Imagined Affordance: Reconstructing a Keyword for Communication Theory

TLDR

Affordance, borrowed from ecological psychology, is widely used in technology studies but lacks a clear definition, hindering scholars who theorize the relationship between technology and sociality in complex socio‑technical systems and necessitating a richer, more nuanced concept. The essay develops the concept of imagined affordance to address this definitional gap and emphasize the role of imagination in shaping expectations about technology. Imagined affordance is defined as the dynamic interplay among users’ perceptions, attitudes, expectations, the materiality and functionality of technologies, and designers’ intentions, thereby offering a process‑oriented, socio‑technical framework that highlights mediation, materiality, and affect. The authors argue that imagined affordance explains how people shape, perceive, and exercise agency within media environments, thereby elucidating the duality of materiality and communication technology.

Abstract

In this essay, we reconstruct a keyword for communication—affordance. Affordance, adopted from ecological psychology, is now widely used in technology studies, yet the term lacks a clear definition. This is especially problematic for scholars grappling with how to theorize the relationship between technology and sociality for complex socio-technical systems such as machine-learning algorithms, pervasive computing, the Internet of Things, and other such “smart” innovations. Within technology studies, emerging theories of materiality, affect, and mediation all necessitate a richer and more nuanced definition for affordance than the field currently uses. To solve this, we develop the concept of imagined affordance. Imagined affordances emerge between users’ perceptions, attitudes, and expectations; between the materiality and functionality of technologies; and between the intentions and perceptions of designers. We use imagined affordance to evoke the importance of imagination in affordances—expectations for technology that are not fully realized in conscious, rational knowledge. We also use imagined affordance to distinguish our process-oriented, socio-technical definition of affordance from the “imagined” consensus of the field around a flimsier use of the term. We also use it in order to better capture the importance of mediation, materiality, and affect. We suggest that imagined affordance helps to theorize the duality of materiality and communication technology: namely, that people shape their media environments, perceive them, and have agency within them because of imagined affordances.