I have been thinking a lot lately about the profound shift that is taking place in the way we communicate and interact as humans on this planet.

I remember going to the movies while I lived in the Philippines back in 1997. As the lights dimmed, you could see dozens of little lights from the cell phone LCD screens open all over the room. People would constantly text message throughout the film. Yes, text messaging in 1997! The cell phone companies would lure people to purchase cell phones and the cheapest monthly plans by offering free texting anywhere in the Philippines. Thus, even relatively poor Filipinos would invest in cell phones because it was the cheapest way to communicate. Land lines were hard to get, and no one wanted to pay the long distance fees to call relatives on another island (there are over 7000 in the Philippines). The cell phone was perfect for this economy and geography. It was rare to see someone actually holding a cell phone up to his/her ear to talk. It was all text messaging.

You see, smaller nations like the Philippines were set-up with digital cell phone networks in major urban areas several years before it was common place here in the United States.  The U.S. had legacy technology (analog cell phone networks) in which the major cell phone providers were heavily invested  and not that many years into using, so it was a more gradual process as digital networks were erected to supplement the existing system and digital cell phones capable of text messaging (SMS) and other digital functions (MMS) were slow in coming. Countries like the Philippines missed implementing the analog technology to any significant extent and skipped directly to investing in digital equipment. Thus, it is sometimes the irony of technological advancement that the poorer and smaller late adopters get to the better stuff sooner than the richer early adopters (pioneers).

My story about Filipino cell phone habits from a decade ago is an aside pointing towards the larger issue of how technology shapes our human interaction. Since I graduated from college in 1995/96, we saw the birth of Windows ‘95 and the increased usability of the personal computer, primarily due to the expansion of colors and the improvement of the graphical user interface (GUI). It did not take long for Netscape to develop a better interface (the browser) for “surfing” the internet (something previously relegated to college campuses, scientific institutions, libraries, and the like). And AOL built its own easy to use, filtered version of the internet and delivered it to thousands and finally millions of homes through regular dial-up phone lines.

Fast Forward… how much do we take the internet for granted?  There are numerous and varied ways that I depend on it now: email, maps/directions, phone directories, ordering pizza, banking, paying bills, school discussion forums, academic research, financial aid, tax filing, news reading, sports box scores, networking, finding old friends, reading blogs, listening to podcasts, downloading music, watching TV shows I missed because I was in class, etc.

What about the way we use cell phones? These devices have changed our etiquette. Why is it that I can make an appointment to see a person face-to-face, but that person will allow his/her cell phone (probably with some annoying ring-tone that only they find amusing) to interrupt our meeting? I drove to the restaurant. I’m paying for the privilege to sit down to a nice meal with this person. I made the effort to be in his/her actual tangible presence. But the person that whimsically picked up his/her phone and happened to call at this moment gets first priority!?! Understandable if its a spouse, a child, or an elderly person that might be in need, but often the interruptions are another friend or blockbuster calling to tell them that his/her DVD’s are over due. I remember when it was at least proper to shut down the phone while in a business meeting with a group of people. Then, etiquette shifted to allow for phones to be on vibration mode. Now, I sit in meetings where the two people with the most authority in the room (the ones leading the meeting) keep their phones on with ring-tones and all. I have even experienced the person that called the meeting taking a call, stepping out of the room while holding up a hand to the rest of us. You’re going to put a whole room full of people on hold but you’re not going to miss one precious cell call?!? Clearly, I have issues with the way people allow cell phones to interfere with face-to-face interactions.

Of all the changes (advancements?) in communication, self-publishing is the category that intrigues me the most. I am participating in a primary form of self-publication right now — blogging. This blog is set-up to alert Google, Yahoo, Technorati, Feedburner, and numerous other content aggregation web sites that I just wrote something. Almost instantly, this post will be visible in a google search of “evolution of communication.” Little weight will be given to whether or not I have any qualifications to speak of regarding this topic. We are in an age when anyone with access to an internet connected computer (even if it’s in a library, an internet cafe, or an Apple retail store) can publish his/her thoughts to the world. Anyone and Everyone are self-proclaimed experts on anything and everything. This kind of publication faces few boundaries. This blog post could get cut and pasted and passed on by someone else in another medium. Do I own my own thoughts if they are written and published online? What does this do to our privacy? What about copyright laws? Hmmmm.

