Anonymous Relationships: Alcoholics Anonymous and Mediated Communication

Sample

Despite the historical importance of anonymity as a form of free speech, the relevance of anonymous communication has flourished in more recent decades, with the development of computer mediated communication, which provides a wide range of options to communicate without being identified (and to detect the identity of others also). Anonymous (1998) defines anonymity in terms of the perceived degree of identifiability and describes two types of relevance here: physical anonymity (e.g., when an actual person is not visible or when even a picture/image is missing) and discursive anonymity (when no name or other identifying indicators, such as location/address, are available). Whereas there are only a few options to anonymize communication in face-to-face settings, a wide range of possibilities exist, in at least some forms, via computer-mediated communication (e.g., chatrooms, some online forums, group decision support systems, search engines, anonymous social media, and anonymous accounts on an even wider range of tools). In some cases, the reduced social cues, or specific uses of technology, aff ord various types and degrees of anonymity/ identifiability (Marx, 2004). In other cases, anonymity may be an explicit option, or even the default setting, for a technology (Jardine, 2018). For example, individuals in an online forum may perceive at least some physical and discursive anonymity due to the limited social cues available. The anonymity may be even stronger in a forum, or similar tool, where no names and or pictures/ images are used (or perhaps even allowed). With other computer-based channels that provide video or other images, or with those that display specific user names, individuals may perceive much less physical and/or discursive anonymity (see Walther, 2011).