Meaning: Semiotics, Text, and Image

           

Despite the varied lenses through which someone could study the rich rhetorical meanings of the QSL cards, I have chosen to rely on the studies of semiotics, discourse, and communities. This allows my research to focus on the synthesis of the language and images which are used on the cards. The semiotics of the texts and images form and support the meanings of these cards used to communicate between members of a community who span throughout the ether, across countries, and states. Those who participate in amateur radio and those who exchange QSL cards are a perfect match for all the definitions of a discourse community whether viewing them as a hobby group, which they are, or whether viewing them through the lens of academia and its definition of a discourse community.

           

Semiotics, simply put, is the science of signs and a technique for analyzing sign systems (Manning and Cullum-Swan 239). Signs are something that represents something else and are composed of expression and content (Manning and Cullum-Swan 239). Signs are not the same for all people and cultures and are socially based and arbitrary (Manning and Cullum-Swan 239). For instance, wearing black clothing to an American funeral represents mourning while wearing white to a funeral in parts of India is the standard color for mourning. The sign of black or white clothing represents mourning in different social contexts.

           

I. A. Richards’ definition of signs is a bit different than the definition used by Manning and Cullum-Swan. He refers to signs as symbols and the symbols are the words used for the referent (See Figure 2). However, for purposes of analysis of the QSL cards, one can see that both definitions of signs and meaning are fluid and overlapping. Both Richards’ and the social semiotic philosophers’ viewpoints set the stage for the support of viewing the cards through their semiotics. This platform is necessary to establish before focusing on the text and images and the resultant meaning of the cards. In addition, rhetoric, word choice, and word relationships are a main point in Richards study whereas the social semiotic scholars focus more on the integration of the words and images to establish meaning. When studying the QSL cards, both lenses of the study of the words and the study of the words and images together are necessary to establish full meaning.

           

Richards wrote in The Philosophy of Rhetoric that the study of rhetoric is a “philosophic enquiry into how words work in discourse” (4) and also viewed “persuasion as only one of the many aims of rhetoric” (16). In addition, he advocated “that the study of rhetoric begin with an analysis of words, the smallest units for conveying meaning” (9-10). Richards, according to Foss et al. in their book Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric, believed that if “individuals first understand how words function, they will be able to put together larger messages for whatever end they desire – whether to persuade, to explain, to create a particular relationship with an audience, or to write poetry” (23). In the case of QSL cards, the exchangers are continuing the relationship which was formed through the radio contact; they have now “discovered” each other as part of the same community and through the exchange of the cards, are contributing to their social norm and to each other’s collections.

           

These basic beliefs about rhetoric form the platform for Richards’ Theory of Meaning, and according to Foss et al., “human beings are responsive to incoming sensory data from the perceived environment, and every stimulus that is received through the sense leaves an imprint, a trace,…an engram on the mind that is capable of being revived later” (Foss et al. 25). Sensory perceptions are then established into meaning by way of context, a “cluster of events that recur together” (Richards 34). Because of this perception and context awareness, when one remembers, this context or part of a context appears and serves as a sign, or as Richards calls them, symbols (Ogden and Richards 10-12). Symbols are words which we assign to what we are referencing. Richards illustrates his Theory of Meaning with the Semantic Triangle (Ogden and Richards 30).

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

This triangle symbolizes the three major components of meaning: the thought or reference is where past experiences and contexts occur, the referent symbolizes the objects that are perceived, and the symbol is the word which one associates with the referent (Ogden and Richards 30-31). In the figure above, I’ve applied this triangle to the QSL cards. The thought or reference is what a ham operator experiences with the trading process of the QSL cards, the referent is the card itself, and the symbol is the word used, “QSL postcard.” These three points on the triangle are connected by three sides or relationships. A causal relationship occurs between the referent and the symbol.

           

Expanding upon the theories of rhetoric and meaning, Gunther Kress describes in his book Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication, his contemplation of a grocery store sign that he sees from his bus seat which, through a mixture of image, words, and color, indicates to customers where to park. He wondered, “If writing alone had been used, would this sign work” (1)? His ultimate answer was no; the sign “works” for its customers by combining a mixture of modes: words, images, and color. Kress further theorizes that this sign is a successful medium of communication because of its style; the modes work together to clearly indicate to the customer where to park. Ultimately then, Kress introduces his book by explaining that the “theory that deals with meaning in all its appearances, in all social occasions and in all cultural sites” is social semiotics (2). This theory, building upon Richards’ theory, has also been applied to my study of QSL cards and the hams who share them. Again, although Richards is more concerned with the meaning behind words and their relationship to one another, Kress builds upon this to establish meaning from the interaction of words and images.

