Communication Conundrum ☀
So what will communication look like in 10-15 years from now? Will people even have face-to-face conversations, or will that be looked down upon, almost as if it’s invasive? My occupation affords me the opportunity to evaluate how our upcoming generation does at communication, and while I cannot say that it is non-existent, it does seem to be diminishing. So many people prefer to share their true opinions, and in some cases, live false lives, via the internet, because for them it feels safe. No one there to look them in the eye or read their facial expressions. No one to call you out on a lie because they know better. No, when you communicate online, you basically have the ability to speak bluntly, or lie like a dog and get away with it. So where does that lead us? Are we becoming better communicators, or worse? Is it even conceivable to consider that an entire culture would eliminate most, if not all (I can’t imagine how you could eliminate all), personal communication and simply utilize various tools online? If so, what would be the challenges to the effectiveness of that kind of limited communication? What would be the benefits, if any? I’m trying to imagine where all this blogging, facebook, MySpace, etc. is leading us as a culture. If I can look beyond the curve ahead, I can prepare for how my kids will prefer to interact with dear ole’ dad. It’s funny how the older generations feel like so much of what we do today would be considered an insult back in their day. I’m curioius if how we communicate will be one of those things for us in the future.
Thoughts…
- Face-to-face communication will always trump electronic forms, although the digital platforms will continue to evolve in richness and texture, increasingly approximating all the nonverbal cues and tics inherent in real-life interfaces.
- New generations take for granted today’s communication tools technology provides. For my generation (at least I, for one), I am in awe and marvel at the wonder of the internet age, and how I carry in the presence of my iPhone, a data store greater than the science fiction yarns that entertained in my childhood. Those coming of age with this technology already preexistent, I wonder what the ramifications are. Both positive and negative.
- Accelerated shift from literary to image based communications. A revolution with a genesis in the technology of the photograph. Advanced to critical mass with the advent of television and video. Now as computers become more portable, powerful and ubiquitous, written words are far less relevant than the evocative capacity of images and moving pictures. Eary computing was entirely a text based affair — monospaced characters in monochrome. But in 2009, we can watch, create and edit movies on a cell phone, and upload to share with others via a finger tap. Does that mean our communcation mode is evolving to new millenium hieroglyphics or pic-icons? I can’t imagine to venture on such a long term prospect, but the dichotomy between image and the written word has weighty cultural repercussions.
- I believe the internet age fosters more transparency, not less. Yes, digital braggadocio, along with snarky pseudo-anonymous rage can reign, but as interweb saturation permeates, on both global and local levels, we’re all becoming a more open book. While some herald this a grand development, others lament the loss of privacy or worse, for growing youth, the extension of real world ills into one’s 24-7 existence. For example, cyber-bullying.
Finally, let me cite this insightful piece on technological change by the late Neil Postman:
And so, these are my five ideas about technological change. First, that we always pay a price for technology; the greater the technology, the greater the price. Second, that there are always winners and losers, and that the winners always try to persuade the losers that they are really winners. Third, that there is embedded in every great technology an epistemological, political or social prejudice. Sometimes that bias is greatly to our advantage. Sometimes it is not. The printing press annihilated the oral tradition; telegraphy annihilated space; television has humiliated the word; the computer, perhaps, will degrade community life. And so on. Fourth, technological change is not additive; it is ecological, which means, it changes everything and is, therefore, too important to be left entirely in the hands of Bill Gates. And fifth, technology tends to become mythic; that is, perceived as part of the natural order of things, and therefore tends to control more of our lives than is good for us.
If we had more time, I could supply some additional important things about technological change but I will stand by these for the moment, and will close with this thought. In the past, we experienced technological change in the manner of sleep-walkers. Our unspoken slogan has been “technology über alles,” and we have been willing to shape our lives to fit the requirements of technology, not the requirements of culture. This is a form of stupidity, especially in an age of vast technological change. We need to proceed with our eyes wide open so that we many use technology rather than be used by it.
