{"id":17873,"date":"2014-01-15T07:00:50","date_gmt":"2014-01-15T11:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/?p=17873"},"modified":"2014-01-14T18:24:48","modified_gmt":"2014-01-14T22:24:48","slug":"the-telephone-a-highly-deficient-technology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/2014\/01\/15\/the-telephone-a-highly-deficient-technology\/","title":{"rendered":"The Telephone: A Highly Deficient Technology"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"via<\/a>
via commons.wikimedia.org<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

When my phone rings, it\u2019s almost always my mom, or her mom, or my partner\u2019s mom. It\u2019s always somebody\u2019s <\/i>mom. \u00a0For everyone else, the notification is a buzz, a ding, a quick vibration. For all of the not-moms in my life, we communication via text message, Facebook, Twitter, email, chat, or Skype. We connect regularly, but rarely through voice calls. When I do pick up the phone, I last about 30 minutes max. Then, my ear feels hot, my shoulders tense, and I refuse to ask \u201cwere you talking to me, or to Dad?\u201d\u201d one more time.<\/p>\n

This is indicative of a wider trend. The telephone, as a medium of voice-talk, is in massive decline\u2014at least amongst the texting public<\/a>. A widely cited 2012 CDC study<\/a> shows that over half of all American homes rely predominately on mobile devices, with almost 40% living in landline-free homes. And we all know, the cellphone is far better at just about everything than voice-to-voice communication. \u00a0With smartphones, the talk function seems almost like an afterthought, available in case of emergency.<\/p>\n

And this shift away from traditional telephones and their voice-call functions is, I argue, the result of an inherently flawed medium. I don\u2019t prefer alternate forms of communication because I am inept at conversation; I prefer alternate forms because the telephone is inept at facilitating conversation. I\u2019m not even referring here to fuzzy connections and dropped calls. Those are imperfections in the system. I\u2019m talking about a deep social-psychological flaw with the telephone as a mediating device.<\/p>\n

Ethnomethodologists<\/a> and conversation analysts<\/a>\u00a0say that the best conversations have a continuous flow, with each speaker picking up just as hir partner leaves off, barely overlapping. This kind of conversation requires intense engagement, and highly accurate cue-reading on the parts of interaction partners. Interruptions and extended silences disrupt the conversational flow, and create a less satisfying interaction.<\/p>\n

Off the bat, the telephone puts interactants at a disadvantage by taking away all but vocal cues. The listener cannot see the speaker\u2019s face to tell if s\/he is merely taking a breath, or waiting for a response. The speaker remains ignorant to the listener\u2019s nods, not knowing if quiet indicates deep enthrallment, distraction, or outright boredom.<\/p>\n

To be clear, I am not advocating a \u201creduced social cues model<\/a>\u201d \u00a0or celebrating face-to-face as the gold standard. I don\u2019t think technologically mediated interaction necessarily reduces social cues, or that social cue reduction is necessarily a problem. I do think, however, that the telephone reduces social cues in a problematic way.<\/p>\n

The problem with the telephone goes beyond inhibiting the perfect conversation. Let\u2019s be honest, a perfect conversational flow is rare. More often, we converse imperfectly, with lulls, interruptions, general choppiness. Most communication media, however, have tools which help us manage those imperfections.<\/p>\n

\"AOL<\/a>
AOL Instant Messenger: Way better than a phone call<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Asynchronous communication, like email messages, texts, and Facebook wall posts, do away with many of the difficult conventions of real-time interaction. One need not reply right away, nor disrupt what s\/he is doing. The message waits, ready for reply at the recipient\u2019s earliest convenience.<\/p>\n

Synchronous communication media, though requiring real-time responses, have mechanisms which help conversations along. \u00a0Skype allows interactants to see each other\u2019s faces, get the background and context, lets an eye roll to stand in for a snarky reply. When conversing in person, the environment becomes a wonderful tool in interaction maintenance. Don\u2019t know what to say? Wonder out about the restaurant you just passed by, pet the dog in the room, coddle the child, discuss the interesting piece of architecture, or, if all else fails, people-watch for a few seconds until someone comes up with something to say. When engaging through relay-chat (IM), interactants relax their expectations for seamless flow. Each interactant is granted a delay with which to articulate hir thoughts. As s\/he types them, the chat feature often informs hir partner that the response is still in development. \u201cJenny is typing\u2026\u201d is a way for me to show my partner that I am still engaged, and a way for hir to know that it is not yet hir turn. In short, it un-awkwards the silence.<\/p>\n

The phone, I argue, is a weak link in our communication ecology, one which\u2014in traditional form\u2014will soon become a relic. \u00a0Add video, or take away voice, and the device is far more conversationally conducive.<\/p>\n

Follow Jenny on Twitter @Jenny_L_Davis<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  When my phone rings, it\u2019s almost always my mom, or her mom, or my partner\u2019s mom. It\u2019s always somebody\u2019s mom. \u00a0For everyone else, the notification is a buzz, a ding, a quick vibration. For all of the not-moms in my life, we communication via text message, Facebook, Twitter, email, chat, or Skype. We connect […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1753,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[892],"tags":[36435,26541,26540,26539,26536,3488,26537,3584],"class_list":["post-17873","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-essay","tag-chat","tag-conversation-analysis","tag-ethnomethodology","tag-medium-theory","tag-phone","tag-smartphone","tag-telephone","tag-text"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17873","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1753"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17873"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17873\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17884,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17873\/revisions\/17884"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17873"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17873"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesocietypages.org\/cyborgology\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17873"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}