myspace as springboard: draft 1

i'll give myspace one prop, for the music connections it provides, but even this is a small prop and beyond that i am not prepared to acknowledge anything else positive about myspace. i echo the reasons blandella articulates and would like to offer my own, open to revision of course.

what is happening to our face to face contact? i see myspace as just another brick in the wall this society is erecting to provide distance between ourselves, to assure safety and security in making friends, contacts, and romantic relationships. the risk is greatly decreased or altogether eradicated when one hides in the comfort of their home or cubicle and attempts to reach out.

since little or nothing is at stake, the reward is lessened and there can be no growth. it is in the process of opening one's self up to vulnerability and placing one's self on the line, risking everything that personal growth takes place. consider the couple that meets online.

they enter a shallow pool, and by shallow i do not mean small, i mean safe. they swim around till they find another swimming in the same pool who shares their interests, hobbies, and ideologies about politics, religion, and children, to name a few. they believe they have found someone with whom they can live quite happily with and maybe they have. they send a few tentative emails and only after they have been guaranteed invulnerability, they meet.

they continue their meetings and head towards the altar where they sing the praises of internet dating. but where at any time, did they take a risk? where was the awkwardness and the uncomfortable anxiety that melts away over time to reveal a deeper inner confidence because they were open for attack but through time and strategy, managed to avoid?

this is not to say that attacks do not happen. they do and the short of is, they suck. they leave one winded, exhausted, craving validation and attention. tears, food, whether in excess or in absence, sleepless nights, wounding self doubt and insecurity are often by-products of living through a relationship attack. and i repeat, they suck, however, it is in that suffering that produces the stronger, the more observant, the wiser, and the life lesson that will be added to the stack of life lessons learned thus far.

the "friendship" one acquires on myspace, engenders a false sense of value. i am valuable because if i was not valuable, then why do i have as many friends as i have? is this how we make value judgements now? based on the amount of material one puts out on the internet? even as i write this, i hear the condemnation arising, accusing me of the same crime. and maybe i am guilty, maybe i am not.

i mentioned earlier that i viewed myspace as another brick in a metaphorical wall. within the same structure reside emails and texts. i myself have been lulled into the safety of texting, minimizing my contact with human beings, thereby lessening my chances for getting hurt whether it be a friendship or a romantic relationship. there is so much that is lost when people begin to rely solely on electronic forms of communication and emotions do not make up the deficit.

nuance and body language and grammar are three particular items that suffer when one chooses to text/email instead of seeking out the person they wish to talk to and meeting with them face to face.

what about the telephone? even this device has seen its share of being ignored in favor of texting. now even just talking to a person on the phone is hazardous and potentially opens one for attack. we are losing in person contact with silencing the voice contact right behind it. what if these patterns continue? shall i carry them to their logical conclusion?

soon all americans own not one but multiple computers as well as the most sophisticated cellular phones that do not have the capability for voice communication because with texting rates through the roof, what's the point of having it? as the need decreases, so must the technology search for methods to elimination. society become quiet. we forget how to talk, how to speak to another, to speak at all is a shock that reverberates in our ears like chalkboard nails and we sanction the government to ban it altogether. but we do not do this with signs at washington's gate, we email, we text our congressfolk, demanding the silence.

silly, i know, and pulling it back a bit to the here and now, how do relationships suffer in our text frenzy? instead of calling a friend to check on them, instead of making the trip to their house, where you might be invited in for tea and intellectual discourse, you text a one liner to them, "you okay?" the person may text back, "yeah." and that's the end of the exchange even though the person who said yeah is vomiting up the contents of their stomach every five minutes.

misunderstandings arise frequently inside a text conversation and while email elicits confusion as well, it is the limit of space inside a text that make it so much more prone to causing problems. inside an email, one has more space, similar to that of a letter, and this is where people get in trouble. they write letters differently than they do emails. a letter evokes an old world, (old world...wow) sensibility and thus they are apt to choose their words more carefully, crafting each sentence with always an eye focused toward the reader. in an email, with the speed that it is delivered along with the speed anything it contains can be rectified immediately, they are more carelessly produced with the writer often not considering their reader in the least. they are merely trying to get their point across, knowing they can somehow fix it later if the need arises.

within a text, the potential for misunderstanding increases greatly. since there are only so many characters allowed, the texter has to be brief and yet get a point across. they tap out their message, sometimes re-reading it, believing it is what they want to say, and they hit send only to be texted back a "?." then they have to try again, sometimes they succeed, other times they do not. pretending for a moment that all texts were perfect in nature, that they conveyed each and every thing they were meant to, that no confusion was ever caused. is this how we want to express love and friendship with our nearests and dearests?

what about their antithesis, anger and disappointment? "you okay?" "just a little upset." "why?" what can be the response but a superficial reason containing little substance? even if the person succeeds in conveying their anger to the other, how can the other ever really trust or know fully, the extent of the hurt? they cannot. when nuance is omitted, the conversation changes, the content changes and meaning is lost. when body-language is omitted, when the voice is silenced, the meaning is lost.

so what if meaning is lost? when meaning is lost, when conclusions are reached, we carry them with us and they influence not only our words but our actions as well. we hear something inside an electronic message and no matter what the other person does to attempt to revise, we adhere, doggedly, to the first impression we received, what we perceived them to mean. what we do after that can take many forms from distancing ourselves further to spreading false images to others to a myriad of other actions that only assist in widening the gap.

i understand that there is mis-communication inside face to face to contact as well, but consider the ramifications of this versus those of texting/emailing/myspacing. an altercation arises between two people. one person, having the bigger problem, contacts the other and asks if they can talk. they meet, the problem is presented, they discuss, they argue, and at worst they get mad and defensive and hateful, swearing to never talk to that person again, which is what can happen inside a text conversation. i offer the following difference referring to an earlier sentiment.

the person who reached out, who risked themselves, who opened themselves up for attack versus the person who cowered behind their phone, punching in buttons, safe, secure, saving face, pride, and ego all at once. who is the better? or is there not a better, only different? i posit that the one taking on the risk of appearing vulnerable, wrong, uptight, demanding, while someone is watching is going to learn the greater lesson thereby achieving the greater personal growth, able to tackle more of what life spews at them than the other who shielded themselves from the scary and nerve-rattling.

as i write this, my phone is turned off and i am merely using this forum in which to get thoughts and theories down, while i work to refine and question them, preparing to take them to the table and present them to others who will argue, probe for fallacies, and offer insight. i am challenging myself, alone, to break away from the text habit i have developed, to stop being such a god damn chicken where people are concerned and realize and embrace the idea that feeling vulnerable can be beneficial and take me further along the road than sealing up the cracks and hiding.