Picture two twentysomethings meeting at a bar. Ian greets Michelle, she lets him buy her a drink, and voilà, these friendly strangers have begun to forge an informal social contract that will soon lead to a romantic interlude. What Michelle and Ian don’t realize is that their fling will disintegrate faster than a meteor striking the atmosphere. Why? Because they’re children of the Information Age, and true intimacy in this era has become a Paleolithic notion for all too many Echo Boomers.
Due to a litany of mostly unsettling reasons, we now allow cyberspace strangers to invade our personal privacy and, to a great extent, define our emotional destinies. Via the Internet, we evaluate each other based on an exchange of watered-down information that ripples through our shrinking memory centers more quickly than it can be deciphered. In a world like this, intimacy no longer means much of anything. It becomes an incredibly insignificant part of the creation and maintenance of personal relationships, and we must take the blame for letting this happen.
Your name and cell phone number are the key and compass to a revealing information map. All one needs to do is follow the digital footprints you leave behind. Online social platforms like Facebook, MySpace, and Tumblr only require a name or number to view, for instance. Moreover, users often overlook or ignore privacy option settings that skilled online intruders can easily circumvent anyway.
Let’s return to Michelle and Ian for a moment. Within twenty minutes of meeting him, Michelle chirps, ”Oh, you have to Facebook me!” She might as well have said, “Nice to meet you Ian. Call me some time. Also, check out pictures of me with my ex-boyfriend on Facebook. His Facebook profile is tagged in that picture, so feel free to look him up, too. He’s more handsome than you, you’ll probably think, but all the terrible things he has to say about me will surely impact your opinion of me well before we even set our first date.” To put it another way, “Facebook me” means, “Hey Ian, look at my Cyberstein creation that isn’t who I really am or who you should actually know. I guess you might have noticed that I hold little value in my own privacy and self-worth. You also probably intuited from this that I don’t really respect your privacy, either.”
Of course, at this point, most everyone is aware that social networking sites also promise several valuable benefits that are, at times, necessary for navigating the ever-changing currents of the 21st Century. One major benefit is the instant connection to people or groups with whom a person already holds a strong familiarity. However, this benefit doesn’t exist if a budding relationship has not yet grown to a level of comfort that allows for the free exchange of personal information pertaining to family, friends, or work. Privacy is lost, whether at the hands of a person who surrenders his or her information freely online or by the person who chooses to pursue it.
This static form of information interchange without regard to privacy is happening with stunning rapidity. Because of the constant and often instant availability of Internet data, people are giving and expecting information from others at completely unrealistic speeds. Sharing such a broad body of information at such an exponential rate devalues this information for both parties, as well as the intimacy associated with it. Text messaging represents the current nadir of this cultural trend. Limited to only 160 characters per message, instantly sent or received, and completely devoid of emotional value, this medium lends itself to nothing more than fact-based transmissions. When a person texts another, the information exchanged loses many dimensions for both parties just as quickly as the messages are sent. Emotional meaning is muted by a lack of physical connection. Anonymity stifles sound ethics and morals. The text message brutalizes emotionally sensitive situations between people sharing intimate relationships.
In the case of Michelle and Ian, who did indeed choose to pursue a romantic relationship, it took Ian only 32 thousandths of a second to send a text message telling poor Michelle he didn’t want to see her anymore. To add insult to injury, Ian didn’t have enough characters (or character) to text a better explanation for this decision in proper English, and his misspellings and punctuation errors didn’t help at all. And now, a bitter and inconsolable Michelle continues to post strange and hostile pictures, videos, and messages to her Facebook timeline that worry her mother.
Some might consider it easier to modify or even terminate a relationship without emotion on a nearly anonymous plane, especially when the information being shared could possibly hurt the people involved. But is “easier” really the right word when it comes to the building and maintenance of worthwhile relationships? No. The significant investments required of a close relationship should never be treated with such callous disregard, and the emotional needs of someone for whom you truly care should always outweigh the ease of a text message.
The nonchalant ambivalence of the Information Age spells disaster for mature relationships. Not only are people using texting, Facebook, and so on as a mask for worthwhile and honest communication, but these fraction-of-a-second exchanges of information leave no room for mental digestion. Yet, people in the U.S. are sending trillions of these insipid, dangerously fast bits of information all day, every single day. In so doing, they are unknowingly adapting to this change, relegating the overall value of intimacy to impersonal interactions that often require little or no personal responsibility for things said and done. When information loses its value, the intimacy associated with sharing and knowing this information also suffers. Emotional and moral imperatives grow more blurry and undefined. Hopefully, Ian and Michelle will pull this discussion up on the Internet and read it carefully sometime soon.