Consider how we create online personas that may or may not correlate with our real world selves. These online identities can be both constructive and destructive.  For most, our online habits are accessories that merely enhance the pursuits we undertake in our brick and mortar worlds.  But for some, the virtual landscape the web offers becomes a primary existence, an end in itself, to the neglect of tangible, flesh-and-blood interaction.  For this second group, the internet provides a way to escape, finding satisfaction there that is rarely experienced elsewhere.  This might mean dominating a chat room with wit and sarcasm, forging convenient and disposable relationships through online flirtations, indulging in the instant and impersonal gratification of pornography, or vanquishing fictional foes in the World of Warcraft.

I think a critical question we must examine is whether our use of communications technologies like cell phones or the world wide web enhance our humanity or contribute to dehumanization.

Online social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn continue to add new members at a remarkable clip. These online communities raise so many issues that I can’t possibly write about them all, and the mainstream media has already documented their faults ad nauseam.  Despite their shortcomings, it seems that for many people sites like Facebook function as an extension of their real world relationships; a large percentage of Facebook friends are real world friends.  In my case, I was surprised to discover how useful Facebook is.  It is a remarkable tool that helps me establish a network of relationships with fellow students at my graduate school.  In addition, I renew connections with old friends through this medium.  It is like an interactive Rolodex.  For example, I anticipate that this online network of friends will be an asset when I am looking for my next vocation after completing school.

Yet, for all the good Facebook provides, some people find it to be an obsession they must flee.  I know a few people that shut down their profiles after it sucked hours a day from them as they were consumed with “updating their status” and checking in on the details of their friends’ daily activities.  At some point, one might become so consumed with documenting life that one fails to actually live it to the fullest.  This reminds me of a trip I took with my wife.  We were walking through this beautiful lava field in Arizona, and I was constantly pausing to take photos.  With digital cameras, one can now take hundreds of pictures in a matter of minutes with no restraint.  My wife stopped me and reminded me that we were there to experience this beauty together.  The camera and my desire to capture what I saw for later review stood in the way of me actually enjoying the experience with my spouse, and I wonder if it was preventing me from really seeing my surroundings.  It is like taking notes.  While it is good to document what the lecturer is saying for future study, it is not going to be as helpful if you fail to process and comprehend the information in the moment it is conveyed.  Memories are a complex part of our human experience.  As we use technology to supplement it, there are obvious upsides as we are able to capture digital records of important life events.  But on the downside, are we losing the discipline to cherish moments without the aid of machines?  Are our minds becoming weaker?  Are we losing an aspect of our humanity?  The warm vagueness of a childhood memory is a special thing, but will our children live with such memories floating in their minds when there are shelves (or hard drives) full of concrete documentation from their formative years?

Turning to video, my first concern is the dehumanization that occurs. Someone is filmed doing something stupid or embarrassing, and then it gets plastered online for the world to laugh at, including the people in that person’s tangible community. When we laugh at “Star Wars Kid,” aren’t we forcing ourselves to forget that he is a genuine human being? [Notice that I linked to the Wikipedia entry instead of the YouTube video -- can you believe that there is even a Wikipedia entry about that? Wikipedia is a whole 'nother phenomenon. I rely on it, perhaps too heavily, for information. It is astounding that a communal encyclopedia open to anyone's editing remains so accurate.

What about the phenomenon of LonelyGirl15? Millions of people get drawn into watching the video diary of a teenage girl they think is real, only to learn eventually that it is a scripted production by a fledgling production group experimenting with new media. Yet, here’s the kicker. It seems few people were upset by this turn of events. Droves still tune in to her regular video posts. Why? I think because our culture is increasingly fascinated with story, particularly stories that blur the lines between the real and the imagined. Reality TV demonstrates that people often enjoy pseudo-reality more than total non-fiction or total fiction. Self-publishing lends itself well to this medium. I can be a character online — a character that is infused with my true personality to an extent, but I can choose to shape it with my imagination. I could set-up a blog and write in the character of a paparazzi journalist, while simply posting photos I find online of celebrities and writing unkind things about them. To take this role playing even further, a person can enter an online world like Second Life and get lost in a fictionalized existence with thousands of others more interested in an alternate reality than his/her physical one. Second Life’s motto is “Your World. Your Imagination.” Sounds inviting. I’ve never stepped into it because I fear the consequences to my life. I still want to make the really real life God’s given me something worthwhile.

