Emoji use reflects the contexts and identities of their users.

The argument

Supporters of this position argue that the evidence on how emojis are actually used undercuts the claim that they have transformed communication. They point to a study run in 2016 by researchers at the University of Michigan and Peking University into the use of emojis in different parts of the world. The expectation such a study might have confirmed is that a pictorial vocabulary shared across borders would be used in much the same way everywhere, since the images themselves are identical whoever sends them. What the findings revealed, contrary to expectations, was that different types of societies use emojis differently, and that those differences track cultural and attitudinal distinctions between population types. Two examples are given. Societies with high levels of individualism were found more likely to use emojis that reflect happiness. Conversely, societies with much closer social bonds were found to use emojis with negative connotations more frequently. On this account the pattern is not random variation but an alignment between emoji use and characteristics the societies in question already possessed. That alignment is what proponents take to be decisive. If emojis were reshaping how people relate to one another, the argument runs, usage would be expected to converge on a common style and to pull cultures towards it; instead usage diverges along lines that were already there. Emojis are therefore functioning as a medium through which existing dispositions are expressed rather than as a force acting upon them, a mirror rather than an engine. On this view the claims made for emojis confuse visibility with influence: they are conspicuous, novel and widely adopted, but what they carry is the context and identity of the user, which is why supporters conclude that their impact has been exaggerated.

Context

Emojis are used differently by different cultural populations, despite these groups having access to the same limited number of emojis. This indicates that the way emojis are used - and therefore any influence they have - is dependent on existing bonds and forms of communication.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The same patterns emerge in studies of language, and how phrases and 'positive' or 'negative' words are used by different populations. Emojis are indicative of user identities, the same way that any type of communication is.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] Different patterns of emoji use does not necessitate that emojis are defined by the identities of their users.