I would like to share my thoughts on the debate regarding virtual versus real communication.
My position is as long as the message is sent from one party and it is received by another party, then the communication should be considered "real".
Virtual communication has a connotation that insinuates "substandard" or "alternative". As in, we can't meet face to face, so we will utilize the modern, alternative means of having a discussion; coupled with: my co-worker is a "virtual" dumbass.
Our police, fire, and military have been sending messages via two way radio for years. I don't feel that their communication is any less "real" and often their communication bridges the gap between life and death.
One could argue that today's form of communication mediums (pda's, computers, cell phones, etc) could be considered less personable and thereby leading less meaningful forms of communicaton. However, I must point out the personable and meaningful would have to be used in the same sentence in order for this point to carry validity. Like "real", what is considered "personable" and "meaningful" could vary amongst generations.
Let's consider the sincerity behind communication via modern day technology. My mother-in-law and I had a friendly debate one night because she feels that although my wife and I manage to call her, we often do so using a cell phone while driving in the car. She feels that it is rude, insincere and leads to less meaningful conversations. My rebuttle was that our lives are so busy that we often need to optimize what little free time we are alloted.
Therein lies my point: Our world has become so busy, that modern day communication tools have become nothing less than a necessity.
Why has our world become so busy? Look no further than the technology itself. While at home, we are bouncing between cell phone conversations, the internet, two pda's for work, hundreds of cable tv channels; not to mention "archaic" mediums, such as the daily print newspaper, books, cd's and magazines. This is at home, work is even more hectic.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About a month ago I gave a presentation in Sacramento about teaching public speaking in a pervasive communication environment. The discussion turned to classroom management and problems with students texting, IMing, and checking email during class. One of the participants said she told her student that for her, these kinds of behavior were like students were giving her the finger (and she did just that). The students were a bit shocked. For them, they were just multitasking. They viewed the context as different than if they were having a one-on-one discussion with a friend. Even then, if the conversation were fairly light, they'd go ahead and answer their cell phone if it rang. But after the class discussion, the students (at least some of them), realized that in a public speaking class, especially if someone is giving a speech, not giving their full attention was rude. So as you point out, "Like 'real', what is considered 'personable' and 'meaningful' could vary amongst generations."
ReplyDelete