Another outline draft

I couldn't think of a way of inserting my own thoughts into your structure without making it too clunky. I'll present my interpretations, and then we could probably proceed with what you suggested in your draft's comments: that we break each item into a different post. OR we could make a Google Document and attempt co-writing (not just drafting, but actually writing) the paper so that each item takes one page. If we can agree on the approximate content of each point, we can probably start hammering out a single page about each. A 8-page article is already an article. But we can go through several rounds of elaboration of this structure until we have a consensus about what we want to say. So here are my thougths:

1. Characters in a comfort zone. In academic writing it's probably not that important to introduce ourselves, but we can definitely add a footnote about how we ended up entangled in phatics. (It would have to be pretty formal and concise.) That is, we need a footnote on our research and background.
   The real characters here are probably "phatics" (plural), that is, phatic communion, phatic function, and phatic communion (in chronological order: Malinowski, Jakobson, La Barre). These character-terms actually represent somewhat divergent lines of research (of which La Barre's line is least known and developed, stretching from him to Wescott and Austin). I have a whole argument (that can be fleshed out with meta-analysis of phatic studies) about how Malinowski-inspired phatic studies focus on "communion", "sociability" and "bonding" while Jakobson-inspired phatic studies focus on "speech", "utterance" and "contact" (compared to these, the third strain focuses only on the vocalization and emotional communization in phatic communion).
   Stoneking31 comments: "A dramatic character is only dramatic when confronted by a problem (or a problem disguised as an opportunity in comedy) that carries with urgency an increasing risk." - The problem with our characters, these terms, is that they tend to be un-examined (Coupland et al. meritoriously point out that the underlying assumptions of phatic communion are rarely touched upon), which leads to various simplifications ("talking for the sake of talking", or phatic as an "attention-getting device"). There is also a poignant risk that if no meta-level unifying effort is taken, "phatics" will continue to be a disintegrated collage of particularities with the overarching importance of it all remaining merely intuitive. Our task is then to ovecome simplification and particularization. This leads us to "need".
2. We want something. We want to understand this perturbing concept, "phatic", and make it more understandable for further research. There is a need for generalization, outlining the main features of phatic phenomena, and illuminating their importance for not only face-to-face interaction, but also digital communication in modern society.
   The potential explanatory power of phatic studies stems from the fact that it can illuminate the connection between micro- and macrosocial interactions, including but not limited to, social networking, community construction, group formation, collaborative work, not to mention the role of phatic communion in everyday interactions and interpersonal relationships.
   That is, there is a need to alleviate the poor understanding of phatics in various quarters of academic research (where "phatic" is sometimes used in a pejorative sense, meaning non-communicative or meaningless speech), and consequently a need for updating the conceptual domain of phatic studies so that we could understand the role and functions of phatic communion in modern society. This is difficult because phatic studies are so diverse and dispersed that it does not present a single line of inquiry but a hodgepodge of branches in various fields.
3. The field of phatic studies is currently unnavigable. The sheer amount of different forms of linguistic, sociological and anthropological research that operates with the concept of "phatic" is unfathomable. It is impossible for a researcher anchored in a single subject to breach it all. Phatic studies requires a transdisciplinary ethos in order to cover all the divergent interpretations and to contextualize the empirical findings of so disjointed investigations.
   The unfamiliar situation here consists in the difficult terrain of studies that are unified only by the term "phatic" and some intuitive assumptions about what is phatic. At every step you meet strange variations of phatic phenomena, and unexpected interpretations of what they are and why they matter. Not least of it is the somewhat cryptic etymological history of "phatic" and the ambiguous definition that Malinowski gave us, which has lead different researchers to focus on different aspects of the original conception (for example, going on Malinowski alone it is possible to emphasize greetings, small talk, gossip, sociability, affirmation, communion, fellowship, atmosphere, etc.).
   I'm not sure it would be wise to proceed with a list of keywords, because the sheer amount of phatic phenomena is inexaustible - I believe it is impossible to collect them all, nor is it really necessary in order to get to the heart of the matter. Rather, instead of focusing on the "distinctive features" of various interpretations, we should focus on the "unitive" aspects, i.e. the common features that make it possible to designate something as "phatic". These broadly include something like "meaninglessness" on the one hand and a "willingness to communicate" on the other.
   At this point we're still in the "conscious" pole of the story. Things are still "well-lit and regularly swept" - we're dealing with stuff that still makes intuitive sense. In the introductory part of the paper (which these first 3 points seem to consist of) introduces the problem, why it matters, and what can be done about it. Or, in other words, we are dealing with phatic studies, we feel that there is a need for a unifying effort, and recognize that the diversity of phatic studies presents an unfamiliar situation into which we must enter.
4. We are faced with phatic eclecticism. Although there have been efforts to make "phatic communion" more concrete by specifying it's place in the communication model (Jakobson's "function set on contact"), this has actually exacerbated the problem, since now the definition of "phatic" shifts from speech to communication, and consequently everything that can be understood from the standpoint of communication can also be said to have a phatic component.
