Rudolph Giuliani's interrupting mobile

The debate around the proper use of mobile phones in different social situations has again manifested itself, this time through the actions of the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani during a speech to the NRA (September 21, 2007). In the midst of his speech he was interrupted by a mobile phone call, apparently from his wife, which he answered, dealt with, and then reflected on the dual positive/negative aspect of modern communications, that one can be contacted anywhere, anytime. The most curious thing about this event though, is whether or not it was an authentic interruption, or a staged performance.

One video on YouTube [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NljO7w8fXKc ] discusses this very fact through a comparison with a previous speech, made in June this year (2007) to a different group (a Latino based-group). Both mobile phone interruptions occurred in the middle of the speech, and both featured the "I love you" comment to his wife. Whether or not this incident was authentic or not was not the issue for myself. Rather, what interested me was the performance aspect and the meaning-making (literacy) practices at play - authentic or not.

Let's assume first that the "surprise" calls were actually authentic, that they were really calls from a loving wife to her loving husband, whom she was not aware was in the middle of the speech. In contemporary post-industrial societies there is an emerging social expectation that there are times when it is appropriate, indeed, important, to switch off one's mobile phone. It seems to me that a formal speech to a group of constituents would be such a situation. In answering his mobile phone in the middle of his speech, this forms a moment where the "backstage" is brought to the front. This phenomena was observed by Leopoldina Fortunati observed on trains in Italy: when individuals spoke about private matters on a mobile phone in public, there was a sense in which the public persona of the person was changed by the emergence of their private lives - the "backstage" (2005). The fact that we only hear half of the conversation creates a further sense of mystery, in that something has been revealed, we are just unsure what. However, we might also call it an error in his "cultural literacy" (Shirato & Yell, 2000) practices: he has misread the situation as one where it is appropriate to answer a phone and have a personal conversation. Then again, he does keep the phone conversation short, to the point and indicates that he will call back. However, in such situations, what is indicated to an audience may be that the personal call is more important that all of the people in the audience. It is interesting to note than in NEITHER case did he appear to apologise to his audience for the interruption (although I have not seen the entirety of either speech). Does this imply that his actions were a natural part of this activity, to be tolerated, indeed accepted and applauded? In both cases he did receive applause for his candor and involved the audience either through reference, or in the first instance holding up the phone and encouraging the audience to say hello. One could surmise that this is one such way in which the social practices around 'mobile fields' are being negotiated and transformed: despite reworkings of traditional rules of etiquette suggesting you give your full attention to your audience in such situations, this public figure has sought to change the predictability of the practice of the public speech, which "...change over time as people engage in them in partially idiosyncratic ways." (Dimitriadis & Kamberelis, 2006, 67). Will we see further examples transforming the field of the public speech and the habitus of the public speaker, through the use of new technologies in the future?

In any case, if the incident was indeed accidental and unintentional, then there is an extend to which more is revealed of the humanness of the politician - he has a wife whom he loves and commitments beyond the scope of the presentation he is giving - which is perhaps one reason why there is speculation that this was a staged performance, intended to humanise this public figure.

If these 'unintentional' speech interruptions were actually staged, there is still an extent to which they are important and indicative of changes in the way we communicate and make-meaning. In terms of literacy practices involved, a whole raft of multimodal design strategies are in play. There is the fact that he takes the personal call loud enough, using aural design, ensures that the audience is involved in, and drawn into the conversation. His gestural design, or body language - despite dropping his head initially to answer the call - remains open and directed to the audience, suggesting that this conversation is for them as well as himself. He additionally reflects in the latter speech on the nature of this 'modern age' and it's technology. Thus the mobile phone call becomes yet another way for the politician to draw comparisons and similarities with the lived experiences of his audience: "See, I get phone calls at all sorts of strange times too! It can be bad and it can be good, but it is a part of the modern world that we share." In such a case the mobile technology serves as a form of symbolic communication (Katz & Sugiyama, 2006) or even symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1977). In both these cases, the incident of mobile communication means more than simply taking a phone call: in the particular context of use, it takes on a range of connotations and meanings. The "I love you" line to his wife, repeated in the latter speech, obviously draws on a discourse of domesticity, drawing Giuliani as a caring and loving husband. The fact that the call arrives in the middle of a formal speech - apart from providing a ready-made audience for his gushing sentiments - also creates a performance of an imperfect human, prey to the inconsistencies and interruptions of daily life. The mobile phone in this case, becomes a tool of communication, to create discourse of humanness around the political figure. As a form of symbolic capital it may be surmised, mixed results are achieved. Whilst the place of a private mobile phone call in the midst of a formal presentation provides a catalyst for debate around 'mobile manners', in this case it is used to bring the "backstage" - or his private life - to the fore, to create a positive image of his domestic life (Fortunati, 2005). The most telling indicator of this is the loving and positive nature of the call. What a different image would have been put across if the call had been from his wife, berating him for something, or accusing him of being unfaithful. The symbolic value of the mobile phone in such a case would be far from positive.

Overall, the most curious thing about this event was simply the disruption of a traditional social practice by an individual's engagement with a mobile technology. Does this mean we are on the verge of witnessing a new wave of transgressions of traditional literacy inspired by social practices around mobile technologies. We have already seen this with the emergence of SMS - where traditional rules of written communication and grammar are transgressed and transformed in the emergence of a new written form. To what extent will social and literacy practices around mobile technologies continue to change other aspects of our literate lives?

Needless to say, in the wider media (e.g. morning news television) it has sparked debate and discussion about when and where it is appropriate to use mobile phones, and various other features of mobile technologies (SMS) and other technologies (email). This is of course one area that my current research with high school students seeks to examine.

References

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dimitriadis, G. & Kamberelis, G. (2006). Theory for Education. New York: Routledge.

Fortunati, L. (2005). "Mobile telephone and the presentation of self." In Ling, R. & Pedersen, P.E. (Eds.). Mobile communications: re-negotiation of the social sphere. London: Springer-Verlag, 203-218.

Katz, J.E. & Sugiyama, S. (2006). "Mobile phones as fashion statements: evidence from student surveys in the US and Japan." new media & society, 8(2), 321-337.

Schirato, T. & Yell, S. (2000). Communication and cultural literacy: an introduction. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.