Ellen Pabst von Ohain
When we speak about communication these days, one assumes we are referring to some kind of computer software that facilitates the relay of information from one program to another. We could be referring to the interfacing between processes, the techniques of journalism or the use of spoken language.
If you are under 25, the term "communication" means marketing, graphic design, social networking. Asia and its anime may pop into mind. Considering the medium age across Asia hovers around 24 years old compared to Europe's old 40, the future of communication can be tracked from here to there. Are you 50 or older? You may be thinking about how your boss speaks to you or how you speak to your spouse. The point is, it does depend on who you are asking. Communication is a wide open field and takes many forms.
How Miley Communicates
Early June 2010, Miley Cyrus was passing through Germany promoting her new movie 'The Last Song'. I was passing by my TV at the moment this information was being broadcast from a VIP entertainment show. Accompanying this news was a clip of Ms. Cyrus, seated, and fully absorbed in her cell phone, texting. An off-camera voice asked her a question I was unable to hear. "Yes, that's right", she smiled and answered, eyes on her cell. The off-camera voice asked her another question and she looked up sharply and focused on her interlocutor.
I did not stay in front of the TV long enough to follow more of the exchange or know how long it went on, but the image of Miley on camera, thumbs flying, lovely, young face tilted down and framed by her thick brown hair stayed with me though, and it was somehow disturbing.
Communication consists of three components plus the message itself: a sender, a receiver and the vessel (or medium that conveys the message). The language you speak, the writing of the article, the poster you design or the program you digitally program relays a message. The medium you are using for the message is considered a container or vessel that holds the message The choice of language, the style of writing, the design of the poster and the method of programming all send a signal to the receiver. It is the reason we carefully choose our vessel (or Medium) these days when we are sure of who our market is. We wouldn't use Facebook to reach all our 76 year-old, wheelchair-bound "friends". More on this in a moment.
It doesn't stop there. The sender sends. The receiver receives; he processes, understands and chooses his own response. And he is altered in the process. The sender, the vessel and the message will have an effect on him whether it is subtle or profound. When he responds, the same process is reflected and repeated as the receiver becomes the sender. In simple terms, this is what happens during a normal conversation between two people. Conversation when it's meaningful is transforming. When not, we are stimulated in less altering ways.
Subgroups and Systems
Human nature is such that people identify with others like themselves therefore, they seek out others that reflect and validate themselves and their beliefs. People become loosely or intricately linked and form groups. These groups form "systems". These systems form subsystems. Imagine people coming together behind a central theme, goal or purpose. This purpose forms its core. An example of a formal system would be the explanation of the firm or a cooperative, formed to produce a product for profit (the purpose or goal), all its members focused on achieving that goal. And the firm in this case must interact with other systems; sometimes similar (competitors), sometimes different (suppliers), sometimes forced (governments and their regulations), sometimes voluntary and welcome (customers). An example of an informal system would be the Boy Scouts of America. It is a private "club", supported by interested parents who volunteer their time to develop and bolster character in youth. Another informal system would be Facebook, the online social networking system that links people's physical community such as a university, with their identities, and further out to "friends".
The core of a "system" develops circles around itself since it must reach out of itself to survive; to feed and be fed, but it is initially a stand-alone. If you can visualize these circles they would appear concentric. The core controls the ebb and flow of information but it cannot control other systems and must adapt to the communication processes of other systems or face conflict. Sometimes these circles appear to overlap, when the core for example, does its best to interact with other complete systems that have similar interests. They are not necessarily inter-dependent, but there is a synergy. For example, Facebook's journey from a local University chat site about its own population at Harvard went on to open to Stanford, MIT and Yale after most of Harvard's student body was already linked. Each of the other Universities were stand-alone systems, but all displayed similarities in structure and function, therefore there were synergies. It is reasonable to assume that where there is considerable synergy, communication flows which enhances adaptation. The opposite is also true as in the case of generational dissimilarities. There is not alot in common between people born before 1980 and people born after. This translates into the slow adaption of Baby Boomers, for example, and how they make use of or adopt a system such as Facebook. More on this in a moment...
