Clive Thompson over at Wired.com wrote an interesting article the other day in which he predicted the gradual demise of telephone calls. His prediction isn’t exactly revolutionary or particularly insightful, but his explanation lies on premises worth exploring. Thompson hypothesizes that telephone calls are being phased out because of an inherent problem with their unexpected, real time delivery system.  He claims that phone calls represent a startling disturbance whereas other forms of contact, such as instant messaging, texting, and Facebooking are appealing in their passivity. I suppose he has a point about the intrusiveness of a phone call during dinner or in the midst of an intimate moment. Indeed there are times when a ringing phone feels like a nuisance regardless of who’s on the other end.

Still, Thompson’s assumptions are missing key aspects of evolving cultural and behavioral patterns. As someone who doesn’t believe in any kind of static human nature, I propose that the reliance on alternative forms of communication signifies a shift driven by technology, not the other way around. Thompson’s views illustrate the classic hypothesis behind economic liberalism, namely that the free market determines success based on competition. In other words, people are moving away from phone calls because they simply favor texting or any other available medium. By this logic, voice calls will die as a result of consumer choice, which dictates survival in the marketplace.

I disagree. On the contrary, I see texting, chatting, Facebook, and other passive means of communication as altering fundamental aspects of human interaction.  People utilize their mobile devices in order to stay in constant contact, yet these channels provide the ideal platform for engaging in avoidance and other forms of passive-aggressive behavior. Take Facebook for example. Users are encouraged to gather as many so-called friends as possible, but in the process, they end up establishing relationships with complete strangers. They are also forced to relentlessly confront a host of people they are no longer interested in, like former friends, unwelcome acquaintances, ex-lovers, etc. I can’t count how many times I’ve listened to Facebook users complain about unwanted visitors to their profile pages or comments from someone they don’t want to deal with. When I suggest removing the offending individual from their contacts or blocking them altogether, it becomes obvious that since everything on Facebook is public, dissolving a digital friendship means double the drama. The latent functions of constant contact are inescapable, making it impossible to silently move on from or ignore people.

Of course, it’s intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge the control aspect of new media. Users create these channels because they want to feel wanted, important, and popular, which is part of the reason why they’ll leave someone on their friends list even though they never talk actually talk to him or her. At the same time, sending a text message or a Facebook comment lessens the expectation of response time, allowing the receiver “space” to reply at his or her convenience; hence the control factor. While the timing of these forms of contact is just as unpredictable as a phone call, the receiver feels no pressure to respond immediately. Then there’s the fact that digital conversations always leave a transcript, which can be shared with anyone. A typical phone call isn’t going to be recorded, so there’s some semblance of privacy. Also, it’s a lot harder to lie over the telephone than it is online. Anyone can write an enthusiastic instant message to someone they can’t stand and come off as genuine, which is quite frightening. Plus, communicating via text of any kind increases the likelihood of being misunderstood or misinterpreted exponentially. Vocal clues like tone of voice are fairly easy to understand whereas internet sarcasm tends to fall totally flat. Since text messages have all the clarity of a smoke signal, it appears as though technology is leading us down on the path of reverse evolutionNietzsche warned us about at the end of the 19th century.

I haven’t even come close to presenting an adequate analysis of this relatively recent phenomenon here. The topic could easily be a psychology or sociology student’s doctoral dissertation. Nevertheless, Thompson’s article certainly got me thinking about the ramifications of communication in a technological society, and for that I thank him. I think……