But this raises so many more questions. Should people make it their life’s work to enter a world like Second Life and fill it with approximations of real world things? Several businesses think so. What about churches? Should virtual churches be planted? LifeChurch.tv established a Second Life virtual church in March of this year. How much of our life will we allow to be mediated through technology? Most of you reading this may feel that a virtual environment like Second Life is a waste of time and unhealthy, so you’d draw a line there. But what about the ways that you’ve allowed communications technology to enter and shape your life already? Did you premeditate the assimilation of those things or did they just happen as you went with the flow? I love technology, and in particular, I enjoy creating online spaces where people can share themselves and interact. But, I do not want to continue down this path without thinking about it deeply. I want to be intentional in the choices I make.

The fundamental question I am asking is “What makes our interactions authentic?” I think authenticity is something most people want out of their relationships. We want our communication with others to be genuine. Is it exclusively the content of our interaction that determines its “realness” or does the medium by which we communicate make a difference? For example, Lebron James announced that he is not going to let the upcoming delivery of his second child interfere with his participation in the NBA Finals. In other words, he will miss the birth if it occurs while he is away playing basketball. What if he were to arrange for a video feed of the delivery room in Ohio to be streamed to him on a laptop in San Antonio, so that he could check in on things from the locker room? I’m trying to be humorous, but Lebron does have millions of dollars; it is not far-fetched to think that he might do something like that to serve as a replacement for his physical absence.

I think we can agree that if Lebron were to participate in his child’s birth via a remote video feed it would be a poor replacement for actually being there. But this leads me to wonder if there are any occasions when virtual or technologically mediated interactions possess superior authenticity? I am open to this possibility. My thoughts turn to a recent project I’ve mentioned on this blog previously — LettersFromLeavers.com. It is a publicly shared blog that invites people to share their stories of leaving church. I am certain that we are receiving on this blog authentic stories that would be difficult to gather any other way. The anonymity of the web allows people to write honestly about their experiences. In addition, the viral marketing the web generates allows a site like this to effortlessly market itself to numerous people all over the globe, drawing participation from a diverse audience. I think there is a place for online community, and I think it offers a unique angle on “authentic” interaction, but I do not want it to serve as a replacement for the tangible interactions of physical time and space in the presence of another person. Of course, there is a circular argument that leads me to ask what I mean by “presence.” Is my presence only experienced through direct physical interaction or can it be mediated over time and space by a technology? Hmmmm.

Well, let me end this long, spontaneous musing by noting that we are about to experience a new revolution in communication technology…. the iPhone. Those that know how much I love Apple products are laughing. But I am serious. The hype on this thing is only beginning. This will imprint the culture like the iPod times 10. Think of it this way: I purchased a laptop last year so that I could type notes in class and work on term papers in the library. If I were making that purchase next year, I would strongly consider buying an iPhone instead. I guarantee that there will be a third party product within a couple of years that provides a paper-thin keyboard that can be unrolled/unfolded from a very compact state onto any surface. Combine that with an iPhone, and a laptop for my purposes becomes less necessary. This holds all the more true for business users. I actually think it was a mistake for Apple to hype this product so far in advance. No other company was trying to build something like this until Apple announced its plans and revealed its prototype. Now, Samsung, Motorola and others have been trying to catch-up by developing their own devices. They are several steps behind, but not as far back as the market was when the iPod was introduced. You can expect the iPhone to face stronger competition within its first year of production. But my overall point is that the consumer market is about to receive the first truly hand-held personal computer/communications device hybrid. Everything up till now has had to compromise in some major way. Anyone that’s tried to browse the web on a cell phone (no matter how advanced) can attest to the cumbersome nature of it (and lack of graphics). And most of us over 30 struggle to get our nubby fingers to text with any speed or accuracy. The iPhone ends those drawbacks and many others. Imagine the world this product will create when it (or something like it) is commonplace among us (like a traditional cell phone is now). I wonder…..

By the way, today marks the 30th Anniversary of the first Apple personal computer going on sale.

This post began with the simple desire to embed a YouTube video. Needless to say, the video relates to the “evolution in communication” that I’ve been musing about. The video briefly traces (without using spoken words) the history of the human relationship with communication technology. I cannot begin to explain how well crafted this video is. I highly recommend taking the time to watch it. It was put together by Michael Wesch, a cultural anthropologist at Kansas State University. [It literally took me 20 seconds to find a link to Michael Wesch's KSU page -- wow, the immediacy of relevant information online is truly amazing.

[youtubehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gmP4nk0EOE[/youtube