The
whole nature of conversation has been changing over these last years. For one thing, conversation no longer
necessarily involves spoken utterances.
As a matter of fact, for many people, including most young people,
spoken utterances no longer seem to be the first resort for many casual
conversations. Chatting now involves
written exchanges on social media like Facebook. People type away like crazy on their smartphones
to maintain a rhythm of conversation that would approach their rhythm if they
were engaged in an oral conversation. So
the question is why do so many people gravitate to written chatting rather than
oral chatting?
The
answer resides in the gradual reconfiguration of the fields of stimulation that
people have been experiencing as a result of technological change. Increasingly, modern technology has been
displacing more traditional natural living environments, and, as a result, the
amount of organic stimuli that people have been receiving has been diminishing
significantly. People today are
surrounded by the mechanical stimuli of many machines and devices and by the
digital stimuli that run screen-based machines like computers and televisions,
the Internet of Things, 3 D printing, and virtual reality. In other words, people are surrounded by
defined discrete stimuli rather than the flowing blendable continual stimuli,
the organic stimuli that are found in nature.
As this transformation in the fields of experience occur, so also does
the human capacity to be receptive to different categories of stimuli. As people surround themselves with modern
machines and digital stimuli, they gradually lose their receptivity to organic
stimuli. In terms of communication,
people began to feel overwhelmed by face-to-face primary experience
conversation and to feel increasingly comfortable in mediated forms of
communication. Before texting came
along, there was obviously the less mediated form of communication of the
telephone. The telephone captured one
part of the organic imprint that was made in face-to-face conversation: namely,
the human voice. Missing were the facial
expressions and the body gestures that are such an important part of
face-to-face primary experience communication.
But at least on the phone, one could convey a lot through vocal
inflection, volume, tone, and speed.
However,
one other thing is missing on the phone that is present in face-to-face: the
knowledge of the sustained presence of the person with whom one is talking,
even when the person is silent. In
face-to-face conversations, the companion is presented as more than simply a
series of defined discrete chopped-up bits and pieces of conversation. The companion is endowed with a 3 dimensional
external world reality of mass, matter and substance. When one is talking with a person
face-to-face, there is grounding from the common physical space where both
people are as well as the presence of a bonding among the people talking. In phone conversations, where people
experience each other as chopped up sensations, common physical grounding is
non-existent and bonding is much more tenuous and fragile. Between the periods of time when a person is
talking, there is the vacuum of silence when for all intensive purposes, he
ceases to sensorily exist. It is hard to bond or be grounded with someone who
only exists as a series of chopped-up auditory images.
When
we move to texting, we move to a more mediated form of communication. There is no direct organic imprint from the
physical presence of the person with whom one is texting. The communication is done through the
thoughts put down in writing of the people involved. Again, as with the vocal communication on the
phone, there is a vacuum of silence between written utterances. However, the vacuumization is carried
further, because there is no sensory presence of the person with whom one is
talking. With a phone call there is the
voice, but with texting one only witnesses the physical presence or imprint of
the thoughts of one’s companions. So the
whole experience is sensorily vacuumized.
There is no real external world grounding, and real bonding is very
tenuous at best.
Young
people today love texting, but everybody, because of Covid 19, has been moving
to another manifestation of digital communication, namely what I call screen
reality communication: Skype, Zoom, WhatsApp, FaceTime. On the one hand these screen reality forms of
communication allow a person to be visually presented to his companion or
companions just like in face-to-face external world communication. But it is like a trick, because one is
visually present without being physically present. The visual images lack depth, they are
flat. They are vacuumized images. One cannot touch or smell the other
person. It is as if one is lulled into a
false sense of communion. The image of
the other person lacks mass, matter and substance.
With
texting, there are no illusions. The
whole experience is vacuumized. But with
screen reality communication, one can still feel as if one is having a
meaningful communing experience. And
screen reality communication is even less vacuumized than straight talking on
the phone. We can say that screen
reality communication blurs together with face-to-face communication and the
danger is that not only does screen reality communication imitate face-to-face
communication, but face-to-face communication starts to feel more mediated like
screen reality communication. A person
can become so reconfigured by digital communication that his capacity to
commune and bond with other people becomes severely affected. Nevertheless, I recently wrote an article for
this column in which I stated that, because of Covid 19, it was better to use
Zoom and other such visual forms of communication to have some visual
connection to people, rather than to be totally visually isolated and thus sink
into an even deeper level of numbness in a deeper experiential vacuum. I still believe this, in spite of the side
effects, and I look forward to the day when we have a vaccine and, thus,
face-to-face primary experience will become safe again.
© 2020 Laurence Mesirow
No comments:
Post a Comment