           

Kress asks the question of his readers, “What has produced the explosive interest in the issue of multimodality over the last decade or so” with the “shorthand” response to this question as “globalization” (5). He describes this interest as not just an explosion of use of electronic means but of a somewhat destabilized social world of mobility (6). Despite this seemingly “recent” notice of multimodality is really a question of how modes are used and for what purpose, not why people are just using different modes. As can be seen from the QSL cards and their purpose, the use of multimodality has been around a long time (and even longer than that: cave drawings can be considered multimodal.) The hams using the cards didn’t consciously question the “why am I using color and image along with text?” They just knew that it got their message across; it was a message which shared technical, personal, and community-building terms all with text, image, and color. It was also a mark of globalization but not one built on a “destabilized social world of mobility” (6). It was built on a global scale of a common interest in communication via radio waves.

           

The global community or society of the ham operators, based upon their Morse code background, technical information needed, and limited postcard space have developed their own system of resources. It is somewhat stable based upon their communicational needs and could be referred to as grammar. Kress views grammar as “a stable system of rules” but since society has constantly changing needs and “communicational practices are constantly altered,” Kress prefers to use the term “resources for representation” (7-8). He views resources as “not fixed and socially made” (8). This is evident in the textual language used on the QSL cards. However, with the changing technology and advent of the computer and internet, the grammar needs of the ham operators may be changing. Perhaps the Q code which has been so commonly used will fade in use because Morse code is no longer necessary for communication. Since there is no longer space restrictions on the QSL cards, language use may change, too. The prolific use of SMS language in non-ham radio culture may seep into the ham world. What is important to note is that the society or community of the ham radio operators is the one who creates the change based upon their needs.

           

Similar to Richards, one of the major semiotic principles which Kress adheres to “is that humans make signs in which form and meaning stand in a ‘motivated relation” (9-10). The signs are an “expression of the interest of socially formed individuals who, with these signs, realize - give outward expression to - their meanings, using culturally available semiotic resources which have been shaped by the practices of members of social groups and their cultures” (10). QSL cards are such signs in the ham community, giving outward expression of the operators and their interests, home countries, and social groups to which they belong. Further, these signs work to enhance and strengthen the ham community by allowing operators to learn about others within their community. Had the QSLs maintained a minimalist style as was directed by the writer of Amateur DX Report Cards in the early years of QSL exchange, the interest and depth of study of QSLs would be somewhat shallow (Codella, "Call and Card"). The images and written text exhibited on the cards would not express the ethos of the senders and would not assist in strengthening the ham community.

           

Dunnahoo’s research included interviewing some hams about the design of their QSL cards and her results indicated that the designs on the cards were outward expressions of the operators. The contact information of the operator was often preprinted, and several operators who were interviewed by Dunnehoo included the ARRL emblem, their station number, and their name in the preprinted design (27). Some added the Marine Corps eagle, globe, and anchor design, also (27). Most of these cards were stock designed but Dunnehoo did interview one operator who had a hand-drawn fire truck on his card to indicate his past as a firefighter (27-28). Many of the operators chose a commercially designed card for ease of use and because they were less expensive, but some operators designed their own cards with crayons or markers (38). Regardless of the amount of design or cost, however, each QSL card can “express the personalities of ham radio operators” (38, 40). 

           

In “Media Discourse – Extensions, Mixes, and Hybrids: Some Comments on Pressing Issues,” Kress specifically addresses Östman’s article about postcards as a type of media discourse. Kress writes that when he himself selects a postcard to send, it will say something about himself because of the synthesis of the image on one side and the text on the other (444). He further argues that “the postcards are not signs, rather they are signifier-material which I can use to fashion my sign through my selection” (444). Ultimately, Kress summarizes the analysis of postcards by writing that linguistics and image analysis are brought together in a semiotic theory (445). When applying this to QSL cards, the card is simply a medium of exchanging information and is a signifier. However, when the operator chooses a particular design and chooses particular text, the QSL card becomes a sign.

           

A society, however, cannot form meaning just by signs. Context and framing need to be applied for meaning-making. Kress notes that “there is no meaning without framing” and “for meaning-making to be possible, cultures provide means for framing aspects of the world…A culture will therefore provide its distinct semiotic resources for framing…signs” (10). Simply put, societies, based upon their experiences and beliefs, create meaning by assigning situations and signs into a framework or context so that the situation or sign can be understand; it can have meaning.

