This is a Guest Post by Andrew Mason.
I was recently reading Craig Croschel’s book entitled It, and came across a passage I could absolutely identify with. In the book, Craig argues that the very technology that has empowered us to lead easier lives has also disconnected us in certain ways. Before the air conditioner was invented, people used to sit & talk away the hot afternoon hours, amidst a cool breeze on their neighbor’s porch. But when the AC came along, people moved indoors & no longer connected the way they used to.
Fast forward to today: The same tools that allow us to see each other from across the planet have created a wide freeway for unthinkable amounts of (largely impertinent) information to flow. The same tech that allows one persons’ message to be heard anywhere has also allowed everyone’s message to be broadcast everywhere.
For example, right now I’m staring at an email inbox riddled with more spam than I could program a stick to shake at. One out of every forty-seven messages actually contains some sort of relevant information. The same tech that was meant to relationally connect me with friends has now made it more difficult to hear the voices I deem the most important. These gains in information & efficiency come at the cost of our time & sometimes our focus & effectiveness.
Instead of merely looking nostalgically at Craig’s illustration of a pre-air conditioned world, we have to be actively careful not to trade quality relationships with people, with the efficiency of clicking a “send button.”
It costs our time.
When have we last paid the price of “our time” by physically visiting with someone we care about? It’s just so easy to turn the whole thing into a transaction by texting or twittering them instead. We have to make sure that we use this gained efficiency to support meaningful relationships, and not vica versa.
Have you counted the “cost” lately? What are your thoughts?
Phillip Gibb says
Sounds like the reversal that Shane Hipps mentions in his book we have been going thru.
human3rror says
it does, doesn't it? and nice new avatar… you change that junk a lot!
Phillip Gibb says
If I look cool, maybe more people will follow me, that or I was bored – ha ha ha
@MrRevell says
I'm going to say it right here Andy, I think Craig just has the yearnings for the "good ole days".
The impact of technology on spreading messages has actually allowed more people to connect, with more people. Whereas at one time you would have, maybe 10 or so friends, now you can have many more, and have more ways to talk to them. I may be inside, but I'm carrying on conversation on the phone, or by text, or even on Twitter.
The fact that anyone can look in on conversation allows for the chance for others to provide more insight where it may be lacking, and other such things.
/ramble.
@MrRevell says
Just as an add:
Just the fact I read your opinion on the matter, and was able to comment on it, should override any want to get back to the "good ol days"
@bayshorts says
BAM. Excellent Call Sir.
David Bullard says
It's not just about conversation or even gathering information. Of course with all this technology more conversations take place and information is available. I love what it affords me personally. I feel connected with Andy Stanley, Craig Groeshel, Steven Furtick, and Perry Noble. I really feel like I know these guys. I watch, listen, blog, tweet and it's wonderful, but I'm pretty sure they don't know me.
David Bullard says
The question is who really knows you and who do you really know? Not what they do for a living or what video games they like, the leadership principles the espouse or the lastest sermon, but knows you, the real you. The one or few that know your personal struggles, dreams, and hopes for the future. The one or few that will come to your side in a time of need and stay with you no matter what the cost. The one's that celebrate when you succeed and pray and encourage you when you fail. I'm not that old but being from the south I've known a few front porch sitters in the summer and the bonds that are formed in those passing hours run deep. I long for people to be known and to fully know one another. There is a special spiritual connection that happens in this setting that connot be replaced by the sometimes distant connection of technology.
matthuggins says
Raw nostalgia is of little use, but it is no more absurd than embracing all things new simply because they are new.
New media has its place, but it cannot replace the experience of being physically present with others. God endowed us with native "apps" that cannot be replicated by technology. We communicate in so many ways when together which are impossible to transmit across the ether.
New media often offers the illusion of being connected to everyone. For example, though, just one of five people on the planet have access to the internet. In the USA, it is still around four of five. (Fewer than that possess iPhones, BTW.) Further, our associations via social media are, by and large, even more self-selected than those in the analog world. We tend to seek out those like us in some key, demonstrable respect. Social media potentially offers another set of blinders, in addition to those we already wear due to our social setting, upbringing, education, career, etc.
This is not to say that we should not avail ourselves of the range of options now available (including pen and paper) to communicate when we are apart AND have something worth saying, but it is an assertion of a distinction too often glossed over by those (like me) immersed in new media.
We fail to consider efficiency as one of the idols of our culture. We fail to consider the reduction of human interactions to transactions. We fail to consider how we avail ourselves of the new media channels available to us by aping the prevalent cultural voices of our day (and listening to individual voices in the same way we absorb commercial media). We fail to consider the very real risk of conforming ourselves to the patterns of the world.
We need to get past the false dichotomy of those who do and don't "get" the new technology. Frankly, those I have seen claiming most loudly that they "get it" quite often display a remarkable naivete concerning fairly well established theories concerning media and culture.