The Wall Street Journal ran a “Culture” article on Aug. 22 entitled “Not So Fast,” and subtitled “Sending and receiving at breakneck speed can make life queasy; a manifesto for slow communication.” The article captured a subtext pervasive in today’s technological climate: The frantic communication that e-mail and iPhones allow us is a hindrance to real interpersonal relationships.

Well, of course. Even when we take with a grain of salt the WSJ’s inevitable nostalgia for “how things were in the old days,” we all implicitly understand that the foundation of traditionally valuable relationships—face-to-face exchange—receives a massive blow under the new prevalence of digital communication. I’m thinking of people talking on the phone to other people for 20 minutes while they’re hanging out with you. I’m thinking of trying to have really serious conversations through text messaging.

In other words, I agree with the writer’s—John Freeman’s—ultimate point. People lose the chance to focus on the moment in which they are currently living when they are distracted by technology. We lose a sense of personal autonomy when friends are upset with us for not having our cellular phones at hand when they were trying to call. The more interactions we have, the less meaningful each exchange.
But here’s the problem: Freeman’s argument is couched in this weird faux-logical rhetoric that leads only those who already agreed with the point itself to agree with him. He’s preaching to the choir. An example of the fire-eyed verbiage of the article (adapted from his forthcoming book “The Tyranny of E-mail”) goes: “This is not a sustainable way to live. This lifestyle of being constantly on causes emotional and physical burnout, workplace meltdowns, and unhappiness.” Freeman conjures an apocalyptic image: The secretary bursts screaming from her work desk, scattering flaming computer parts about the office; the avid e-mailer collapses and reverts to only vaguely humanoid behavior.

“If we are to step off this hurtling machine,” he continues, “we must reassert principles that have been lost in the blur. It is time to launch a manifesto for a slow communication movement, a push back against the machines and the forces that encourage us to remain connected to them.” Have you ever seen the fake Saturday Night Live commercial for robot insurance? Senior citizens sit around a table talking: “It’s so hard nowadays, with all the gangs and rap music…” Another leans forward: “What about robots?” “Oh,” one more responds with chagrin, “they’re everywhere!”

The SNL skit pokes fun at the paranoia of the senior citizens because it too is couched in foundationless, illogical rhetoric. If Freeman follows his rage against “machines” with the sensible statement that “we must reassert that the Internet and its virtual information space is not a world unto itself but a supplement to our existing world,” it is light overshadowed by the inflammatory language leading up to it. He discredits himself by relying on the “bogeyman” model of opposition.

This frustrates the hell out of people like me who agree with his basic point. Freeman is part of a massive group of pretty darn influential people who seize what a large group is already thinking and apply inflammatory rhetoric to it and emit it, with their byline, in a public setting. I decry Freeman because he makes people who are sensible about their opposition (like me in this scenario) look like the same kind of idiots he is presenting himself as. I have good, sound reasons for being hesitant about technology’s increasing influence over communication. But because Freeman and those like him use the “bogeyman” rhetoric with so little hesitation, the others of us who question the idea of “progress” look silly also.

I disavow John Freeman. I sometimes leave my phone on vibrate in the next room. But it’s not because I’m scared.

No Comments Yet

You can be the first to comment!

 Print This Post

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 26th, 2009 at 12:00 am and is filed under Forum, Staff Columnists. You can follow any responses to this entry through this feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.