All systems are social in nature. All systems need to be aware of where they end and others begin. Niklas Luhmann explains systems and subsystems as follows (Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie 1984, Social Systems, 1995):
Social systems are self-referential systems based on meaningful communication. They use communication to constitute and interconnect the events (actions) which build up the systems… This, of course, presupposes a highly complex environment. The environment of social systems includes other social systems, (the environment of a family includes for example other families, the political system, the economic system, the medical system, and so on). Therefore communications between social systems is possible; and this means that social systems have to be observing systems, being able to use, for internal and external communication, a distinction between themselves and their environment, perceiving other systems within their environment.
What Luhmann is discussing here is that in society, each system has its own language and signals, unique to its own environment. An educational system for example has its environment, a political system has its environment, business has its own, etc. Each environment has a need for the extension outside of itself of services to and from its own environment, (concentric circles). A University or Tae-Kwon-Do club needs services from an insurance system, religious, or medical system, etc. Each system in turn has its own language, recognizable to others within that system. Each system also has its own reduced language, which reduces the chaos found in communication in general, and outside of its borders; a 'Verbal Shorthand' recognizable by members of a closed system. So what's the point? We don't all speak the same language, even when speaking the same language.
How Subgroups communicate with each other
The question arises: how do systems understand the communication of an outside system amid all that chaos? We know for a fact and from experience that systems interface (mostly) successfully with other systems. The evidence for this is that as a result, we have a (more or less) working society. And in extension, we have a world society that (more or less) functions.
Back to our component breakdown of communication: Each of the components have influence on the other parts and therefore we learn to be sensitive to the signals given and received as well as how we craft the message. In other words, it's a give-and-take process and it's very subjective. It's not only your facial expression, body language, spoken language or the group or system you belong to as we just discussed. The choice of vessel (medium) is itself, the message. McLuhan knew this when he coined that phrase way back in 1964, and he was aware of how many subtle influences there are which shape how we use and perceive that medium. These influences are societal, custom, norm in nature. He called these subtleties "ground" or "context". He also referred to the changes that occur in context, changes that occur due to changes in society at large. Noticing the changes he remarked, is key and how people refer to the changes and the inter-dynamics of the use of the medium is what we should be aware of.
I remember back in 1988 when I was 34 and had reconnected with a dear friend who was at that time around 50. Just as an aside- here is an example of membership in various subgroups: He was much older than I, he was a "he", he had interrupted work on his Doctorate in engineering which was a field quite different to mine. We were members of different subgroups on all levels. Since we had not seen each other for a long time, I remember the questions he rapidly fired, wanting all current contact info. "What are all your phone numbers and fax numbers now"?, he asked excitedly. "Where are you living, what's your e-mail address"?, he shot at me. I remember being frightened at that last one. Not only did I not have an email address, I wasn't sure what it was. He was sure, however. He lived in California and went to Stanford as a youngster. Although out of the immediate loop, he was connected enough in 1988 to know there was something else happening on campus. Today, now over 50 myself, early questions about my "tweeting" activity produced the same kind of nervousness. Once again, behind the tech times, I sweated that I was missing some form of new communication process immitating bird calls.
Social Networking
We can refer to McLuhan, still relevant today, to apply his concepts of media and messages in the field of study which is the Internet, and to all mediums. Surprisingly, McLuhan was referring to television back in the 60's when he made his observances, long before the Internet was even conceptualized. Imagine formulating an entire explanation for a phenomena, before that phenomena even happens!
In this sense, let's examine the idea of social networking via Internet for example. I make the distinction here of which kind of networking I am referring to since one of the more primitive alternative methods, the face-to-face technique, is still a used and useful tool. And yes, I am being sarcastic.
We notice that Facebook or LinkedIn are very powerful tools for connecting
a) a largely youthful audience in an informal setting and
b) a largely professional network for a clear and clean method of finding (slightly older) formal or business connections, respectively.
We understand how systems evolve and develop and their methods of interaction. We understand the senders and receivers. We understand the coding, the signaling and the message built into the medium itself. But there are other aspects of interest that will influence these components as well.
The message alters the sender and receiver. The medium affects the message. The medium also alters the sender/receiver.
