Vol #2, Col #16: Counting…Speech?

In the spirit of the season, last week on that special day on which we traditionally consume copious amounts of turkey (well, tofurky for us vegans), I wanted to publicly display my gratitude…in other words, “give thanks.” As my friends and family are scattered both near and far, it seemed to me that the most obvious way to reach such a dispersed group would be by taking advantage of one of the ever-populating social networking sites, like Facebook.

So there I was composing an epic speech acknowledging that I was appreciative of everything from my man to my cats to the food in my fridge, and just as I went to post it as my status, a nasty little pop-up window appeared informing me that apparently I’m too thankful as I had overshot the character count by some hundred words. Left with no choice, I revised and edited, rephrased and rewrote. By the time I was finally able to post my acclamation, I worried it had both lost its essence and further that people would begin to believe that I was ill-acquainted with the laws of syntax and how they apply to the English language (ie: I had to remove all apostrophes and other proper grammatical markers, as well as use the digital form for all numeric references even if they were below the number ten just to make it fit).

Luckily, my loved ones understood – they’ve always known me to be a verbose creature – but this whole ordeal got me ruminating and I came to the following conclusion (as posted on my wall directly below my FB status, and yes I’m quoting myself): “I suppose it’s a rather sad reflection on modern society if most people CAN compile their complex thoughts into such restrictive word limits OR that further most people WON’T devote time to reading something that exceeds said word limits.”

Now the ironic part about my conception of this conviction is that throughout my highschool academic career (something to which my mom can contest), anytime I could get my hands on Cliffs Notes instead of actually delving into real literature, I would jump on the opportunity; the only exceptions being for works of my lovers from beyond the grave Billy S. and the man who told tales of all-telling hearts (I know, further ironic – these are two authors that most highschoolers can’t stand or understand for that matter.). All of this changed however when I hit college…

Perhaps it was a lack of maturity or just a god awful selection of texts (ie: “Death of a Salesman” anyone?!) or a combination of the two, but I truly didn’t begin to appreciate the written word as a “page turner” (thought I’ve always enjoyed writing) until I embarked on my six year post-secondary stint. But my love for books didn’t originate as a consequence of crime fiction, romances, or poetry (though those are all wicked genres). No, it was the textbook, specifically those of the Social Science variety, and later the autobiography that made me re-think my firmly established hatred of literary scholarship.

So why am I telling you this? Well, for starters, it seems to me that it is a rare person indeed who spends their evenings inside simply cuddled up with good books anymore. Oh, we can devote countless hours of watching reality tv shows or worst viral videos, but to appreciate literature or transcribed life stories, well clearly that’s not as worthy of a time investment (note the sarcasm).

Secondly, even when we read, because we have become so ingrained with a “live fast” mentality AND because so much of the information that we now access is electronic in nature, we tend to skim over a lot necessary detail which results in frequent miscommunications (ie: I’m sure all of you have been in a texting war with someone due to misinterpretation of what was being expressed).

While it’s just speculation at the moment, I recently heard that physical book publishing is increasingly going out of style because of the upsurge of handheld device ownership and internet usage in the classroom. In its place, it’s been suggested that the books of the future will be purely electronic in nature, complete with hypertext systems that allow for easy navigation from section to section.

I don’t know about you, but staring at a computer screen for hours on end personally makes me dizzy. Further, I think it’s a fair statement to suggest that intangible works of art (whether mp3s separated from their albums and their artwork or jpeg renderings of da Vinci’s finest) aren’t as valued. Does this mean that the future of Romeo & Juliet is looking even more grim? I certainly hope not!

The truth of the matter is this: you read more and you read more deeply when you have to caress a book’s physicality, just like you appreciate a marvel of nature more in person than in history books. For your own sake as well as the sake of the amazing array of fine literature and philosophical thought we’ve developed throughout the ages, learn to appreciate the art of reading, and no 140 character word-limit tweets don’t count.

Vol #2, Col #10: Breaking Up is Hard to Do…Especially When You Live in a “Wired World”

I don’t know about you, but I’m definitely one who ops for a “clean break,” whenever possible. Regardless of whether we’re talking a business deal gone awry, a messy split with a romantic partner, or a desire to cease communications with someone you’re not quite certain as to how they ended up on your friend’s list in the first place, once the presumed benefit of continuing the relationship has been lost, I frankly don’t see the point, especially if final discussions turn heated or dwindle down to nothing more than juvenile personal attacks. Let’s face it folks, we can’t be friends with everyone and if someone no longer wishes to have us in their lives, we should respect that.

Now, if you just interpreted what I stated as self-serving, don’t kid yourself - ALL relationships are based on some idea of mutual perk, even the seemingly altruistic ones (ie: people participate in charity work yes to help those less fortunate, BUT ALSO because it provides them with positive recognition by others in society, it looks good on the old resume, and because it provides oneself with a sense of purpose, fulfillment, and satisfaction that you are "giving back").