           

For purposes of this study, I use the words framing and context interchangeably. Their definitions and how they apply to QSL cards are so similar as to be transferrable in meaning for this study; both definitions apply identifying information to form meaning. P.K. Manning and Betsy Cullum-Swan borrow Erving Goffman’s definition of framing for their article titled “Semiotics and Framing: Examples.” In this, they write that framing is “a sort of natural boundary for the field of meaning and helps individuals to code the sense data presented. The frame, as perceived by the interpretant, shapes, typifies, informs, and even confirms the nature of the choice” (243). In the textbook written by Lester Faigley, Diana George, Anna Palchik, and Cynthia Selfe titled Picturing Texts, the authors explain that when an individual begins to identify information, the person refers immediately to context (14). Faigley et al. define context in three ways. The context can be immediate such as looking at the size of a piece of mail and realizing it is a postcard. The context can also have broader implications such as the date of a postcard, the image on the postcard, or the country from which it originated. In addition, context can be intertextual (14-15). This could be if the postcard referred to other texts such as a card featuring a picture of the sun with the inscription “Welcome to Sunny Antarctica.” This intertextuality is a play on the weather and requires both sets of text – the image of the sun and the text.

             

Meaning, context, framing, signs, and signifiers have set the stage to support the study of meaning which exists from the interplay of the text and images which are on the QSL cards. Faigley et al. list eleven concepts which create meaning from text and image. They are, listed alphabetically: balance, classification, comparison and contrast, description, emphasis, metaphor, narration, pattern, point of view, proportion, and unity (25).

           

For example, balance refers to the symmetry of the cards (Faigley et al. 26). Every card in the collection has the radio station letters in the middle of the card. This is because the letters are of upmost importance to the operators. The other information, including images, is secondary to the station letters, although still necessary. The operator can take this secondary information and balance it on the rest of the card. Another example is the classification of the QSL cards in text, shape, and place. Classification is a means of organizing and analyzing a topic (Faigley et al. 28). The cards are recognized by their shape and the text on them. Many can be organized by place and/or date. Added images on the cards are not necessary to classify them.

 

Discourse

           

The meaning of the QSL cards from the text and images help to form the discourse and resulting community. This study presents research that has been completed about postcard discourse in addition to situating QSL cards in their historical context. As noted Östman in his article, “The Postcard as Media,” the “writing on an old postcard, the particular picture chosen to go with the text, and the information we can acquire from the stamp and the cancellation mark by the postal offices [which] together function as a discourse expression” (436). All of these indicators of discourse are present not just on postcards but on QSL cards, as well. The discourse on a QSL card, consisting of text and images, conveys something about the sender. The QSL’s conveys the locale and often an aspect of the sender’s relationship to the hobby (Haring 30).

           

Östman’s essay indicates that postcards are a form of media discourse despite the societal assumption that the cards are strictly between two communicators (423). Because Östman doesn’t define media discourse, I turned to Anne O’Keeffe and her article “Media and Discourse Analysis.” She defines media discourse as

               interactions that take place through a broadcast platform, whether spoken or written, in which the discourse

               is oriented to a non-present reader, listener or viewer…Crucially, the written or spoken discourse itself is

               oriented to the readership or listening/viewing audience, respectively. In other words, media discourse is a 

               public, manufactured, on-record, form of interaction…it is neither private nor off the record (O’Keeffe 441

               emphasis added).

As can be seen on the QSL cards, the reader is non-present, the discourse is oriented to a specific audience, and despite this, the information contained on the QSL card is not strictly private.

​

The connections between media discourse, whether spoken or written, and the “non-present reader, listener or viewer,” QSL postcards, and ham radio discourse is important to note. The connections start with the conversation, whether spoken or by use of Morse code, between the ham operators. Often, this discourse is followed by a handwritten postcard which, although addressed between two people, can and will be seen by a broader audience, whether or not that is the intent of the operators. Östman realizes that postcards are not designated for broadcast purposes but does indicate that they are “available for an indefinitely large group of people” (423). This is what makes postcards in general, semi-public and semi-private. The QSL cards have a unique twist to this because some of the discourse on the cards is in code; many who may see the cards won’t understand what the text means. This does indicate more room for privacy but not that much.

           

Concerns about the privacy of messages on postcards have always existed. Atkins reported that in 1870, the Lord Mayor of London “warned of the dangers from ‘obscene’ messages begin sent into people’s home” (40). Some people started engaging in the use of code but others were completely comfortable with sending intimate messages regardless of who could read the postcards (Atkins 40). It wasn’t just the text which was used as code, however. During this time, “an angled stamp was widely known to suggest affection towards the recipient” (Atkins 40). This use of code and positioning of images and stamps not only indicated private messages but also indicated the discourse of the community of postcard users and the sense of meaning behind that discourse.

