Evolution of Communication

     It's no secret that methods of communication have been evolving at a rapid clip in recent times, especially when compared to how long it took humanity to get the printing press figured out. With the advent of the electronic and digital ages, it's gotten much easier to send, receive, share, and find information. Many people are accustomed to schlepping through a quagmire of undesired details and facts and figures and opinions to get to the information they actually want, but quite a few others hate it. Those of us who weren't born at roughly the same time as the internet, or born into the current state of affairs, would probably greatly prefer to go back to the old days of print newspaper, radio talk shows, and televised informational specials.
     My dad always complains about the sheer amount of information on the internet. He watches the nightly news on cable tv, but he also gets bored at work and reads a lot of news articles online. He's used to watching the news, getting a few stories, and going to work and talking to people about them. But with the influx of news articles being shifted from television to web, he says that the personal-face-to-face communication is being lost. Instead, people talk to absolute strangers about their life views and beliefs in the comment threads on the same page as the articles. So I tell him to ignore those people, read his articles, and then go talk to people at work about them, but he replies that there are so many articles out there that it's virtually impossible to have read the same one as someone else in his workplace. He's right about that, but my response is usually something along the lines of "so what?" He just values face-to-face discussion with familiar people more than I do, and that's a result of what we're used to.
     Almost every aspect of humanity has been evolving steadily, even if genetic evolution has (debatably) ground to a halt, and culture is possibly the fastest-changing aspect out there. There are certain things that stick around for the long haul, like Shakespeare and Mozart, because they're respected and appreciated as "classics," and recognized as things what will actually stick around for the long haul. But culture that's currently developing is vastly different. This is sometimes represented in the "skyscraper model" where "higher" levels of culture are those long haul elements, and "lower" levels are the more current things that haven't had a chance to stand the test of time yet. I prefer to view culture in terms of old and new, because the only real advantage that Shakespeare has over Harry Potter is the fact that his plays have earned respect through simply being around for practically forever. The Harry Potter franchise simply hasn't had a chance to yet. But even though Shakespeare has the general respect of most of the rest of current culture, much more time is spent per day or week or month experiencing current culture than is spent experiencing Shakespeare. It's classic, it's valued, but it's not how the average person spends most of their time. And it's the same basic principle with communication.
     More people get their news from television than get it from a newspaper delivered to the front door, and still more people get their news from the internet than from television. It's just the current trend. One consistent thing about humans that will probably never change, though, is the need to communicate and seek feedback. When people would once read a book or newspaper and talk face-to-face about it, they now read something electronically and talk about it on the internet. But they're still seeking input and then discussing it. As much of a big deal as this dynamic change is to some people, I just don't see it. I set out to write this post and take a stance on one side, for or against change, but it sure seems that there's very little actual change going on. It's really just a matter of what you're used to.
     I basically grew up with the internet in my life. I'm completely used to having discussions with absolute strangers with unknown backgrounds. I prefer it that way, because when there's a disagreement, it stays focused on the issue at hand; there's no cheating by calling up things you know about someone from previous discussions and writing their opinions off as a result of something you don't think is important. My dad acknowledges this as true, but argues that you also lose the level of understanding you gain from knowing things like that about the other person. It's more difficult to come to an understanding if you DON'T have knowledge of the background belief or experience that contributes to that person's view on the topic you're debating. It's really just a matter of what you're used to and what you think is more important.
     That's why it annoys me to no end when people complain about the way information is shared nowadays, or when my peers complain about the "old complainers" for not understanding. It's annoying that neither side has tried to figure out where the other is coming from, and it's not as if they have any hope of doing so if they both reject the other side's preferred platform of communication. My dad and I have come to terms with the whole thing, so I'm pretty unsympathetic with those who can't or won't.


Additional Sources:
Bettina Fabos, Christopher R. Martin, and Richard Campbell. Media & Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication, 8th Edition. 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2012. Print.