David Carr recently wrote a piece in the New York Times where he states,
Add one more achievement to the digital revolution: It has made it fashionable to be rude.
Has it?
The article is about how people are increasingly gazing into little glowing screens when in physical space. Carr views this as a “mass thumb-wrestling competition” where we are “desperately” staring at devices instead of making “actual” connections. And it is his usage of “actual” here that tips us off on why he has such a negative view of people looking at screens: he, like so many others, suffers from digital dualism. I’ve critiqued Amber Case, Jeff Jarvis and others on this blog for failing to make the conceptual leap that the digital sphere is not this separate space like The Matrix but instead that reality is augmented. I’ve been through the argument enough times on this blog that I’ll just refer you to the links and move ahead.
Carr’s digital dualism begins in his description of people looking at phones while at South By Southwest this past spring, something he then uses as evidence for the larger problem of increasing disconnectedness. He argues,
We were adjacent but essentially alone, texting and talking our way through what should have been a great chance to engage flesh-and-blood human beings. The wait in line for panels, badges or food became one more chance to check in digitally instead of an opportunity to meet someone you didn’t know […]It’s not just conferences full of inforati where this happens. In places all over America […]people gather in groups only to disperse into lone pursuits between themselves and their phones.
What Carr might be unaware of is the vast amount of research that demonstrates being digitally connected is also related to being connected with people offline. Checking in digitally might facilitate precisely that offline opportunity Carr assumes it precludes. The glowing screen does not always indicate “a lone pursuit,” but often quite the opposite.
Perhaps another reason Carr views glowing screens so negatively is revealed in the title of the panel he moderated at SXSW: “I’m So Productive, I Never Get Anything Done,” which is about how the Internet has distracted us to the point we do not have time to do the work we get paid for. This makes me think: you’re doing it wrong.
Yes, digital tools can distract us too much. And when this happens we need to use those tools differently. Similarly, Carr mentions people who start typing on their phone when he is talking to them and how much that annoys him. The solution seems simple: If you do not like being around people who are always on their phones, don’t be around those people who are always on their phones.
People always had and will continue to have bad manners. The question is whether social media and mobile phones have caused a social epidemic of bad manners. While I do often become annoyed at the way people use technology in public, I do not share Carr’s bias for seeing glowing screens as people being a-social and distant and in some separate reality. Quite the opposite, I view it as them sharing their digital connections in physical space, navigating socially through our augmented reality.
In sum, Carr makes the same mistake as the film The Social Network: blaming all of social media for the actions of the few rude and socially inept users, be they Mark Zuckerberg or that annoying blue-lit person in your bar group who won’t put the phone away.
Comments 10
Ismail Nooraddini — April 25, 2011
I agree with Carr. The inclusion of digital media into ones daily interactions is not only rude, but intrusive. Lets take your claim, reality is augmented, dualism is out. If this is the case, and i am engaging in a conversation with you, how would you feel if my friend entered, and began speaking of something we were not discussing? Say were talking about recent events in Bahrain, and this said fellow is debating the recent basketball game... how would you feel? In an interaction, may it be 2, 3, or 4 people, the cohesion of the group lies in the solidarity of the topic. As Goffman mentioned, if a line is added to teh behavioral script, which does not run perpendicular with the topic of choice, the act is broken, performance done. To text, tweet or FB while engaging in conversation, negotiation, and interaction, is to kill the moment... the performance is done, and the only winner is the one absent from the setting, the individual behnid the screen.
replqwtil — April 25, 2011
At the same time, one could also read Carr's article not as an indictment of media and technology itself, but rather of the social norms which are developing around them.
The pervasiveness of digital media, and the importance people place on it, is perceptively changing the way meatspace interactions are happening. While this may be positive from some points of view, from an individual POV it can definitely be disarming when someone is only giving you half their attention. Additionally there is, what is to me a myth, but this concept that people can pay attention to what you're saying while they're reading. However the long, dead silences in conversation that happen while people 'just check' something briefly demonstrate how false this is, along with the inevitable losing track of where the conversation was going.
So while I agree that this can't be taken as a general attack on technology as a tool, technology use as a Norm can certainly be seen as something which fulfills Carr's main points. On this point, I think there is some legitimacy to his criticisms. The desire to always be online and always available is a norm which, I think, can definitely be seen as a negative.
Ismail Nooraddini — April 25, 2011
Furthermore, your suggestion on how to address this issue lies with the minority, not majority. Users BORN INTO the digital age, will begin using these tools as i use a fork or pencil... incorporated into the mix, but will not be aware that this IS an 'intrusion.' Others, such as modern HS youth, and young adults, have already begun picking up on the subtle 'yeah... mhhm, yeah... huh? Yeah im listening," and arent apt to 'alter' their behaviors anytime soon.
sally — April 25, 2011
This is about Marking Theory. The reason it seems "rude" to Carr for people to be constantly connected to their phone is because he perceives it as "marked behavior" at the moment in this society.
If nearly everyone is doing it, then its "unmarked" and not rude at all and to be unconnected to a phone as he is, is now "marked."
In my analysis, "Visible/Volunteer" Cyborg "augmentation" is the least acceptable category right now in society, which is what the author is referring to, when he makes comments about people being constantly connected.
I refer you to my talk on the Hidden Cyborg, where I discuss social reaction to Cyborgs in terms of Marking Theory.
http://strangelovelive.blip.tv/file/4696614/ (marking starts at about 5:00, but worth to see the argument build up...)
talk ends at 21:35
Is it Bad Manners to be a Cyborg? » OWNI.eu, News, Augmented — April 28, 2011
[...] This post was originally published by Cyborgology [...]
Shelly Terrell — April 28, 2011
I agree with your points and think you speak up about what has been shouting in my mind for the last two years I've been extremely active online. Personally, I would argue that David Carr probably attends conferences from a different point of view. For most of the people that attend as participants they aren't connected to many people attending the conference. Because they aren't the big names or noted as important speakers then they experience this "alone" feeling. They get lost among the crowd and feel even more alone. Not being connected to anyone at all is being alone. I stopped going to conferences a decade ago because I was sick and tired of the protocols of shaking people's hands and giving them in 30 seconds why they should want to know me. That's a conference, though, for many people not connected. Social media has changed things. I meet people at conferences I feel I know. We hug at first glance and we spend quality time enjoying the talks, events, and "experience" the conference. I attend way more conferences worldwide as a result of my online connections and I leave feeling I have grown because of the conference and the people I learned from and connected with on a real level. I love being a cyborg and I think some people who take for granted their own personal connections when they attend these conferences forget the majority who attend without knowing anyone. How do you approach that first meet and greet and get to the point where you can just be comfortable enjoying each other's company? When does a conference become an experience versus an uncomfortable way to just network? Simply, social media. It takes away the leg work. For many conference goers I interact with they feel the same.