Talking to/with each other

Both Chris Marsden and Chris Brogan posted this week about the importance of unplugging.

In Marsden’s case, he had a forced technological fast, due to spending time at camp. The result? The blogosphere is less appealing to him. The ideas seem less compelling. The urge to constantly connect was diminished.

In Brogan’s case, he was feeling overwhelmed by a flurry of creativity which had him talking with huge numbers of people on and off-line. He needed to unplug to think and reflect.

Although I agree with the need to disconnect from the demands of technology at times (and there are so many links to conversations other places about not being controlled by our inboxes, etc.) I’d suggest that the issue is not completely about unplugging. Rather, the issue that both were struggling with, and that I have been struggling with recently is the issue of community particularly as we compare mediated and face-to-face community.

What counts as relationship–significant, life-altering, meaningful, to-the-death community? Can it happen digitally?

This morning I read in John Eldridge’s Waking the Dead about the importance of a community that will help us. He refers to the Nine in the Lord of the Rings and community as it has occurred in his own life. [Read the chapter here.] I just got the brand new CD from Cook, Dixon, and Young where each of the three singers says to the other two, “I’m glad you are part of my life.”

In every case, although there are interactions that is not face to face, in these meaningful and life transforming relationships there is a component of being in the same space, breathing the same air, having to/getting to look at each other.

Brogan is desiring to build a functional social network, one which helps people tell digital stories to passionate audiences. This is a huge and epochal concept [I know this seems overstated, but there is enough convergence of culture and technology and passion that we are at a shift comparable to the oral/literate divide. And I'm on Chris's side.]

Functional here means that the purpose of the network is to create new media and to build connections that will help build audiences for the stories and build relationships that will help with the creation of the media and develop connections that will help with funding.

However, there is a relational (non-functional) component to social networks that cannot go unnurtured. Here’s what I mean. In real-time and space social networks, people talk about not-work. At times they have real conversations about the real things in life. These happen, I think, because we can see that there is a catch in someone’s voice or a vague look in their eye, or some other non-verbal cue that we as humans are designed to catch.

As important as the functional side is, people must be touched as much IN the network as BY the network. And that is a really really hard thing.

I wonder if part of the emptiness that Marsden is talking about comes from having spent two weeks in real-live face-to-face interaction with the lives of kids. In contract to that, conversations about browsers can seem somewhat less significant. And I think, from reading his post, is that part of the frenzy that Brogan was feeling was as a result of needing to not be functional in relationships for awhile.

How can there be significant touching if there is no touching, no handshake?

Relationship must be intentional

Of course, every relationship–even face-to-face can become functional. I got stuck in the fund-raising part of higher education for awhile and ended up hating it because I began to look at people as potential donors rather than as people. I evaluated the value of talking with them based on their capacity to give. It was awful.

However, the possibility of accidentally interacting about something other than business is much easier when you can bunp into someone in the hallway. It’s hard to bump into someone online, to have accidental conversations, to move beyond work.

It is possible by intention. Intentionally deciding that we are going to care about other people as people and create the virtual equivalents of random conversations.

However, I think that we need somehow to not have that caring be virtual. In our quick encouragements, is it possible to challenge and to care?

I’d like to think so.

technorati tags:relationship, social+networks

Blogged with Flock