Land’s End

Perhaps this is an “old guy” rant about how things have changed from the way they used to be. Perhaps it represents the musings of a person who’s somewhat anal and overly focused on the precise definition of things. It might even be the case that there’s something to it and it’s worth your consideration – you decide.

I’ve been thinking lately about how our culture’s understanding of the terms communication and connection have been transformed in the past fifty years – largely as the result of technological advances. The dictionary defines communication as: “the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs.”  Connection is defined as: “joining, linking, or fastening together; uniting or binding”. In the context of personal relationships, communication is intended to join, unite, or bond us with others on an intellectual and/or emotional level.

Before the widespread adoption of telephones in the home (believe it or not, this actually occurred in my lifetime!), this process was driven by face-to-face conversations and personal notes or letters. Implicit in these mediums of communication was the aspect of time. If you wanted to have a personal conversation with someone, you had to wait to encounter them in public where you could talk or arrange for another time to meet. In the alternative, you would take the time to write a note or letter to someone, post it, have the recipient read it, compose his or her reply, and post a response back to you. Under these circumstances, there was usually a strong correlation between communication and meaningful connection. Face-to-face conversations allow us to observe body language and facial expressions and to associate changes in speech patterns/intonation with other visual clues. There is simply no better or more effective way to tie communication to connection. Similarly, people who utilized notes and letters as their preferred means of communication developed writing skills that allowed them to clearly articulate their thoughts and emotions to others.

The introduction of the telephone meant that in order to truly connect with others, one had to develop a new skill: how to listen for changes in speech patterns and intonation that reflected a special emphasis on or a sense of emotion about what was being said. Obviously, the better one knew the person on the other end of the phone, the easier it would be to discern what was actually being “said” and how the other person was “feeling”. I also believe that the telephone significantly reduced the use of writing as a medium of communication that connected us to others. It simply became too time consuming and cumbersome to communicate with others via notes and letters. As a result, the “art” of writing as a form of communication was lost by many – mostly due to lack of use. The telephone also represented a tectonic shift in the relationship between communication and time. Now we could speak to people instantaneously, without having to wait to encounter them personally or for the exchange of long distance correspondence. However, human nature being what it is, it wasn’t long before we became dissatisfied with the new medium. If someone wasn’t available when we called, we demanded a way to communicate right now – without having to wait and call back. Thus were recording devices (answering machines) introduced and popularized.

The advent of the cell phone changed the equation again by allowing us to instantly communicate with others without being tethered to the physical location of a telephone. Now we could have conversations anywhere, anytime, with almost anyone. It didn’t take long for us to begin abusing this capability. Today we see people talking with others on their cell phones (PDA’s, etc.) when they should be paying respectful attention those who are serving them (in a store, restaurant, etc.) or to those who are with them at the time. The clear implication is that me and my call are more important than you (see my previous post on Civility). What a paradox! Now I’m face-to-face with you but we aren’t communicating or connecting because you’re too busy trying to do that with someone else via cell phone.

Naturally, people don’t always choose to answer their cell phones and despite accompanying voice messaging systems, we quickly became dissatisfied once again. Hence, the emergence of texting. Now don’t get me wrong; I’m no Luddite and I really think text messaging is a valuable communication medium. Nevertheless, I believe it’s a very poor means of  connecting with others. Those who have grown up in the latter stages of the information age would probably disagree, but texting is yet another example of how communication does not automatically result in “meaningful” connection.

This all came together in my mind after me, my wife, and another couple moderated a discussion on dating and relationships for younger adults at our church. Someone described a situation where two people had gone out on a date and were now attempting to navigate their way through the delicate dance of courtship (I know, it’s an old school word) exclusively via text messaging. How come he/she took so long to respond? What was he/she trying to say in his/her message? When we suggested that some matters were best addressed face-to-face, despite the potential of adding a physical component to rejection (having to walk away), we could see from some people’s faces that this was an almost revolutionary idea – while others nodded approvingly at our collective wisdom ;-).

I like using all the communication tools available to me in this day and age, but I try to be selective and prudent about how I go about connecting with people. How about you?