Vitruvian World

On technology and you and me

Posted on May 15th, 2008 by Myk.
Categories: Philosophy & Spirituality, Science & Technology, Humor & Pop Culture.

In a recent post on VM, I wrote about how many people we can realistically be intimate with…and that technology enables us to maintain relations with more people than we can hold dear.  In a tangential topic, I’d like to highlight an article I recently read in the Economist Special Report on Global Nomads.  It is called Family Ties and I wish it were publicly available but it isn’t (so I hope they won’t mind me taking a few exerpts to share).  It speaks to the effect of mobile technology on how I interact with you.  And you with me. 

It starts with an introduction of the concept of strong vs. weak ties.  From the article:

In the 1970s Mark Granovetter became one of the most influential sociologists of that decade with a paper titled “The Strength of Weak Ties”. Mr Granovetter argued that society needs not only healthy “strong ties” between relatives and friends but also ample and fluid “weak ties” between casual acquaintances. Far from trivial, these weak ties are the “bridges” between “densely knit clumps of close friends” and thus the conduits for ideas, fads and trends. “Social systems lacking in weak ties will be fragmented and incoherent,” Mr Granovetter argued. Any erosion of weak ties is therefore to be deplored. Most sociologists “agree that nomadic technology, far from isolating people, brings them closer to their families, friends and lovers—their strong ties. But they still disagree on what that means for weak ties with strangers, and thus society at large.

In other words, “weak ties” are the glue that hold together society.  We need them or it inhibits our socialization.  The article suggests that, thanks to technology, we are losing that glue as we increasingly communicate with our closest friends throughout the day.  With mobile phones more and more people call, text, and e-mail persons close to them. Exchanges are frequent and short.  Now, we expect less content (”hey baby let’s raise hell!”) but maintain a feeling of perpetual connectivity, making us feel as if we are together during the entire day although we are apart.  Great for maintaining relationships (I personally have to thank my cell provider for enabling a cross-continent relationship to last as long as it did) with light touches.  However,

The potential problem with connected presence is that it usually excludes other people who may be physically present. In situations that might once have been an opportunity to talk to a stranger—waiting for a bus or boarding an aeroplane, say—people now fill the time with a few messages to parents, lovers or friends. This strengthens the strong ties, but weakens, or even cuts, the weak ties in society.

Hmmm…so texting your mom might keep you from meeting Mr. Right right next to you on the airplane.  Your loss babycakes! 

At the end of the day, I love examining my own conclusions.  In the last note, I wrote that technology makes it easier to know more people and thus easier to replace them.  This note is about technology moving us towards communicating with those close to us to the detriment of meeting others.  The notes are some ways in opposition to each other…but really, they’re about the changing nature of relationships between each of us.  The most important thing to keep in mind is the phrase “you and I have a relationship” is changing.  Really.  Write that down (because it’s true).  The fun part is that we’ll discover together the mechanics of it all–of technology and you and me. 

Share this

4 comments.

Darvish

Comment on May 16th, 2008.

Speaking of which…I’m in an airline lounge in Osaka, Japan and happened to catch this article while talking to my girlfriend in the US on Skype, exchanging voicemails with a long lost friend, and exchanging emails with someone in India. All wirelessly thanks to my airline lounge.

Amazing, isn’t it?

Just 4 or 5 years ago I would be sitting in the lounge bored outta my mind looking for a decent magazine article in GQ or FHM. The point is being connected most of the time lets us keep in touch with people who may not necessarily be worthy of our most valuable time (with the exception of my gf in this example, of course), but can now certainly stay on our radar where they would’ve disappeared into the ether in the past.

Gerrit

Comment on May 16th, 2008.

The two points, the one from your last post and the one in this one, aren’t mutually exclusive. I think you start to say that at the end here, Myk. This increase in, I don’t know what to call it, interpersonal “productivity” elevates those “weak” connections as well as gives you more time with your “strong” ones. All ships rise.

I suppose there may be some expense at the bus stop or on the airport in meeting some other potentially important stranger (it’s funny we thought as our examples of those older transportation environments, by the way, which are all about exploration, sharing and communication). And I agree when you say, as you did in the last post, that “relevant” doesn’t equate to “meaningful” — so maybe a bus stop friend could have been more meaningful and you lost out by spending time on someone more relevant. But, by the same token, maybe learning that there are relevant people where you didn’t expect them will motivate you to explore a different kind of “unexpected.”

Or maybe this desire to explore comes a priori to these new modes of communication. Darvish would always have just gotten a magazine in the absence of strong friends and you would always hit on your neighbor in hopes of making (out with) a new one — and they would always have been more or less interested.

I suppose I wouldn’t worry as much about the effects of these new forms of communication on human nature. It’s pretty high inertia. In part Facebook and SMS simply amplify certain parts of us that are already there. That could change things; but generally I hope “you and I have a relationship” is growing and expanding in meaning overall.

Dina

Comment on May 16th, 2008.

Hey myk! what would we do without technology :) we’d have to write letter to each other! and that would take way too long. even though i love getting letters in the mail. i really like your article…cause it is truly easier to communicate with others that don’t live in your city and still know what is going on in their lives. which also allows you to be more relaxed the next time you see that person. Yet, even if I’m not busy with my head down playing around on my phone, i feel like i still won’t talk to just anyone at a bus stop etc… its actually funny because my friend and i were just talking about how informal texting is…but probably the easiest way to quickly talk to someone. or let someone know you are thinking of them :) Also nowadays, people are so busy that there are not enough hours in a day to talk on the phone to numerous amounts of people, just to “catch up.”.

Christian

Comment on May 16th, 2008.

Had read the article in the economist as well. A couple of quick thoughts:

- Technology does create a constant web of connectedness with those most important in our lives: family, close friends and coworkers
- More direct communication is a result of the inter-connectedness from above- it would be extremely inefficient to have hour long conversations if I talked to my mom every day (I still have long conversations with her once a week).
- I don’t think “soft” relationships are really disappearing- if I did not go to Starbucks to do work, I would likely be at home, not talking to strangers either. You generally talk to strangers when something funny happens or information is needed- those things won’t go away.
- That being said- communication can sometimes be less efficient electronically- I find myself writing e-mails to friends and coworkers that take me a lot more time than simply picking up the phone!

Good thought exercise!

Leave a comment

Comments can contain some xhtml. Names and emails are required (emails aren't displayed), url's are optional.




Close
E-mail It