Deborah Tannen was
right. “Sex, Lies, and Conversation” was truth. In a majority of human contact
and communication, women channel and involve themselves more than men do. That
said, there’s more than the somewhat watered down version of Tannen’s analysis
of conversation.
Women can hold eye
contact with one another -- even if an extra exertion is required – without it
feeling like an obligatory eye contact. The eye-to-eye exposure between women
comes naturally; effortlessly. When I observed woman-to-woman conversation, it
seamlessly flowed from one topic to another without bumps or bruises. Even if
two women had not known each other for long, the conversation the two held made
it seem as if the women had known each other for ages. They didn’t seem to
struggle to find a medium of which to hold a conversation on, while also
maintaining eye contact with no buckles, awkward shifting or glancing eye
movement.
Meanwhile, the
opposite can be said of most men. Of course, “most” comes as a key word. Men,
too, can hold a seamless conversation while maintaining eye-contact. However,
there are two main differences in the ways that man-to-man and woman-to-woman
conversation takes place. Firstly, men don’t revert to eye contact to begin a
conversation; they avoid it at all costs. Men would rather look at their
shuffling feet, past their partner in conversation, or at a screen than to make
eye contact with the other man. Without eye contact, men manage to carry on a
more thorough conversation, though it still tends not to be as fluid as a
woman’s conversation. Secondly, men who are not acquainted with each other
struggle to find conversation starters, while women filter through topics with
ease until hitting on the point of conversation, regardless of each other’s
status with the other. Men’s conformability to a conversation relies more
heavily on the relationship the men share than do woman’s conversations. With a
long-term friendship between men, conversation is better understood and more
free-flowing; nearly as seamless as the conversation of women.
These differences
in communication root to, as Tannen said, a malfunction in conversation. But in
the new age, there’s a new reason for the lack of and failure of conversation,
at least of the verbal variety: smart phones. An entire family sits on their
iPhones without spewing a single word but to explain something that amused them
on their tiny glowing screen. There’s another boy – a techie-type – sitting in
the corner, alone, headphones in, enthralled by the screen that lays in his
hand, but ignoring the physical world which everyone else seems to identify some sort of futility in. He’s communicating. He could be communicating with a
friend, or maybe in a group message. Maybe he just updated his Facebook to his
hundreds or friends and family. He could have just broadcasted a tweet to
millions of people. But his conversation has been replaced by communication via
the web, that seems much more fulfilling than anything that lies in front of
him in the real world. The quiet family in the booth is doing the same. And the
young couple at the bar, too; chatting, phones in hands. Though no
communicating conversation, they are communicating with the web.
These devices have
changed communication – for better or for worse, depending on how you look at
it – and now there is no turning back, only evolving and learning how to
communicate the right way. Conversation in the digital age – in this age – has
been, and still is, a learning process. We are the guinea pigs for this new
form of communication, and we’re all making it up as we go. Together. Our human
collective is unconscious, but it builds a database for the way that our new
world in the digital age will communicate and possibly even live someday in the
near future. We are all testing ideas fearlessly and without violence: testing
forms of communication that have never been tested before. Here we are free from
limit. And here we can decide what kind of kid we what to be.
The
one who sits quietly and eats his meal, alone, headphones in, enthralled by the
screen in front of him and turning a cold cheek to the physical world. Or the
one who does not communicate in this new world; one who, rather, sits back and
does not have en opinion until one is forced to him. Or we can be the boy who
buzzes through the new world, setting innovative rules for others to break
later, trading information, conversing, testing ideas without fear or violence.
Regardless,
we move forward, past the time of any other communication issues to this
decision. This decision that each of us makes is important. It is up to us to
decide what kind of kid we want to be. This moment in time is vital to our
future. This decision is what builds our human collective: currently
unconscious. Our deep web is at stake. Be aware.
