Being here: spaces of observation, agency and performitivity

Presence research over the last 30 years has been mostly concerned with the understanding and creation of human experiences in virtual environments. Tele-presence, and the potential occurrence of social presence and co-presence within virtual environments, focus on the creation and monitoring of the sense of ‘being there’.

Many detailed contributions to the field (refs) have been made but no agreement on definitions and distinctions has been reached (Lombard & Jones 2007). From a philosophical perspective Luciano Floridi critiques the current conceptual foundation of tele-presence theory and proposes a new model of presence as ‘successful observation’ (Floridi 2005). Floridi argues that tele-presence is used as ‘a definition of epistemic failure’, which is primarily founded in perception. Even interaction is analyzed as the perception of interaction and not as the interaction itself. Floridi argues that the current tele-presence models do not pay tribute to the complex dynamics between presence and absence, nor does it take the different levels of abstraction and spaces of observation into account: “For surely the doctor tele-operating on a patient is still present, independently of the doctor’s perception (or lack thereof) of the technological mediation.” (Floridi 2005: 660). Floridi argues that local and remote spaces of observation and different levels of analysis define presence.
Multiple experiences of different kinds of presence only become more complex, more hybrid, less linear and more fragmented. In every product or process the dichotomy between human nature and non–human nature can be distinguished and at the same time hybrids are almost immediately accepted in their own right (Latour 1993). Physical, natural presence, the traditional basis for determining trust and truth in the context of social activities (Giddens 1984), is no longer the only determinant. When being in a place, in an on- or offline or mixed environment, ‘action’ generates a connection between “the material and symbolic resources that constitute a place and setting the terms of the agent’s presence” (Spagnolli & Gamberini 2005). However, in these new environments key-concepts of, for example, distance, connection, impact or locality, have been deeply affected by the use of technologies (Virillio 2008). Tracking and tracing, collecting and distributing, presence and absence have changed the scale and patterns of communication. They have changed how people act and how they relate to each other. Because the time-space configurations of social structures have changed, also the agency of the actor has changed (Giddens 1984). As a consequence the negotiation of trust and truth has acquired new dynamics, because not only the spaces of observation are more complex, also the agency of the witness is transformed.
Judicial systems in Europe have developed over the last 2000 years and as such they reflect knowledge of social structures that human kind has known so far in this part of the world. In judicial contexts a witness is a crucial figure and courts demand a witness to be sworn in. Having been an observer is not enough; a witness has to take the stand and take responsibility for the report on what has been observed and experienced. The fact that an action that is witnessed becomes a deed upon which can be testified emphasizes the possible impact of the act of witnessing. While witnessing a witness can decide to intervene in the witnessed situation as well. When witnessed, the executing power of the same action has changed for both the one who witnesses as well as of for the one who is being witnessed.
The notion of witnessed presence proposed in this paper emphasizes how presence is performed, can be performed or cannot be performed in the context of a communication process in which multiple types of presence play a role. In addition to understanding the witness as a chosen position in a specific situation, ‘having presence in the world’ can also be understood from the perspective of performitivity (Butler 1993). In performative acts biological conditions and social identities merge into, for example, the performance of gender or sexuality. When studying presence in on- and offline environments the notion of presence as ‘enacting being’ is informative. Also language can be performative, when words become deeds (Austin 1962). As most mediated environments are dependent on written code and commands to enable presence in mediated environments, the performative perspective on presence contributes to the understanding of presence as a chosen ‘enactment’ facilitating certain actions and excluding others.
Luc Steels argues that processes of attribution, synchronization and adaptation define the performance of presence in natural and mediated presences (Steels 2006). ‘Tuning’ presence happens in both (Nevejan 2007). In social structures the understanding of different types of mediated presence is deeply influenced by the development of media schemata. Media schemata, define how mediated presence will be accepted and how they execute power in the social structures in which they function (IJsselsteijn 2004). Media schemata, change over time and are different in the variety of (sub) cultures around the globe. The way, for example, television, email or an SMS is understood and accepted, is defined by such media schemata.
The notion of witnessed presence as performance resonates with Floridi’s critique on current tele-presence theory. Floridi emphasizes the dynamics between local and remote spaces of observation in which the local space of observation is defined by physical presence that is bound to space and time. The notion of witnessed presence shifts the tele-presence focus from ‘being there’ to a focus on presence as ‘being-here’ in relation to many other here’s and there’s available. It is in the being-here that the perspective on agency and performitivity of presence is to be found as argued in the following paragraph.