2008 Woodie Awards
Home > Opinion
Faceless conversations ruin real ones
In my opinion | Anything But Apathy
by Deborah Bloom | Columnist
Face-2-face conversations r so yesterday.
Why bother, when we have the phone, text messaging, e-mail, Facebook and instant messaging? With so many mediums to choose from, it's no wonder we are reluctant to communicate in person; it's time-consuming and requires proper hygiene. The need to engage in tangible discourse simply does not exist amid a world of technological communication. In fact, as I write this I am IMing a friend who sits two feet away from me. Why? Because I can.
The ability to socialize electronically is convenient. In a few finger-strokes, we can send terse, direct messages that allow us to get our point across without any discussion or debate. If we want to know something specific, we can easily write on someone's Facebook wall without the worry of providing filler conversation. If we are in a fight, we can avoid confrontation by hashing it out over IM.
We take such a refuge in this era of vague, faceless communication that paying attention in class, at meetings and on the road is second priority. Amid such electronic ease, there is less room for boredom and awkwardness. We can say whatever we want. We can carefully calculate our words without the pressure of rhythmically exchanging dialogue. We have a confidence in knowing that whatever we say will be uninterrupted.
Such ample access to a variety of expressional modes has altered the nature of our interpersonal communication. Much of our communication is nonverbal; yet, in a world devoid of gestures and inflection, where we are more comfortable typing than talking, we are constantly misunderstanding each other. As we become less adept at carrying on real-life conversations, we lose the ability to speak confidently. With the proliferation of shorthand, we hinder our capabilities as eloquent writers. Personally, my own ability to actually confront someone has been plagued by the constant temptation to seek refuge in a phone call or text message.
Our choice of communication indicates the complexity of our relationships. Often, the relationships we form in the virtual world have a more difficult time translating into the tangible one. When we bump into someone we have learned to identify as a Facebook profile, the conversation usually revolves around his or her new photo album or recently altered relationship status. Upon running into JetGirl92, we realize that we are so used to typed dialogue that we do not know how to actually speak to her - we've never had to. Behind the screen name, the real person is unfamiliar to us.
No amount of wall posts, IMs or text messages will foster a substantial connection with someone because we cannot build meaningful relationships over our cell phones or computers. While many of us text risqué messages, poke each other virtually or flirt via IM, this is not to be taken too seriously. We cannot expect anything more real than our exercised mode of communication.
The typing and texting, so ubiquitous in our social lives, are often fragments of ideas rather than complete thoughts. Usually, there is no topic sentence or distinguishable beginning, middle and end. Thus, our tendency for convenient, faceless communication ultimately hinders our ability to form clear, complete thoughts for discussion and argumentation.
Despite the prevalent risk of developing carpel-tunnel syndrome, our interactions have become less personal. I have seen fights on Facebook walls, secrets exposed over IM, relationships end via text message. Communicating with such ease does very little to strengthen the quality of our conversations.
Some of us manage to complement our social lives with these electronic capabilities. We do not interrupt real conversations to answer text messages. We realize that communicating over our cell phones and computers is no substitute for face-to-face interaction. After all, personal interaction requires more than an exchange of thoughts. A real, meaningful conversation requires eye contact, body language and sound. It cannot be sent or typed. It cannot be abbreviated.
dbloom@dailyemerald.com
Why bother, when we have the phone, text messaging, e-mail, Facebook and instant messaging? With so many mediums to choose from, it's no wonder we are reluctant to communicate in person; it's time-consuming and requires proper hygiene. The need to engage in tangible discourse simply does not exist amid a world of technological communication. In fact, as I write this I am IMing a friend who sits two feet away from me. Why? Because I can.
The ability to socialize electronically is convenient. In a few finger-strokes, we can send terse, direct messages that allow us to get our point across without any discussion or debate. If we want to know something specific, we can easily write on someone's Facebook wall without the worry of providing filler conversation. If we are in a fight, we can avoid confrontation by hashing it out over IM.
We take such a refuge in this era of vague, faceless communication that paying attention in class, at meetings and on the road is second priority. Amid such electronic ease, there is less room for boredom and awkwardness. We can say whatever we want. We can carefully calculate our words without the pressure of rhythmically exchanging dialogue. We have a confidence in knowing that whatever we say will be uninterrupted.
Such ample access to a variety of expressional modes has altered the nature of our interpersonal communication. Much of our communication is nonverbal; yet, in a world devoid of gestures and inflection, where we are more comfortable typing than talking, we are constantly misunderstanding each other. As we become less adept at carrying on real-life conversations, we lose the ability to speak confidently. With the proliferation of shorthand, we hinder our capabilities as eloquent writers. Personally, my own ability to actually confront someone has been plagued by the constant temptation to seek refuge in a phone call or text message.
Our choice of communication indicates the complexity of our relationships. Often, the relationships we form in the virtual world have a more difficult time translating into the tangible one. When we bump into someone we have learned to identify as a Facebook profile, the conversation usually revolves around his or her new photo album or recently altered relationship status. Upon running into JetGirl92, we realize that we are so used to typed dialogue that we do not know how to actually speak to her - we've never had to. Behind the screen name, the real person is unfamiliar to us.
No amount of wall posts, IMs or text messages will foster a substantial connection with someone because we cannot build meaningful relationships over our cell phones or computers. While many of us text risqué messages, poke each other virtually or flirt via IM, this is not to be taken too seriously. We cannot expect anything more real than our exercised mode of communication.
The typing and texting, so ubiquitous in our social lives, are often fragments of ideas rather than complete thoughts. Usually, there is no topic sentence or distinguishable beginning, middle and end. Thus, our tendency for convenient, faceless communication ultimately hinders our ability to form clear, complete thoughts for discussion and argumentation.
Despite the prevalent risk of developing carpel-tunnel syndrome, our interactions have become less personal. I have seen fights on Facebook walls, secrets exposed over IM, relationships end via text message. Communicating with such ease does very little to strengthen the quality of our conversations.
Some of us manage to complement our social lives with these electronic capabilities. We do not interrupt real conversations to answer text messages. We realize that communicating over our cell phones and computers is no substitute for face-to-face interaction. After all, personal interaction requires more than an exchange of thoughts. A real, meaningful conversation requires eye contact, body language and sound. It cannot be sent or typed. It cannot be abbreviated.
dbloom@dailyemerald.com
Viewing Comments 1 - 4 of 10
Donald
posted 3/14/08 @ 1:57 AM PST
Deborah,
You are an editorial columnist. You express opinion in 500 words or less. You have ideas edited, paraphrased, and printed every Thursday. You espouse opinion without direct debate, argument, or exchange of ideas as a job, if not a hobby. (Continued…)
Bright_One
posted 3/16/08 @ 8:36 PM PST
I agree with her, but, I do think that she wants to have sex. I do not know who with, but I can tell you that she won't get to have sex with Brad Pitt. (Continued…)
Katelynn
posted 3/17/08 @ 10:24 AM PST
Donald, you put it perfectly. Deborah Bloom needs to stop writing about the exact same thing every week. I feel like she mentions Facebook in every single column. (Continued…)
Amy W.
posted 3/18/08 @ 2:36 PM PST
Just a quick cut-and-paste from my blog:
I'm currently in an airport lounge, waiting for my flight. Almost everyone here is on a laptop. (There is free wireless access, and the tables have electrical outlets on them. (Continued…)
Post a Comment