). The impact of harmony on Chinese conflict management. In ChenG. M.MaR. (Eds.), Chinese conflict management and resolution (pp. 3–17). Westport, CT: Ablex.
10.
ChenR. (2015). Weaving individualism into collectivism: Chinese adults’ evolving relationship and family values. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 46(2), 167–179.
11.
ChenY. F.KatzJ. E. (2009). Extending family to school life: College students’ use of the mobile phone. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 67(2), 179–191.
12.
ChengS.ChanA. (2006). Filial piety and psychological well-being in well older Chinese. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 61B(5), 262–269.
13.
CheungK. W.PanS. (2006). Transition of moral education in China: Towards regulated individualism. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 2(2), 37–50.
14.
ChouM.LiuC. (2016). Mobile instant messengers and middle-aged and elderly adults in Taiwan: Uses and gratifications. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 32, 835–846. doi:10447318.2016.1201892
15.
ChristensenT. (2009). “Connected presence” in distributed family life. New Media & Society, 11(3), 433–451.
16.
ChurchK.de OliveiraR. (2013). What’s up with WhatsApp?: Comparing mobile instant messaging behaviors with traditional SMS. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction With Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 352–361). Munich, Germany: ACM.
17.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
18.
CuiD. (2015). Beyond “connected presence”: Multimedia mobile instant messaging in close relationship management. Mobile Media & Communication. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/2050157915583925
19.
DuckS. (2007). Human relationships (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
20.
FiskeJ. (1993). Power plays, power works. London, UK: Verso.
21.
GergenK. J. (2002). The challenge of absent-presence. In KatzJ.AakhusM. (Eds.), Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance (pp. 223–227). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
22.
GoffmanE. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
23.
HoltzS. (2013). Get the message. Communication World, 30(8), 10–13.
24.
KatzJ.AakhusM. (2002). Perpetual contact: Mobile communication, private talk, public performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
25.
LamS. (2013). ICT’s impact on family solidarity and upward mobility in translocal China. Asian Journal of Communication, 23(3), 322–340.
26.
Leeds-HurwitzW. (2006). Social theories: Social constructionism and symbolic interactionism. In BraithwaiteD. O.BaxterL. A. (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 229–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
LicoppeC. (2004). “Connected” presence: The emergence of a new repertoire for managing social relationships in a changing communication technoscape. Environment and Planning D, 22(1), 135–156.
28.
LinT.LiL. (2014). Perceived characteristics, perceived popularity, and playfulness: Youth adoption of mobile instant messaging in China. China Media Research, 10(2), 60–71.
29.
LindlofT.TaylorB. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
30.
LingR. (2000). “We will be reached”: The use of mobile telephony among Norwegian youth. Information Technology & People, 13(2), 102–120.
31.
LingR. (2004). The mobile connection: The cell phone’s impact on society. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
32.
LingR.YttriB. (2002). Hyper-coordination via mobile phones in Norway. In KatzJ. E.AakhusM. (Eds.), Perpetual contact (pp. 139–169). Port Chester, NY: Cambridge University Press.
33.
LyonD. (2006). The search for surveillance theories. In LyonD. (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance: The panopticon and beyond (pp. 3–20). Cullompton, UK: Willan.
34.
MAXQDA 12.0 [Computer software]. Berlin, Germany: VERBI GmbH.
35.
NagyP.NeffG. (2015). Imagined affordance: Reconstructing a keyword for communication theory. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–9. doi:10.1177/2056305115603385
36.
NollerP.FitzpatrickM. A. (1993). Communication in family relationships. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
PerrymanJ. (2006). Panoptic performativity and school inspection regimes: Disciplinary mechanisms and life under special measures. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 147–161.
SilcockM.PayneD.HockingC. (2015). Governmentality within children’s technological play: Findings from a critical discourse analysis. Children & Society. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/chso.12123
41.
SilversteinM.BengtsonV. (1997). Intergenerational solidarity and the structure of adult child–parent relationships in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 429–460.
VestbyG. M. (1996). Technologies of autonomy? Parenthood in contemporary “modern times.” In LieM.SørensenK. H. (Eds.), Making technology our own? Domesticating technology into everyday life (pp. 65–90). Oslo, Norway: Scandinavian University Press.
46.
WeiR.LoV. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social connectedness. New Media & Society, 8(1), 53–72.
47.
WellmanB.Quan-HaaseA.BoaseJ.ChenW.HamptonK.DíazI.MiyataK. (2003). The social affordances of the Internet for networked individualism. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 8(3). Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2003.tb00216.x
48.
WoodC.KempN.PlesterB. (2014). Text messaging and literacy: The evidence. New York, NY: Routledge.
49.
YoonC.JeongC.RollandE. (2015). Understanding individual adoption of mobile instant messaging: A multiple perspectives approach. Information Technology and Management, 16(2), 139–151.
50.
YoonK. (2003). Retraditionalizing the mobile: Young people’s sociality and mobile phone use in Seoul, South Korea. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 6(3), 327–343.
51.
ZhangY. B.HarwoodJ.HummertM. L. (2005). Perceptions of conflict management styles in Chinese intergenerational dyads. Communication Monographs, 72(1), 71–91.
52.
ZhangY. B.HummertM. L. (2002). Harmonies and tensions in Chinese intergenerational communication: Younger and older adults’ accounts. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11(2), 203–230.