We now notice how Facebook and other online networks, (mediums) are biologically changing how our young reach out to and establish relations with others of their kind. We do not yet understand how this will alter human communication for all future generations. We do however notice the gap between generations, resulting in those that have had prolonged exposure from a young age and those that have not. No, it is NOT a disease or an ailment like slow, radiation poisoning. It is however, a societal phenomena marked by the extraordinary speed and progress of using technological devices in the communication process.
Do we analyze the quality of our connections and leads if we 'hook-up' through LinkedIn or Xing? Does it distract or deepen our understanding of how people find and are hired for jobs?
Yes and no. In this sense the medium used already tells us an awful lot about the user. In all, we need to remember that the Internet closer to what we know it as today, is only about 30 years old. A lifetime if you are 30 years old, still a new-fangled and emerging medium if you are 50 or older.
Back to the image on TV of Ms. Cyrus: I mentioned I was left disturbed and sat down to have a "good think" about why. I discovered I felt embarrassed for her which was terribly judgmental of me. I thought "how can she so blatantly snub the reporter and show that her text is far more interesting and important than anything he might be asking her"? I thought for a second that one of the questions I didn't hear might have been an admonishment for her to hide the phone since she was now on-air. In the tense nanoseconds (suffered by me) that ticked by between the first and following question however, also unheard, her body language told me that no one had told her anything of the sort and she merely answered whatever mild questions she was already prepped for. The only exception was whatever caught her attention for that millisecond of eye contact between her and the journalist.
Subgroup Identification
I contacted a student of mine, a young journalist I knew who had interviewed Ms. Cyrus and asked her if this was indeed her interview. She explained she did hers earlier though a form of video conferencing arranged from London due to the ash storm that wrecked havoc over Europe and disrupted many already tight schedules. The Journalist's interview was 'audio only' and although Ms. Cyrus was being filmed at the time, the end result would only appear as audio or in print. The Journalist mentioned that during the filmed taping of the interview however, a similar chain of events occurred involving cellphone interplay. The Journalist's reaction however, was rather different to mine. She was quite sympathetic to Ms. Cyrus' hectic schedule and felt this efficient display of multi-tasking was excusable. The Journalist I am referring to is 23.
My reaction to the clip and the observance of Ms. Cyrus' behavior is in no way meant to be a criticism, but rather a comment on an interesting behavior.
Many indulgences and allowances are made today for the insertion of technology into our lives. Often however, as a result, this causes friction among the generations.
That there are differences between the generations is not new news nor is it surprising. There have always been misunderstandings, misconceptions and miscommunication between the young and old. Why do teachers, trainers and coaches, bosses and clients today, get so annoyed with people who fidget with their cell phones in class, at interviews, in the workplace? My generation (born before 1980) records fractured attention as a signal for "rude". Why? Because we were taught that when someone is talking to you, you should look at them, preferably in the eye and listen carefully to what they are saying. As a result we do not understand why a student for example, would actively "choose" to be rude, (a misconception) and text while the instructor is instructing. We simply cannot believe that is possible to give 100% attention to each task. This means you are dividing your attention among tasks which significantly reduces the percentage allotted to each. One could argue how often one's mind drifts during a listening episode, naturally reducing the attention percentage. The split second you shift attention from the speaker to focus on the ripped jeans of the person sitting in front of you or your neighbor rooting around for a tissue is also a distraction that reduces attention. But these are usually involuntary. We were taught to give the impression, that the speaker holds us in attention rapture, by focusing on him. This is markedly different than rooting around in our bags for the cellphone because we want to get hold of someone we plan to see after this boring lecture is over. Or sitting next to our neighbor and discussing in soft whispers last night's TV programming while someone is presenting. If you pressed us to choose which tasks should receive at least 60-70% of our attention, we were trained to afford it to the speaker standing in front of us.
The student for her part, fails to see why during a 2-5 minute gap in class time, she cannot text a friend or check her Facebook messages. The student believes this is a very efficient use of time and the teacher is being mean, old-fashioned, on a power-trip or just silly, (also a misconception). Teachers do not see the value in multitasking and believe it diminishes the quality of each task output. Furthermore, teachers are hurt to see that students do not think teachers are deserving of their full attention. It is not the intention of the student to hurt their instructors of course nor is it Miley's intention to be rude to a reporter. Miley's generation, the Generation Y'ers or The Millennials - those born between 1980-1999 were not born rude nor are they trained to be rude. So what exactly is the issue here?
