ESSAY

Society is reliant on Cell Phones as a means for communication, diminishing face to face interaction. ‘Face to face’ interaction is devalued, through the use of cell phones. These devices play the most dominant force in social interaction. Thus leaving society caught in a virtual matrix where lives are controlled by digital devices replacing identities. Does time exist for traditional human interaction in a world consumed with cell Phones, instant messaging, emoticons and texts? It appears that traditional human interaction was left behind by the new communication tools, which seem to have taken over. It is evident that accesses to multiple forms of communication have resulted in the decline of traditional face to face interaction. Mobile phones are the most dominant form of communication, however this device may be seen as to incorporate negative effects, leaving users addicted, disconnected from face to face social interaction as well as a loss of identity. The following magazine will cover issues concerning all of the above as well as reliance issues, its uses in popular culture given new meaning, addiction and its impact in a evolving society. While some might argue that cell phones have improved our communication, this may not be the case. Face to face interactions have seemed to have declined in recent years.Individuals can no longer go minutes without looking at their phones, updating there twitters and texting. Through this digital world, it as if we are losing a sense of who we really are. We are becoming digital representations of feelings, emotions and messages. We have become digital characters, losing a sense of our true self. Thus looking at the issue through the perspective of ‘Walter Benjamin’ who establishes in his article ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ “That multiple, indistinguishable copies that are produced and/or that replace an art object depreciate the value conveyed by the unique original with every reproduced copy made.”(Pg 220) Therefore utilizing this concept, it is evident that we can apply to our dependency on technology as a substitution for face to face interaction. This substitution has diminished the “aura” of “communication” and has lost all meaning due to our constant reliant on the technological advanced gadgets. The true identity of a person is lost through this digital representation of them selves. The presence of a unique existence is lacking, “Thus it’s absent in one element: its presence in time and space.”(Pg 220) In a book by Michelle M. Weil and Larry D. Rosen entitled “Coping with Technology at Work, at Home at Play”, these experts asserted the escalating reliance on technology which affects everyone negatively. Individuals rely on their machine to do so much that whenever there is something wrong with the technology, we are thrown into a world of tailspin. One expert even reiterated that individuals permit themselves to be consumed by this technological abyss and in doing so they turn into more machine-oriented and less sensitive to particular needs and the needs of others. They are so engrossed in technology that they jeopardize losing their own identity. Michelle M. Weil, Ph.D and Larry D. Rosen have exemplified, Through the use of technology we our jeopardizing and losing our identity. It is evident that Cell phones and Internet Communication are a result of diminishing our self identity. Because of this strong reliance to no longer communicate face to face we elude essential parts of who we are and the device overpowers our character. These devices are managing our lives and we function in accordance to them. People plan week/months on their phone planers. It is as if these devices have become essential to our existence. Like a heart beat. From business conference calls to reports being sent via blackberry our lives our consumed in these technologies. In the world of the ‘popular culture’ John Fiske reiterates that it is made by the people at the interface between the products of the culture industries on a daily basis. Popular culture is created by the people themselves and these are not imposed on them. He further defines popular culture as the art of making do with what the system can offer. Thus in reference to technological communication we have advanced to the point where systems such as “the cell phone” offer various ways of communicating. I.e. text and/or web cam using what is offered to communicate more conveniently. People are not just passive victims but active consumers as well. In addition, people are active and they attach their own meaning to the products they use. But one cannot ignore these dominant forces as they attach meaning to a product instantly. For example a particular celebrity promoting a certain cell phone evokes new meaning behind that product. This offers users a feeling of connection to that celebrity. Hence, people can change these meanings; however they can never entirely escape these dominant forces. They can try to escape or resist it which they do by transforming the original meaning. As well, he states that people do not only use commodities the way they are supposed to be used. Given an active process of resistance they change the original meaning. Thus a perfect example would be the initial purpose of a cell phone. It’s no longer just the device to make a call. It’s become a social frenzy through internet options such as “face book” and more importantly given its own meaning as a fashion accessory in reference to its role in popular culture. Research by ‘Rice and Katz’ and ‘Mark Prensky’ “//What can you learn from a Cell Phone? Almost Anything! 2005”// demonstrates that the greatest amount of technology use in society is the mobile phone.The cell phone grows at a higher rate than the computer. “In 2004, there were 1.5 billion mobile phones in use in the world with a ½ billion more being sold every year. In the US, penetration in the schools is estimated to be 40% in junior high schools, 75% in many high schools and over 90% in colleges. Additionally there are countries in the word such as the U.K., Italy and Sweden where market penetration is grater than 100%, meaning that many people have more than one mobile phone. As of 2006, 80% of world's population has mobile phone coverage. There are many obvious reasons for this such as their small size and relative low cost.” (Prensky, 2005).Thus analyzing the location of cell phones, it is evident that these devices play a vital role in the human condition, which is the need to communicate. “Cell phones replaced analog phones, which replaced the telegraph, which replaced messengers, which replaced semaphore, which replaced smoke signals and carrier pigeons and finally replace human face to face interaction.” (Rice and Katz, 2005). Thus it is evident that Mobile phones have dominated as the central form for communication. Instead of groups meeting for discussion, they just conference over mobile devices. This is major concern for countries relying too heavily on technology as its main means of communication. What will we do when the cell phone lines are down? How will we function? The above statistics demonstrate our addiction to this technology. It is possible for individuals to communicate for month’s, even years on in without physically meeting in person. Can we really say we know a person based on telephone conversations? Christine Rosen addresses the issue of cell phones in “our cell phones, Ourselves” she states that a sociologist de Gournay has noted, “the telephone is a device ill suited to listening...it is more appropriate for exchanging information.” In reference to western obsession with information—we are, after all, the “information society”—(pg45) it is vital to distinguish the difference. As differences exist between information and knowledge, there is a vast difference between conversation and talk. The technologies intervening the differences are important. It is arguable that “the cell phones exchange of information is a distant relative of formal conversation, just as the Internet chat room is a far less compelling place to become intimate with another person than a formal date.” As a society we have persuaded our culture to believe that this substitution for communication is just as good as face to face interaction, or perhaps improvements upon them. But I assume this evolution to be insufficient. Referring to Walter Benjamin’s concept of looking at an actor through a glass window, this can be applied to the topic of conversation concerning cell phones. There does not exist a one to one relationship through the use of a mobile phone. There is the person, the devices and the other person. How can there be true intimacy through this distance? Goffman wrote “A conversation exist independently and makes demands on its own behalf,”(Pg45) “a conversation is a social system with its own boundary-making tendencies; commitment and loyalty with its own heroes and its own villains.”(pg45) A census data states “that the percentage of Americans who live alone is the highest it has ever been in our country’s history”(pg45) reiterating the fact that authentic sociability and conversation are more crucial than ever. It is apparent that Cell phones offer a new way of communicating, however it is not essentially a better means of communicating. Cell phones can be viewed as encouraging talk, not conversation. It is arguable as to cell phones connecting us to those we know, although detaching us from the unfamiliar persons we are surrounded by. It is evident that the constant accessibility and regular exchange of information is crucial to our every day. However it would be a tragedy if “being connected” is obligatory to a disconnection from face to face interaction. The cell phone can be seen as a corrosion of natural meetings as well as everyday situations. This will eventually result in a society that no longer requires face to face interaction. -Imagining an abandon new York- where individuals all work from home through a simple convenient device.