Do categories have politics?

Drawing on writings within the CSCW community and on recent social theory, this paper proposes that the adoption of speech act theory as a foundation for system design carries with it an agenda of discipline and control over organization members' actions. I begin with a brief review of the language/action perspective introduced by Winograd, Flores and their colleagues, focusing in particular on the categorization of speakers' intent. I then turn to some observations on the politics of categorization and, with that framework as back-ground, consider the attempt, throughthe coordinator, to implement a technological system for intention-accounting within organizations. Finally, I suggest the implications of the analysis presented in the paper for the politics of CSCW systems design.

[1]  Bonnie Johnson,et al.  Using a computer-based tool to support collaboration: a field experiment , 1986, CSCW '86.

[2]  C. Goodwin.  Conversational Organization: Interaction Between Speakers and Hearers , 1981 .

[3]  Harold Garfinkel,et al.  On Formal Structures of Practical Actions , 2005 .

[4]  Charles Goodwin,et al.  Assessments and the Construction of Context , 1992 .

[5]  Michael Lynch,et al.  Pictures of Nothing? Visual Construals in Social Theory , 1991 .

[6]  G. Psathas.  Everyday language : studies in ethnomethodology , 1981 .

[7]  M. Foucault,et al.  Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. , 1978 .

[8]  Brad Hartfield,et al.  Computer systems and the design of organizational interaction , 1988, TOIS.

[9]  M. Foucault,et al.  Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison , 2020, On Violence.

[10]  John L. Bennett,et al.  Learning from user experience with groupware , 1990, CSCW '90.

[11]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition - a new foundation for design , 1987 .

[12]  E. Tiryakian,et al.  Studies in social interaction , 1972 .

[13]  R. D'amico.  Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison , 1978, Telos.

[14]  Martin Lea,et al.  Contexts of computer-mediated communication , 1992 .

[15]  David Bogen,et al.  Linguistic Forms and Social Obligations: A Critique of the Doctrine of Literal Expression in Searle , 1991 .

[16]  Liam J. Bannon,et al.  Questioning Representations , 1991, ECSCW.

[17]  Deborah Tannen,et al.  Analyzing discourse : text and talk , 1982 .

[18]  E. Schegloff,et al.  Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction , 1979 .

[19]  C. Goodwin,et al.  Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon , 1992 .

[20]  Emanuel A. Schegloff,et al.  Presequences and indirection: Applying speech act theory to ordinary conversation , 1988 .

[21]  Daniel G. Bobrow,et al.  T. Winograd and F. Flores, Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design , 1987, Artif. Intell..