First, let's take a closer look at this overall behavior involving (in)attention. It is not reserved for the rich and famous but for the technologically connected, the self-focused and those who demand and are used to immediate information access. It is traced back to this generation's perception of communication and multi-tasking now that they have the ability to do so more efficiently than we did. The question is however, how efficient is this, in reality?
What has been true in the past over centuries is, that as youngsters age, they often take on the characteristics of or mimic their older mentors and models. Thus, inadvertently or intentionally, since our parents, older siblings, teachers, priests and other older community members offer our first contact of observable behavior, we often 'turn into our parents'. Sometimes the reverse is true in that we look not to embrace and emulate our older mentors but rather reject what they represent. In that case, sometimes youngsters develop into something completely opposite of their parents. In either case, our parents are usually our first reference for behavior and we will either emulate or avoid what we have learned. It has always been so.
If there have been changes and alterations as the generations ebb and flow, they are evolutionary in nature. This means changes are gradual and incorporate the concept of the "natural" process of time. Natural in this sense means a normal or healthy amount of time for the human organism to adapt or adjust without causing undue stress and pressure to that organism. In some cases and depending on the process, this may take generations.
Since the worldwide assault of technology into every aspect of our culture over the last 30 years, this process has
a) accelerated, and
b) irreparably altered how we communicate with each other.
It is true for members of the same group (in this case similar in age) and between groups dissimilar in age. What is surprising and to an extent alarming, is the neurobiological proof of the computer's influence on those differences, the long-term effects and possible future outcomes. Many questions and points have arisen.
i-BRAIN
Professor Gary Small has written a book that looks at how the internet and computer use is affecting the biological formation of the brain. What is even more remarkable is the observation that these biological changes due to prolonged internet use, are already affecting human behavior. "iBRAIN: Surviving the Technological Alteration of the Modern Mind," (Gary Small & Gigi Vorgan; Collins Living, 2008;256 pp.; US; ISBN: 978-0-06-134033-8), is a report on current research being done which considers generational, technological and behavioral issues.
Dr. Small refers to the Generation X'ers and Baby Boomers (born before 1980) as 'digital immigrants'. We (and I am one) are of the generation already set and educated in the traditional skills of face-to-face communication passed on through centuries of cultivation. We have come to modern technology already formed. As humans however, with the innate ability to adjust and adapt, we are capable of learning new things, but we embrace this knowledge slowly, cautiously, skeptically and reluctantly. Since we are already over 40, we also learn with difficulty.
'Digital natives' on the other hand, the Millennials, have never seen an electric typewriter and cannot imagine a world without a cell phone. One of Dr. Small's many intriguing points are that digital natives are more adept at screening enormous amounts of information and discarding the unimportant or unnecessary. Short term memory may be enhanced as well as decision-making and complex reasoning. Motor skills are enhanced as well as multi-tasking skills. This means that the Millennials are really better at these tasks than the Baby Boomers are although, the older generation can and does learn. That is to say, in some tasks, this generation may actually have a higher percentage of attention points to distribute. "What"?, you ask? "My 100% is not your 100%"? Not exactly. "My 100% is different than your 100%".
On the other hand, interestingly enough, it is also important to know that our needs as humans, still have not changed. We need connection to others. Isolation is a condition suffered. Therefore, the use of 'tweeting', social online networks and chatrooms are simply new methods that support the very basic human requirement of being connected to others. Connection keeps us rooted in reality, helps us define who we are in and through the eyes of others and by being part of a network or system (virtual or real) our self-esteem is bolstered. By shifting from actual connection to the heavier reliance on virtual connection, we have changed the how but not the what and why.
The question for the future according to Small is, if we have changed the how, will this effect the what over time?
Prolonged computer or internet use may also increase anti-social behavior, and increase irritability and stress. Professor Small tells us that our brains are not structured for extended periods of time on the internet, nor for the relationships that are formed via. At some point, the sense of self-worth and sense of control generated through virtual relationships, breaks down. What exactly does this translate into? Digital natives, although neurologically adapting to speedier information processing and dexterous interaction with others via computer and the benefits these features offer, are unskilled and poor at reading human facial expressions and interpreting human body language compared to digital immigrants.