           

In contrast, to briefly delve into the meaning and definition of public, Michael Warner’s 2002 essay titled “Publics and Counterpublics (abbreviated version)” defines ‘public’ in three ways: “the public is a kind of social totality. Its most common sense is that of the people in general. A public can be…a concrete audience, a crowd witnessing itself in visible space...” (413). The third sense of public is “the kind of public that comes into being only in relation to texts and their circulation” (413). For my purpose as it relates to postcard discourse, this last sense of public is the definition which applies to postcard discourse. In particular, as part of this definition, “a public is constituted through mere attention” (419). In other words, whoever pays attention to the card is part of its public whether or not that was the intent of the writer of the card.

 

Continuing then to study media discourse as defined by O’Keefe and as studied by Östman with postcards, how can postcards be considered “public?” Typically, postcards seem to be written and read between just two communicators, the writer and the addressed reader and therefore, private. One must consider perhaps, someone else in the receiver’s house read the card when they took it out of the mailbox or perhaps saw the QSL card on the wall. Perhaps the mail deliverer read it because the picture on the reverse was so beautiful. Perhaps the sender sent the card through his/her work mailroom, and the mailroom worker or the bundler at the ARRL bureau read the “secret” words to brighten his/her day. And maybe, just maybe, the receiver’s granddaughter finds the card 90 years later and reads it. Suddenly, the “private” communication no longer seems so private.

 

Östman, in a slight deviation from Warner’s definition of public, considers postcards to be semi-public, although the messages written on them may not be intended to be so. Historically, societies have also never viewed the postcard as fully private and Östman supports this assertion by writing that

​          the word for postcard in Russian is otkrytka, meaning ‘open’ or ‘revealed’… [and what] used to be printed on

          Russian postcards was otkrytoje pismo, meaning more or less ‘revealed writing’...in Austria-Hungary there was

          a law that postcards had to have a statement on the picture-side to the effect that the post office is [sic] not

          responsible for what was written as message on it… [and] in Italy in the 1930’s…the government explicitly saw

          as one of its main purposes to enhance morality…[and] thus saw as its task to check what is (sic) written on

          postcards (429-430).

Östman’s research indicates that some language use and government rules were created based upon the idea that postcard messages were not fully private. In fact, naming a postcard as “open or revealed” seems to be a much better name than the English compound word we currently use to simply describe a card that is posted: postcard. Communication on a postcard is always written knowing that someone besides the receiver could read it, and the language is adapted to that. Unless the card is written in code, such as Q code, everyone is aware of the semi-public nature to of the postcard.

           

To summarize, Östman believes that although postcards are a form of media, they are not strictly public as defined by O’Keefe. Östman contends that postcards are semi-public despite Warner’s definition that “public comes into being only in relation to texts and their circulation” (413). The QSL cards are also semi-public; they can been seen and viewed by others besides the sender and receiver. However, there is one more aspect of the QSL cards which can make them seem more private: the Q code.

           

One feature of ham radio operations which does exhibit stronger characteristics of privacy is the physical use of Morse code. Haring writes that “communicating by Morse code created privacy in public” and “the challenge of applying Morse code kept it somewhat at the level of a cipher” (23). She relates the story of a ham radio operator who traded “secret exchanges…with his brother while double-dating as teenagers, Morse code giving them the freedom to discuss ‘the characteristics of our dates in their presence without their knowing it!’” (23). This story indicates that although the hams were participating in Morse code in a public situation, their discourse was private because those around them didn’t understand the code or even know the men were participating in a private discourse. The Q code, based upon Morse code, is the code used for writing on QSL cards and it can be considered private to those who don’t understand it. The Q code assists in making the QSLs semi-public.

 

As seen, the postcard is conversely semi-private and semi-public. What else about the postcard ties it to media discourse and establishes its rhetorical meaning? Östman writes about the relationship between postcards and SMS (short message service) messages, also known as text messaging, with the biggest similarity being “brevity of expression” (426). In the case of regular and QSL postcards, there is a space limitation while in most cases of text messaging, it is usually a time limitation. This is not the case with Twitter, an SMS application which only allows 140 characters to be used per message, or tweet.

 

The relationship between QSL cards, postcards, and SMS is further connected by their use of code and shorthand. Because of the lack of space on a card, many people will write in abbreviations, not pay attention to “proper” letter-writing mechanics, and write in a non-linear fashion. For instance, it is common for postcard and SMS writers to use “luv” instead of “love,” “r” for “are,” and “4” instead of “for.” It is also common in present use of postcards to use “computer-mediated discourse (CMD), in particular “smileys” or other such emoticons (Östman 433). These abbreviations are also used in SMS due to the speed in which people text and to save time. These shorthand versions of words were not first “discovered” by text messengers or by Tweeters but existed many decades prior to the modern use of the code as can be seen by the QSL cards.