I first became aware of the abuse of instant communication when I sent a friend a few thoughtful paragraphs and received “okay, thanks” in response. If my message is just a few clicks (or taps) away from YouTube, why bother spending a few minutes on intelligent communication? Piano cat has a song to play.
Some of my most confusing friendships have been products of modern communication, typically because people misunderstand how online communication should work. As a kid I had three modes of communication: face-to-face, on the phone, and in letters. E-mail showed up when I was fairly young, but I (and many others at the time) treated it like an electronic form of letter writing. As instant messaging and texting developed, friendships became more fickle and reliant on instant gratification. If I don’t respond right away, it means I’m ignoring you.
Another unfortunate aspect of Facebook and communication that lacks the face-to-face element is the ability to create a positive persona (the “Cyberstein creation” as you called it) that tells only the good things about your personality and interests. No rational person would describe their negative traits in great detail, but after someone creates their profile, what we are left with is a perfect mold of the person he or she wants to be, and that opens your friends up (or yourself) to a rude awakening.
jlsticka,
You bring up some accurate and interesting points concerning the use of technology. I think your statements are valid-for a portion of the population. For others, however, your statements might seem inaccurate, which is the beauty of the technology age. Depending upon one’s perspective, our tendency to interact with others with less intimacy might be a curse.
This same tendency might also offer a cure, of sorts, to the problem billions of human beings face: we struggle to control reactions to a world suddenly made global, full of technology developing at record rates. Amid the hurly-burly, the technologies that can serve to drive us apart can also bring us together.
I’ll give a basic example. I am a member of the Y/Millennial/Echo Boomer generation, and I began using the Internet when I was in middle school, but before the invention of social media. I recall, like a nightmare, how disconnected from others I truly was. When friends moved away, I lost contact with them.
Phone numbers changed and addresses behaved fluidly due to the dynamic nature of the town in which I lived with my parents. The transient nature of a population largely consisting of military personnel meant I had to make new friends every year, and I couldn’t hold onto them long. When they moved to Germany or the East Coast, I lost them forever-until the advent of social media and networking.
While I’ll readily admit that Facebook, to me, represents a logistical nightmare and a great waste of time, I enjoy the ways it allows me to connect with others. I’m willing to suffer through a reasonable amount of ads, an annoying design, and all those stupid game requests to have that connection with friends, family, and loved ones for one simple reason. If I didn’t have these modes of staying in contact with people, I would never speak to anyone more than once a year.
Perhaps such “fragmented” intimacy isn’t a product of de-evolution as much as it is a product of change. Perhaps we should define, guide, and enjoy the transition while puzzling out ways to relate to others on a completely different level. Technology is a tool, not a means to an end in itself.
We can allow change to define us, or we can define the change.
The article holds so many good points on modern communication! I love you how you use facts and strong situation to back up your point! As for Christopher’s comment I felt it was just based on personal regret towards modern communication. Over all the product of modern communication is truly decided on by the users honesty, care and respect. Sadly we look at the entertainment object and not the issue or issues it causes. Pulling are important values down. We would rather have entertainment then hold important values. To hold values and have entertainment is the key!This article and comment provides a perfect test and example for what I speak of. Both are focused on the interesting to them and apply no thought at looking at it through at least the three important values I listed.
Sure, some of it is personal regret (a few relationships went sour online), but regardless I am speaking from years of experience (as I’m sure we all are). That being said, I don’t exactly regret the advancement of social media. Would we be having this conversation without Web 2.0 and the inter-connectivity it allows? On a larger scale, I see the greater advantages of this technology and take full advantage, but in the short term I certainly lament old-school communication. I could just be speaking from inaccurate nostalgia, of course, but I think a case can be made for gradual change, rather than the explosion of technology that has created a historically wide social gap between generations. We now have old school Cheap Trick fans trying to connect with their kids who listen to Avenged Sevenfold on their Windows 8 smartphones (as they post on their Facebook walls).
I think too many people don’t understand that a text message or instant message (or even a book) carries less information than a face to face conversation. One of the best examples of this is when people try to use sarcasm in writing. Sometimes it works, but that’s a minority.
