Phones are everywhere--sometimes people even have two phones--yet, talking to somebody else using the phone has become rare. The word "telephone" refers to the distance (tele) and voice (phone.) The smartphone is not a smarter way for the distance voice. There is very little vocalization. There is no need for "phone" in the gadget that we refer to as the smartphone!
The very idea of talking on the phone invokes horror among those who claim to loathe it. There are thousands of memes explaining the many ways that talking, not texting, is rude, basically criminal. Calling is not time-efficient, ill-suited to the attention economy, where all eyes must be on several screens at once.Efficiency!
The psychologist Sherry Turkle has been studying the impact of computers on human psychology since the early 1980s, and in 2015 she published Reclaiming Conversation, in which she referred to “the edited life” that we live now. She spoke to teachers who observed that their students seemed to develop empathetic skills at a slower rate than they would be expected to. “Face-to-face conversation is the most human – and humanising – thing we do,” she wrote. “Fully present to one another, we learn to listen. It’s where we develop the capacity for empathy. It’s where we experience the joy of being heard, of being understood.”An interesting essay that will be worth your time. This is a topic about which I have blogged in plenty. The following is a copy/paste from one of my previous posts on this; it is from six years ago:
Real world conversations seem to be getting rarer by the day. For instance, even until a decade ago, the break during class time was when the room was noisiest thanks to students conversing with each other. Calling the class to order typically ended that noise and it was back to me droning on and on and students trying their best to keep awake.
It is a different world, and a different classroom setting now. The break time is often quiet--students are almost always hunched over their smartphones, texting and chatting. Sometimes, I joke that they are probably texting students sitting only two seats away!
Such behavior is not unique in the classroom alone and is played out seemingly everywhere, sometimes even among family members in the same home.
Perhaps an irony that an introverted blogger worries about the death of conversation. But, keep in mind that introvert does not mean anti-social ;) While I might not be the nonstop chatterbox like, well, you know who you are (!), I love conversations.
This fascination with the trend in decreasing levels of conversation is the focus of this piece in the Atlantic:
Turkle is at work on a new book, aspirationally titled Reclaiming Conversation, which will be a continuation of her thinking in Alone Together. In it, she will out herself again, this time as “a partisan of conversation.” Her research for the book has involved hours upon hours of talking with people about conversation as well as eavesdropping on conversations: the kind of low-grade spying that in academia is known as “ethnography,” that in journalism is known as “reporting,” and that everywhere else is known as “paying attention.”We are chatting, messaging, updating the Facebook status, tweeting, yes. But, ...
“I can’t, in restaurants, not watch families not talking to each other,” Turkle tells me. “In parks, I can’t not watch mothers not talking to their children. In streets, I can’t not watch mothers texting while they’re pushing their children.”
Her methods are contagious; once you start noticing what Turkle notices, you can’t stop. It’s a beautiful day, and we walk past boutiques, restaurants, and packed sidewalk cafés. The data are everywhere: The pair of high-school-age girls walking down Boylston Street, silent, typing. The table of brunchers ignoring their mimosas (and one another) in favor of their screens. The kid in the stroller playing with an iPad. The sea of humans who are, on this sparkling Saturday, living up to Turkle’s lament—they seem to be, indeed, alone together.
The conclusion she’s arrived at while researching her new book is not, technically, that we’re not talking to each other. We’re talking all the time, in person as well as in texts, in e-mails, over the phone, on Facebook and Twitter. The world is more talkative now, in many ways, than it’s ever been. The problem, Turkle argues, is that all of this talk can come at the expense of conversation. We’re talking at each other rather than with each other.When I teach a class online, it is that conversation with students in the classroom that I miss. The dialog in the classroom, the tangential comments made, the jokes, and even the wide yawns of students, make up the valuable Socratic conversation.
Conversations, as they tend to play out in person, are messy—full of pauses and interruptions and topic changes and assorted awkwardness. But the messiness is what allows for true exchange. It gives participants the time—and, just as important, the permission—to think and react and glean insights. “You can’t always tell, in a conversation, when the interesting bit is going to come,” Turkle says. “It’s like dancing: slow, slow, quick-quick, slow. You know? It seems boring, but all of a sudden there’s something, and whoa.”Oh well. Maybe some day when there is a severe electromagnetic storm and we lose electronic communication, we might be forced into re-learning the art of conversation. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem likely that we can teach the art of conversation either!
Occasional dullness, in other words, is to be not only expected, but celebrated. Some of the best parts of conversation are, as Turkle puts it, “the boring bits.”