 

As seen in Figure 3, two common examples of code between ham radio operators are the letters “OM” and “hi-hi.” These stand for “Old Man” (Hirschy), another term for a ham radio operator, and the Morse code equivalent of “ha-ha” (DLS Reports), respectively. Of course, use of “ha-ha” is to indicate laughter, which is what the “hi-hi” meant, as well.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

                              Figure 3 – Remarks: Very glad to communicate with you old man hope to again! A card for a card old man! Ha-ha

 

On a postcard, the author may use abbreviations not just to save space but to “avoid explicitness” (Östman 432). This and other “idiolectal abbreviations” which are only understood by the sender and receiver are meant to evade understanding by others for whom the card is not intended (Östman 432). Authors may also use song lyrics, choose particular stamps and position them differently, use a particular color of ink, or send the card from a specific place for a certain postmark to communicate meaning (Östman 432). All of these gestures, which are understood only by the sender and intended receiver, can be considered a type of code.

           

In addition to the semi-public nature of the postcard and the connection with SMS, the postcard also relates to media discourse because of its “disembodied language, language that is not produced by the actual speaker at the time it is being interpreted” (Östman 428). In fact, it’s not just the language that is disembodied; the photo or picture and the process of mailing plus the loss of control of the sender are disembodied. Östman writes that the writer loses command of the postcard to “eavesdroppers” or “overhearers” when it leaves their hands, and the writer loses command of what is written (429). If anyone can read the card, they can certainly write on it or erase something, as well.

 

The author of a postcard, because of his/her awareness of who may read what is on the card, will amend his/her language to adjust to the semi-public nature of the card. To fully understand this, one must first appreciate the discourse structures of a postcard: the picture or artwork (and what could be added to it), the name and address, the textual message, the stamp and postmark, the people who may see the card during the sending process, the receiver, and the possible display of the postcard (Östman 431-432). Östman’s list of such characteristics on a postcard help me to understand that although these characteristics may be studied individually, they cannot stand alone when studying the whole rhetorical aspect of the postcard; the structures are held together by space and in most instances by one author/sender and one corporate intermediary, the post office. Therefore, the author must be at least peripherally aware of all of these structures in addition to the semi-public nature of the card prior to adding his/her text and images.

           

Likewise, hams must have an awareness of the semi-public nature of the QSL’s however, their awareness of what is written on the cards might not be as significant as with regular postcard users. The language that is used by the hams, either via the radio or via the QSL’s, distinguishes their community apart from other groups and is often not understand by a non-radio individual. Amateur radio operators use Q code, derived from Morse code, and this code is used to represent longer terms and phrases. The hams are part of a discourse community because of their “language-using practices,” as defined by Patricia Bizzell in her book Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness (222). Although Bizzell’s book focuses upon the definition of a discourse community and centers around the field of composition, many parallels can be made to the ham radio community.

 

One parallel Bizzell discusses is the use of language to “regulate social interactions both within the group and in its dealing with outsiders (Bizzell 222). The Q code language used by hams in their spoken discourse and on their QSL cards is particular to their group. Although outsiders could potentially guess what the cards are, they would have trouble understanding their purpose without a bit of research. Much of the language would also be foreign. One would need an understanding of how radio works and why the postcards are traded to start to understand the ham radio discourse community. From within the ham community, experienced operators assist the new operators with the language, evidence of the “Elmer tradition,” where more experienced hams routinely assist the less experienced hams (Nevradakis 80). For the past 100 years, the language has been directly related to the tradition and use of Morse code. Perhaps in the future, because of the demise of the use of Morse code, operators will start to change and deregulate the use of Q code.

 

Another parallel which is analyzed by Bizzell is that “canonical knowledge regulates the world views of group members” (222). The canonical knowledge of ham operators is not that they are consciously aware of the five rhetorical canons, although some may be. It is their awareness in how their cards look to others, how clearly the language is communicated, and how accurate their information is. Their experience in exchanging the cards depends upon the knowledge of the other operators. One might argue that the knowledge the hams have could affect their world view but when focusing strictly upon the exchange of QSL cards, a focus upon a world view does not seem particularly pertinent.

 

The language used by hams is a form of social behavior which continues and extends their knowledge to others within their community and to newcomers. Bizzell borrows Bruce Herzberg’s 1986 ideas about a discourse community, and notes that he believes “language use in a group is a form of social behavior, that discourse is a means of maintaining and extending the group’s knowledge and of initiating newcomers, and that discourse is epistemic or constitutive of the group’s knowledge” (223). Bizzell expands on this definition to note that not all agree on every aspect of Herzberg’s definition, but with regards to ham operators, his observation fits perfectly. The hams language is part of their social behavior, their discourse helps to define their group and is a passage of learning for newcomers, and their language represents their knowledge.