I definitely think that a facebook profile, no matter how full of information, can’t relay enough information on its own. It’d be like someone feeling he/she has watched a movie by listening to his/her friends talk about it. Nothing can ever replace face to face conversation.
I love that you can very easily block information freely given on the internet. Nothing like having someone giving a little too much info and trying desperately (and failing) to end the conversation (or lecture) politely.
I never thought about this before, but we even had to invent a whole set of “emoticons” to help convey emotion through text-based communication. Maybe someday we can all have chips installed in our heads that not only convey a message but emotions with it, and on that day I will truly be frightened.
I really enjoyed the points that you made and the style in which you presented them. Specifically the extended example you used to give a personal aspect to your analysis. I feel like utilizing this strategy strengthens your argument because it provides the personal aspect you claim lacks in 21st century communication.
I thought of this topic last night while watching an episode of “How I Met Your Mother.” When Ted does not look into his date beforehand, he finds himself empty of any interesting conversation topics.
As far as Locke’s comment of attempting to define this generation for ourselves, I feel the nature of technology is going to inhibit people from doing just that. Without technology people of this generation are mostly crippled. Therefore, our dependency will not encourage people to question its dynamics or the consequences it will have. In this environment, I feel people will become slaves to the types of interpersonal relationships technology produces.
I enjoyed reading your article very much! And I can’t help but agree with you on everything. It is sad to me how far people are willing to take their personal relationships into the land of technology. I feel I am one of the few people left who take the time to write a thank you card by hand, or send a handwritten letter to my relatives. I do these things faithfully even though i know I probably won’t receive a response in the same manner. It just isn’t the same when you send a quick thank you text for something, you know?
I like that you took the time to state the obvious — sometimes people simply do not realize how far they have fallen down the rabbit hole until they stop and look back in the direction from which they came. I feel, like you, that we as humans have already traveled far beyond the turning-around point. I think the best we can hope for now is some slight recognition of these changes to the population as a whole. If people would stop for a few minutes, tear themselves away from the glowing lights of the miscellaneous screens, and realize how disgustingly dependent they are upon technology, perhaps they might also see how blindly following along such a path will more than likely lead them only to disappointment.
Technology should be available to make things easier, faster, more convenient, sure, but such things should never include personal relationships.
I cant find one point in this article that I disagree with. This is a topic that i have discussed with my mom for quite a while now. I would say most people are intelligent enough to realize technology has changed how people interact with one another. If the interaction is changing then of course relationships will also be effected. I am not saying I am in any way against technology, but it would be nice if people, including myself, weren’t so reliant on it.i really love how all of the points of how technology can effect relationships were dissected. Honestly, I hadn’t even thought of most of the key points that were discussed but it makes complete sense to me after reading this article as to why technology effects interaction so greatly. By having Ian and Michelle as an example it really made all of the points come to life and even more valid. I cant really imagine how anyone could argue this article. I understand everyone has a different stand on subjects, and I would never say anyone opinion or how they feel about something is wrong. All I am saying is as for me, I definitely agree with the point of social media and technology having a negative effect on relationships, not only intimate, between people.
I totally enjoyed your article! When I was growing up I used to sit by the phone and wait for it to ring when I thought someone was interested in me. Or when that call finally came I would stay up half the night talking to that gorgeous guy that sat in the back in English and found out he is not really stuck on himself like everybody thought he was. Now adays people check their text messages, email, facebook and so on waiting for that person to reach out to them. And if and when it does happen they send those ridiculous acronyms and emoticons and call that conversation. And to top it all off they get upset when they check the other persons facebook and see they are having conversations with other people and before you know it they have made up their mind how much they don’t like you and what they think of you without actually having a conversation with you. How pathetic. Give me the old fashion way! I like to look someone in the eye when I say “Yes I would love to go out with you!”
How are newer generations going to be able to decipher all of the subtle body language that accompanies our face to face conversations? Whether it be with a boss, a loved one, a brand new friend, will they have the ability to pick up on the non-verbal communication (which makes up about 80% of a face to face communication)? A slight withdrawal from the conversation as someone crosses the arms or points all angles of the body in the opposite direction - will that even be noticed? And if it is, will it be correctly comprehended? Humans began communication using body language as a backup. Without it, we lose the essential meaning of our expression.