post-scarcity communication.
[My understanding of the relationship between scarcity and conflict has always been fairly straight forward. Conflict occurs when scarcity necessitates competition for a resource. This happens with land, with food, with money, significant others, etc. If there is one of something, and two people want it, conflict ensues. As such, I've always idealized the concept of a post-scarcity reality. While there are a bunch of ideas associated with the concept of the singularity, the hope of living in a post-scarcity society is the one that interests me the most.]
I recently started flirting with the idea that we have reached a post-scarcity state in the western world, in regards to human-to-human communication. (I'm intentionally not getting into advertising messages, here.)
With email, text messaging, twitter, facebook, blogs, phones, voicemail, call waiting, snail mail, email, instant messaging, skype, MMS, and so on, there are so many means of communication, instant or asynchronous, visual or auditory or both, tied to no specific location, that often the only justifications for not contacting someone are forgetfulness, avoidance or time-scarcity, which is more or less ranking other activities above communicating with the person in question.
This becomes clear when asked why you didn't invite someone along, or ask their opinion before making a choice - when pressed, often the only answer is 'I didn't think to' or 'I didn't want to', very rarely can one honestly respond that it was impossible.
Reaching a post-scarcity state in communication has the effect of intensifying conflict in relation to time-scarcity. By making a decision to not contact someone, you are in essence making the decision that other activities outrank communication with that individual.
This means that failing to respond, react, reach out and share concepts, thoughts and ideas is no longer excusable. If something is important, and not addressed, it is because you have chosen other tasks above addressing it, or you have simply chosen not to.
Post-scarcity communication means you aren't allowed to be too busy, or distracted, or out of reach when opportunity or crisis appears.
No one is going to believe "couldn't be reached for comment" unless you have a very unusual situation that can be clearly demonstrated.
Keep that in mind as you go about your business.
4 comments:
This theory works only in areas where internet access and cell phone signal is of good quality and reliability. (i.e. all of southern ontario).
It falls apart when your internet is so crappy g-mail gets angry when you try to send attachments...or use the internet at all when its raining/windy/cloudy/etc...
Now, assuming this theory holds in at least some parts of my life, I pride myself on quick response time, however there are some people who aren't more important than my immediate life, and I frankly don't mind sending them that signal. Yup, I'm a jerk, but I have to take what power I can get.
I agree completely that this only makes sense in major urban centres where there is widely available internet and cell signals.
I will admit that I'm spoiled by living a very connected life.
There's no problem with sending that signal, if you choose too. I was just commenting on the impossibility of avoiding a response without sending a message, in a technologically connected society.
I would add that the other exception is if the person in question has deliberately made the decision to be difficult to reach (Doesn't have/read email, not on IM, unlisted phone number, has staff, etc.). In general this is true of old people/luddites, and of those who, if they did not do this, would be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of communication thrown in their direction (i.e. Celebrities and Politicians). The reason "Could not be reached for comment" IS a valid excuse is because it is well known that these type of people have such filters in place, and cannot generally be reached immediately unless you have some kind of priority access to them.
Good point.
I usually argue that celebrity breaks social media, but this is an example of volume overtaking importance.
That said, I would still argue that a deluge of communication indicates a ranking issue: they have to respond to some people, so arguing that they couldn't respond to something important rings a little hollow.
Not responding to individual fans, etc, is usually traced to there not being enough time, i.e. having something better to do, to someone better to speak to, with that time.
Post a Comment