A future of isolation? I think not.

 The other day in class we were asked to write down the ways that we use technology to communicate with others and when we would use them in the interest of time, person and/or context. This exercise became particularly interesting to me when we were asked to think of this in terms of our relationships and who is "allowed" to contact us in certain ways. Also, what does the way in which people contact us say about the intimacy of our relationships. I then began to think of this in terms of how we are using these devices as a medium to fill our time, our loneliness with companionship.


I would first like to clarify where I stand in the world of communication via technological devices. There are three primary ways in which I participate in a mediated way of communication and that is by phone (my cell phone for about 95% of phone interactions), e-mail and Facebook. I do not have twitter, or a blog that I keep up with, I am not a member of second life,and I have never created an avatar. My life (in terms of technology) is very simple.

I must confess that I do find technology intimidating and often times frustrating and do create a hierarchy of communication. I always most highly value face-to-face interaction over any sort of mediated form of communication and I do gauge the intimacy of my interpersonal relationships based on the ways in which we are sort of "allowed" to reach each other. I wanted to explore where this hierarchy comes from and why.

My "good friend" Pat and I talking.

As I already said, I put face-face interactions at the top of my list. Personally, I feel that if I "can't" spend time with a person in the same "real" space then I don't consider that person to be a "good friend". "Can't" meaning that it would be a violation of some sort of unspoken rule. I define a good friend as someone with which there is little to no communication barrier and taboo topics and/or practices are minimal. This can be independent of how much I actually like that person. Meaning I can like someone a lot and enjoy their company and ideas and conversation, but if I don't feel "allowed" to contact that person via any line possible then I wouldn't say we have a great relationship.

On page 188 of Sherry Turkle's Alone Together, she say something interesting: "... a telephone call can seem fearsome because it reveals too much." After much thought, I suspect my hierarchy has a lot to do with how much non-verbal communication is allowed and how accessible the contact information is. Obviously, face-to-face interaction allows the most non-verbal communication. I can use all of my senses during these interactions, making them the most valuable to me. However, contrary to what Turkle believes, when face to face interaction is not possible I find immediate comfort in my cell phone, it fills that relational void for me.

In terms of mediated communication I put the most privilege in an "unscheduled" phone call. Followed by texts then the scheduled phone call. E-mail and Facebook carry the least amount of weight for me personally but does have unspoken rules. I expect certain people to comment on statuses, like pictures or write on my wall. However, anybody can message me and it's not weird. On the other hand if anyone chats me I'm immediately alarmed, perhaps caught off guard is a better descriptor.

Engaging in self-reflexivity about my reactions and expectations to certain forms of communication has been very interesting to me in terms of thinking about what my reactions say about my relationship with technology. Obviously, I have a somewhat detached relationship with technology in general and I think that is interesting considering the fears expressed by Turkle about us being constantly connected to today's gadgets. I think that there are many people in the world who are not shifting the value for face to face interaction to a mediated form of communication. In that sense, I would advise Turkle to take a moment and relax.

As someone who strongly values both face to face and phone communication I am inclined to disagree with Turkle about the ways in which technology will affect our future relationships. One criticism I have regarding Turkles ideas about our relational future is that I feel she is disregarding our individual agency and preferences. Society as a whole is made up of countless individuals who all have personal ideas, preferences, and access to these communication tools.

It is my belief that I am not in the minority when it comes to preference to face to face interaction as the most intimate form of communication. How often to people try to meet up with someone they have been chatting with online either in a  platonic sense or romantically? (Isn't it interesting that there are rules and expectations about these meetings? If face to face interaction was considered so easily replaceable, then translating from the screen to in-person would be much simpler.) Or even before meeting up we share phone numbers and exchange calls and texts that ultimately lead to meeting in person. If we didn't value physical interaction in some sort of higher way, then these relationships and exchanges would remain limited to online spaces and that would be completely fulfilling.

Based on these practices, I do not think that increased communication via technology will lead us to self-induced isolation. Rather, I believe that increased interactions will lead to more diverse social circles and consequently, more traveling and exposure to new people and ideas. Whether these changes in our practices of social interactions are for better or worse I think is a personal judgment call. Personally, I think these developments, while granted are intimidating and new, are very exciting and promising.