 

Bizzell continues her study by writing about John Swales, an applied linguist, and his six criteria which must be met to form a discourse community. She writes that Swales believes that a discourse community “is a social group using language to accomplish work in the world – the context of appropriate social behavior provides cues for how best to employ the discourse conventions to accomplish this work” (225).      

 

Swales 1987 presentation at the CCCC titled “Approaching the Concept of Discourse Community,” lists the six criteria for a discourse community and these criteria are necessary when assessing the rhetorical and community values of those who collect QSL cards. A discourse community has:

          1. a communality of interest

          2. participatory mechanisms    

          3. information exchange

          4. genre-specific discoursal expectations

          5. a dynamic towards specialized language

          6. a critical mass of expertize (13).

 

The key to Swales definition, according to Bizzell, is how the social group works together to perform work or a specific task, specifically a task or project which couldn’t be completed by an individual (226). All of these criteria can be applied to the community of ham radio operators and specifically to those who exchange QSL cards and the six criteria will be applied to the QSL cards in this study in the analysis section. They participate in the common goal of collecting QSL cards, and the exchange is open to all who can “catch” the correct radio signal and who then use the QSL cards to further communicate. The hams provide information and feedback to one another, and they develop guidelines for how information will be exchanged. The terminology is specialized and as the science progresses with radio, so will the terminology, and experts abound within this community. QSL cards can be used to analyze the level of involvement by individual operators based upon the number of cards they have, the years of collecting, and the number of different stations that have been collected.  

 

Swales wrote that the year before he gave his presentation, he was asked by Faigley “whether a hobby-group could constitute a discourse community” (9). Swales answered that based on his criteria and on the basis of his own personal experience, “that the answer is firmly in the affirmative” (9). Swales reported that he participated in two hobby groups; one was a world-wide philatelic group of about 300 people who specialized in the postal history of Hong Kong. He explained that the specialized auction catalogue which was published by the group illustrated a key genre from that discourse community: it was fully explicit to him but not for his audience at the CCCC. In addition, the hobby group had a “common goal, forum, information exchange, genre development, specialized terminology and expertize” (9). Those in the ham radio community and who exchange QSLs also have specialized websites and magazines specifically created for them and their discourse community. Likewise, the hams and QSL collectors have common goals, forums, information exchanges, genre development and specialized terminology and expertize just as the philatelists do in Swales hobby group.

 

Swales involvement with the other hobby group was with the Audubon Society. He explained that the technical rhetoric displayed by the members specifically forms this discourse community, and that non-members would not feel a connection based upon the language. Swales further explains that involvement with both groups was “essentially detached from personal involvement” (9). He didn’t know personal facts about the other members and they didn’t know facts about him. However, he added that being in a group that does have inter-personal involvement is common and doesn’t negate being a discourse community (10). Ham operators who collect QSLs display a high level of technical rhetoric and non-members of this community would feel like an outsider without knowing the language. Members of the ham radio community, like both the philatelists and Audubon members, do not have to have inter-personal involvement however, it has been shown that ham operators do form life-long friendships based upon their mutual interest of the ham radio (Haring xi).

 

Kristen Haring delves deeper into what makes up a “hobby” and describes a hobby as something that “refers only to pursuits distinguished by their association with values such as productivity, educational enrichment, thrift, and the structured use of time” (1). She contrasts this with “idle recreation” and writes that “hobbies were thought to keep participants busy with activities that led to personal betterment” (1). Haring believes that “ham radio fits the strict definition of a hobby” and further classifies ham radio as a “technical hobby” (2). She defines a technical hobby as one with requires “some technical understanding or skill beyond simply how to operate a technology” (2). This refinement of the definition of the word “hobby” helps to place the ham radio operators into the definition of a discourse community as well as into the definition of a technical hobby. In addition, those who collect the QSL cards further develop their hobby of communicating via radio by also communicating with the cards. The collection of the cards then strengthens and enhances the discourse within that community, as well.

​

Community

           

The discourse community of those who exchange QSLs and the world of DXing can be classified as a social network which further enhances the definition of a community. As defined by Gunawardena, et al in their 2009 article, “A Theoretical Framework for Building Online Communities of Practice with Social Networking Tools,” social networking can be defined, particularly in the technological and software industry, “as the practice of expanding knowledge by making connections with individuals of similar interests” (Gunawardena et al 4). Ham operators, by their very nature within their hobby of contacting other users, exist within the social network of amateur radio. DXers also form a social network despite some DXers not being registered hams. But it is those who consider themselves DXers amongst the hams who are of interest to this study. They are the ones who exchange the QSL cards and are the ones who sit firmly in the middle of the social network and community.