As an example, if you are being texted or if you are reading an email from someone in your network, you have the luxury of
a) a time-gap between the amount of time your brain has to read and process the text while you formulate the semantic (meaning) of the text and then,
b) edit your response before answering.
What you have introduced is the buffer element of time since actual, traditional face-to-face communication is an event that happens over a much shorter time-span. Face-to-face communication is fast. And it is complete. Traditional, biological methods carry a dizzying amount of information that virtual communication cannot. There is a barrage of information that occurs as pure data in facts and language, but also occurs as meta-communication in body language. The template of culture, class, religion, etc. further influences and colors the message. One must sift and process all these layers for meaning than generate the correct response in the shortest amount of time possible. There are an awful lot of skills in use during a face-to-face exchange that utilize a great many "layers" and signals. It is not to say that miscommunication cannot occur, it is to say that in an effort to avoid miscommunication, this most basic communication method is most often employed as the most effective.
Up until now, this method has been the foundation of human communication. It is unlike data transferred between computer program systems or virtual systems that lack several of the layers which contain subtle signals. This is not to say that the information exchanged via virtual networks is not human, it is simply not as rich and informative as face-to-face communication. There are too many layers missing.
To conclude this point, we observe that Millennials spend a great deal of their time communicating virtually and as a result, have not been properly or as thoroughly prepared to communicate as skillfully as the generation before them. They are simply not getting the practice. The Boomers' foundational training as children is very different to the Millennials'. Statements like "Look at me when I'm talking to you", "Don't interrupt when someone is speaking", "Pay attention", all have their roots in basic human face-to-face communication skills. They teach us to read the other's face and body, listen to the tone of voice and to the "music" of the speaker. They teach us to listen. They also teach us patience since we were taught it is polite to allow someone to complete his thought and express it before we either interrupt him with our own ideas or dismiss him by speaking to a neighbor or texting. Sometimes, it takes us just that moment longer to be able to express what we really mean. As a result, through listening, patience and our undivided attention, we obtain the deeper meaning of what the speaker is saying as well as signal that what he is saying is worthy of our attention. We acknowledge him and affirm his existence.
Real-Life, Interpreted
Millennials often misread or completely miss the meaning of face-to-face signals. They simply do not have enough real-time exposure to learn how to do this. Media representation shows us an exaggeration of human emotion or a stereotype of human emotion and rejects the subtle nuance of communication. It is simply not interesting enough for broadcasting or it may take too long for a person to make his point naturally. The "point" is reinterpreted into a "spot". What we see on television are actors acting out (sometimes) real life dramas, interpreted and written by writers who want to tell us a story. They may use symbolism, imaging or artifacts to relay this message but it is not reality. The evening news which should be reporting current and real events shows us through sensationalism the extremes of human emotion in orchestrated sound bites. This is indeed interesting and informative, but again it is limited and not always real since what we see or hear has been selected and filtered by others for us, with the intent purpose to entertain or sell a packaged product. Realtime is expensive.
This is how our Millennials are being trained to communicate today. As a result, they have poor skills in human communication. Poor skills are not only problematic in that there are difficulties between the generations in understanding. Poor skills may leave this generation vulnerable to misinformation if they are exposed to master manipulators who have learned to "speak their language".
So, why are we talking about the lovely Ms. Cyrus? Because she is typical for those in her age group therefore a fair representative. Her behavior is NOT unusual. As a famous person, she is a media role model, and symbolic. For those in her own subgroup system of Millennials who are observing, her behavior is a reinforcement for their own behavior. For a different subgroup, for example the digital immigrants, we sit around and cluck at her insubordinate behavior.
Ms. Cyrus has a famous daddy, also in the entertainment business I believe. Clearly, due to the progression of time and the nature of technology today, she will not grow up to be like her daddy Billy Ray. Perhaps one day however, with patience and training, her daddy will grow up to be like her.
[1] (Luhmann, 1995)
[2] (Federman, 2004)
No comments:
Post a Comment