   Thus we find the "phatic image" and the "phatic fountain", that is, we find phatic studies now dealing with the extremes of holding and maintaining attention all the while being inherently pointless. Left to its own devices, the phatic function becomes dysfunctional, and even more pejorative than before (cf. "the phatic man" poem).
   But at the same time we find that there are those who elaborate the functions of phatic communion, such as John Laver, and broaden its horizons in a positive, productive way. For example, it turns out that phatic studies can illuminate how communication and human relationships are interdependent, and how relationships depend on phatic communion in order to begin and develop. We find operational definitions of what a relationship even is.
5. We find that the concept of "phatic", despite all its problems, is still useful. Despite the great variety of phatic studies they do seem to have something in common: the emphasis on communication itself. Just like after a row with your spouse and three days of not speaking to each other, you say something, anything, and re-discover the pleasure of communicating, of affirming each other in the very act of communicating, even if the semantic content of said communication is irrelevant.
   We find that man is a phatic animal, a social being, who has a need for communication even for the sake of communication. We find, in La Barre, for example, that our ability to make and maintain contact with others is important for not only our happiness but for our survival. The heavy implications of phatic communication become apparent: that in our modern world we are increasingly more and more in informative communication with endless sources, but have trouble maintaining relationships, of holding on to the human component of information, the source.
   This is where we attempt to comprehend the true extent of phatic communion and its necessity for the individual, for families and groups, for social integration and cultural cohesion, for the continued existence of the species in general. The "phatic man" on the train does not shut up because "The worst illness that a human being can know is not to know that he belongs" (La Barre 1954: 244-246). We, as a species, ache to belong.
6. Once we acknowledge the immense role of phatic communion, we are faced with the difficult question of how to study it. It is not enough to understand what it is and why it is important. As scientists we should be able to know how to study it. But what methodology could possibly approach such a broad subject? The field is far too wide, far too inclusive, for a single interpretation and single approach. The inevitable conclusion is that at best what we can do is point the way.
   At this point is seems inevitable that that is indeed all we can do - list the most common terms, show how they are related with each other, outline the lines of research that seem most promising, and hope for the best that someone else working on something phatic will stumble on this article and understand the breath of the undertaking, and come away from the shell shock of possible variations with mind set on something concrete that might advance all of our knowledge.
7. We exit the chaos of phatic studies and perhaps introduce something new. Meltzer & Musolf (2003: 142) point out that various conceptions about the nature of phaticity are divisible into three types: consensually-accepted (what I call these "intuitive" after Žegarac & Clark (1999)); debated characteristics (i.e. the eclectic interpretations); and derivative concepts, which in my mind includes the sociopetal and sociofugal phatic disposition interpretation.
   In this sense we "bring it home" by being "rescued from without" - by researchers like Morris, Ruesch, Sommer and Bateson, who in effect worked on phatic issues without calling it such. At this stage we have returned to the orderly "conscious" pole and discovered that the eclectic stuff we have downstairs in the eclectic unconsciousness of phatic studies actually makes sense in light of semiotics and communication theory.
8. In the end we have not only looked into phatic studies and attempted to understand it but have changed it. By going over such a variety of phatic studies we should now be able to reformulate the phatic function. Out of eclecticism should arise an all-inclusive, broad-minded, generalized definition of phatic. Actually, I did not use the word "eclectic" in the correct sense above. What I meant was that the current picture of phatic studies is disparate (various lines of research are so unlike that there is little to no basis for comparison). The end result should be an eclectic definition in the sense of "selecting what seems best of various styles or ideas".
   From a story-telling perspective, the conclusion should enable us to say something definitive on the subject because we've done the legwork - we've gone through the trouble of reading through all those papers, taken note of the similarities and differences between various phatic terms, etc. - and consquently have a better and broader understanding of phatic studies than anyone else at this point in time. That is our licence.

And now, in pairs:

• We are (1) dealing with phatic communion, phatic function, and phatic communication, these disparate terms with different lines of development with only slight convergence; and we will ultimately (8) produce a unified view of phatic studies which no longer subscribes for a particularized version of "phatic communion" but takes a broader, inclusive stance.
• We want to understand (2) the concept to the fullest, to outline its main features and to update it for modern forms of communication ; and contend with the difficulties (6) related with the scientific study.
• The current terrain of phatic studies offers numerous resistances (3) such as the sheer number of different viewpoints and definitions but we nevertheless take it up; and find that there is something we can contribute (7) that is still new to the field.
• And although there is a great diversity (4) in various phatic studies brought about by its colourful history; by going through it thoroughly, we are able to conclude with a generalization (8) about phatic studies.

This was very rambling (you can see how it wouldn't have fit your structure, which is much too clear), but I believe that if you do one again and then I do one again, we should have our plans synchronized enough to proceed with writing. If not, then rinse and repeat. The details of Harmon's structure are still not all too clear for me - that's why I think it will take a couple of rounds before we get it right. Practice makes perfect and all that.