           

DXers often feel a sense of collaboration and kinship within their community of fellow hobbyists and that feeling is based simply on their mutual interests in DXing. Haring reports that “ham radio thrived on social interaction…and random meetings ‘on the air’ occasionally grew into friendships that continued by letters and further discussion via radio” (xi). The world of ham radio and DXing is “’inherently democratic,’ with factors such as one’s occupation, income, age, or appearance being irrelevant” (Nevradakis 80). To maintain this egalitarian nature, the community requires its participants to be “considerate, loyal, progressive, friendly, balanced and patriotic,” and it is also the norm to not talk of politics and religion (Nevradakis 80). Haring reported that the community of hams discourages “all internal divisions except geographic ones, denouncing religions and ethnic radio clubs as ‘political’ and therefore a potential hindrance to smooth relations…” (xii). In addition, ham operators are proud of their technical abilities and “sometimes describe themselves as a ‘technical fraternity’” (Haring xii). This level of technical expertise often caused those outside the ham community to tease the hams for choosing a geeky hobby but to also count on the hams to help solve electrical problems (Haring xv). Haring also described the hams as the “precursors to computer hackers” (xv). Although describing ham operators from the 1920s and ‘30s as “precursors to computer hackers” is a stretch, the operators of that time did have a high level of electrical and technical expertise. In addition, this expertise exhibited itself on the QSL cards with the language and images showing such.

           

Further defining community and applying it to those who collect QSL cards, Kress maintains that the definition of a group or community is "a commitment to values regarded as central for maintaining social cohesion. That in turn requires full access to semiotic, cultural, social and economic resources. Central among these is the potential full for participation in the design and production of representations as messages and access to the means of their dissemination" (Multimodality 18). As previously reported with the ham operators who practice DXing, their community is built upon the common denominator of searching for radio signals and then exchanging QSL cards. Within that community, they have a standard language and certain social norms which they follow. For instance, as noted previously, hams don’t normally “discuss” politics. In addition, the more experienced hams assist the less experienced with learning the language and social norms expected: the Elmer tradition. Economic resources are also a consideration, hence the establishment of the stations which collect and disseminate the QSLs. There is a standard design to the cards themselves but also a freedom for individuals to add images and text which make the cards more personal.

           

Contests, magazines such as QSL, and organizations such as the ARRL assist in establishing a self-reflexive process of a community and its discourse. Kress defines “the aims of a social-semiotic theory of communication [for a community] might be:

• that members…have access to the semiotic and other cultural resources essential to act in their social world…

• that as members…they are able to contribute to common purposes…with constantly new cultural, semiotic and     social problems and by…communicating their suggested solutions…

• that in their social-semiotic actions, members…have a clear sense of the effects of their (semiotic) actions on others…” (18).

The DX/QSL community fulfills these aims, and as a community, have access to act within said community. They are able to contribute to the solutions to problems which may arise, and are aware of their actions upon others. Awareness of participating in semiotic actions is not necessary to be a part of the community. Simply communicating via the QSL cards is enough to participate in a social-semiotic action.

           

As briefly mentioned in the history and DXing sections, contests occurred and continue to happen for those in the ham radio world, and these contests are social semiotics in action. As described by the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), “the goal of Amateur Radio contesting is to contact as many stations as possible during the contest period” (ARRL Contest Basics). Most of the radio contests are focused on obtaining certain signals during certain periods of time and keeping a log to prove the stations contacted. As previously mentioned in the History chapter, these logs are mostly maintained on the Logbook of The World, and the physical exchange of the QSL postcards is not required for proof of contact (ARRL contest). However, prior to the advent of the internet, QSL postcards were the proof required to win contests. The practice of participating in the contests further reinforces the community in which many of the ham operators exist by extending their knowledge, opening up their circle of friends, and continuing the discourse within the community.

           

Similar to the QSL contests, due to the extreme popularity and number of picture postcards exchanged, postcard exchange clubs were formed in the late 1800s and early 1900s at the regional, national, and international levels. These clubs served to promote trade and also served as contact centers for collectors who used a third party to send them postcards from around the world (Rogan 12). Despite the differences in the number of people who collected and traded postcards, the advent of the postcard clubs is comparable to the reason behind QSL bureaus. These bureaus collect and sort QSL cards for ham radio operators as they are sent or received by the hams. This saves postage and time for the individual operators. The operators provide self-addressed, stamped envelopes to the bureau and when a certain number of cards are received, the bureau sends the set to the operator. In the United States, the ARRL, founded in 1914 and still active today, operates the bureaus by divisions to support its members. There are 15 divisions and 77 geographic sections of the ARRL in the United States (ARRL About; Dunnehoo 22). Of my grandfather’s cards, 59 seem to have been sent via the ARRL. Some of them are stamped such and some of them do not have his home address or postage on them. Most of these sent through the ARRL were international.

 

With regards to postcards and their community of participants, Östman describes minorities in society as a sub-group of people who regularly use postcards. He claims that this is so they may “maintain a feeling of togetherness and belonging” (435). He specifically mentions ethnic minorities using postcards as a means of protest. Despite maintaining this, Östman fails to mention why the postcards are used as such, and one might surmise it is the relative low cost of postcards, their purchase and their postal cost. In addition, there is an ease of use for postcards; there are no envelopes to grab or lick, and if the card itself is the form of protest, text other than the address may not even be needed. Furthermore, it could be assumed that regular postcard use is utilized not just by ethnic minorities but by groups which are minorities based upon their population makeup. For instance, ham radio operators who “acknowledge receipt” of a coded or verbal message received via radio wave use postcards. These cards are somewhat different from the standard postcard but in many ways, can and should be included in the study of postcards and their use and meaning. The men and women who are involved in exchanging QSL cards could be considered a minority based simply upon the numbers of people who participate. However, they do not fit the definition of an ethnic minority or of a group participating in protest.

 

With regards to the postcards of the Golden Age, textual communication did not seem to be the main reason for sending cards. As described earlier, the cards were important for the collection value. Many cards would simply be inscribed with just a signature or a short inscription (Rogan 14-15). People were less interested in communicating via alpha-numeric text; they were only interested in the addition to their collections. However, despite their textual brevity, the cards still maintained a “strong expressive value” similar to a handshake or other greeting ritual (Rogan 15). As Rogan further explains, “The aim is not to provide new information, but to refer to what is already shared; the most successful communication is the one that is least redundant” (16). These cards acted as confirmation between the communicants of what was already known: the person traveled somewhere, they arrived, and they’ve not forgotten the receiver (Rogan 16).

 

Similarly, the content of QSLs confirm what is already known: two operators have communicated via radio wave, the date, time, and electronic details; the card can now be added to a collection. A difference which exists between the exchange of postcards and QSLs is that the context of sending and receiving a QSL is always known. Rogan explains that short messages may be counter-productive when sending a regular postcard because the receiver may not know or understand why the card is coming from a certain place or person (21).

 

Rogan distinguishes between types of messages sent via postcard. He breaks the messages into two groups using folkloristic theory: messages were either meant to carry information (linear) or were activities in themselves for purposes of continued relationship building or collection (circular or reciprocal) (15-16). QSL cards serve both purposes; technical information is sent but an expectation of exchange for collection purposes exists, and in some instances, because of the community boundaries, relationship building occurs (see Figure 3). This card demonstrates linear messages for information exchange but also shows relationship building in the form of humor and hopes to reconnect again.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4 – Remarks: Thanks for card old man sent one 3/14 but guess you didn’t get it sure hope to talk with you again old man. Well old man if you don’t get this card let me know ha.ha.ha.ha.

​

The postcard, because of its social aim, is also the vehicle of ritual communication. Oxford anthropologist and head of the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Harvey Whitehouse explained in 2013 that “rituals are a human universal —the glue that holds social groups together… rituals are always about building community” (Jones 470). Rogan characterizes a ritual as containing three characteristics: “repetition, institutionalization (the act must be familiar and predictable), and expressivity” (16). Expressivity is the key to separating rituals from habits or routines, and the postcard has a high expressive value. The ritual act of sending a postcard “may be seen as a signifier of some symbolic content: the signified (in [this] context, a sign of life or a confirmation of friendship) (Rogan 18). The signified, or the expressive value, becomes the main point. Because of the expressive value and the intention of the sender and the interpretation by the receiver, all these create the criteria for distinguishing a ritual from a routine (18). With regards to the QSL cards, the ritual is congruous with the routine. An expectation, in fact, an unwritten social rule suggests that QSL cards be exchanged regardless of the expressive value of the card or the intention of the sender and receiver. Lifelong friendships are not necessarily the main goal of exchanging QSL cards; if friendships happen, they are a nice byproduct of the exchange and the collection. The exchange of the card is more to build community and follow the social rules which hold the community together.

​

Although a study could exist on just one aspect of these cards, the semiotics, discourse, and community theories are all tied together to establish the meaning of the cards and how the cards are a product of the ham radio community. In addition, the theories examined in this Literature Review not only show that the cards are a product of the community but integral to the community's discourse and identity.

​