This “alliance strategy”, of course, can be traced back to our evolutionary history: it is and always has been in the best interest of any species to maintain strong ties to its kin in order to ensure protection and survival of its kind. Kin, in the modern sense of this perspective then, can be defined as those with whom you share the SAME values, morals, attitudes, beliefs, passions etc. – these are the individuals with whom you already have and/or wish to make a connection. On the other side of things, there are those with whom you’ve had falling outs, and/or those whose values, morals, attitudes, beliefs, passions etc. are dissonant to yours. From a “survivalism” perspective, this latter group stands in the way of the perpetuation of people like yourself; therefore adding to their “fitness” by expanding their network isn’t in your best interest. Make sense? In other words, you are who you hang with.

So what does all of this have to do with being “old-fashioned?” Well, frankly because we live in such a “wired world”, it’s next to impossible (particularly if you work in the entertainment business, like myself) to maintain any sense of anonymity. Essentially what I’m trying to say is that nowadays even if you block all incoming hate mail on one social networking site from an established antagonist, you can easily find yourself being “cyber-stalked” through another or worse, having your identity “mimicked” without even knowing it, whereas eliminating delinquents from your life at one point was as easy as changing your phone number.

I mean seriously I’ve had ex-bfs from h.s. with whom things ended EXTREMELY unfavourably along with my old h.s. bullies friend request me on Facebook  - are you kidding me? Why the hell would I want anything to do with them? Moreover, why the hell would they want anything to do with me? I’ve still got my battle wounds, and those are not really times I wish to ever revisit. Thanks.

While admittedly, people are far too free-wheeling about the level of personal detail they are willing to put online, I also feel that the idea of privacy is being disregarded to a whole new level because of social networking sites and the “net”.

The other day, for example, a teenaged girl got suspended by her school because someone anonymously sent her principal a photo, stolen from her Facebook page, which demonstrated her participation in underage drinking. Agreed, this is an illegal act that should be sanctioned, but seeing as the drinking did NOT occur on school grounds and that likely the photo was submitted by one of the girl’s adversaries (no doubt because someone stole someone else’s boyfriend), I really don’t feel that the principal was justified in getting involved. If anything, he should have contacted the girl’s parents and allowed them to deal with her as they saw fit.

The points I’m trying to make here are as follows:

1) it is NEVER in proper taste to air one’s dirty laundry publicly.

2) Be respectful of the desire for privacy of others. I mean, considering how easy it is to track people down these days, if they wanted you to be in their lives, you likely already would be.

Finally, 3) If someone has decided they feel it is necessary to “cut you out”, accept it; continuing communications, after all, is only likely to merit you a higher place on their shit list. 

Vol #2, Col #1: R.E.S.P.E.C.T., Find Out What it Means to Me

I lived under a certain amount of fear as a child, and you know what? It was good for me. No, my parents weren’t cultists, militant drill-sergeant types, or abusive alcoholics (let me make clear I’m abundantly thankful for that). However, they did instill in me very early on that no transgression was without its consequences and nothing, no nothing, in life ever comes for free.

If I talked back, stayed out too late, or got into any of the typical mischief teenagers do, there were consequences to be paid. As for the ability to compromise/negotiate said punishments enacted against me? Let’s just say that ceased to exist! Further, if I wanted spending money for various recreational pursuits, it sure as shit wasn’t just handed to me on a silver platter. Rather, from the moment I was able to walk and talk, I contributed to the household chores; at the age of seven, I was practically my mom’s full-on secretary.

What I’m trying to express in probably too many words is quite simply this: my parents were AUTHORITY FIGURES and it was through them that I learned not just the difference between right and wrong, but moreover the concept of respect, especially as it pertains to your elders and other persons within our social hierarchy, such as teachers and police officers, who demand the same sort of treatment.

Well, I’m not sure who’s to blame – perhaps it was the upsurge of bad TV talkshows (and their over-the-top degenerate guests) hosted by the likes of Jerry Springer in the early 90s, or the repeated media-hyped moral panics surrounding corporal punishment and its supposed potential for backlash – but since the Babyboomer generation, I’ve observed a marked change in what is being doled out as the “recommended” strategies for effective parenting/ parent-child relationships…and in my view, it ain’t for the better!

I mean, these days, parenting is apparently all about “befriending” your children, and allowing THEM to practically designate THEIR own punishments (if any) as THEY see fit. Parents are being instructed to hear their children out and negotiate with them in terms of what’s fair discipline-wise, even if it’s indisputable their kids made some serious errors in judgment. But, the worst of it is that parents who fail to comply with this laissez-faire attitude and actually try to encourage obedience from their children can be taken to court for “infringing” on their kids’ rights. I’m sorry, but I can’t think of something more ridiculous, and here’s why:

As Piaget noted many moons ago, humans typically do not start to become capable of rational, mature adult-like (ie: “operational”) thought, a prerequisite to the full comprehension AND chosen adherence to society’s norms and mores, until they reach between seven and 11 years of age. Further, according to Kolhberg’s "Theory of Moral Development", the internalization of universal ethics, along with the establishment of a sense of personal responsibility is highly contingent on proper socialization, as well as both the reinforcement and punishment of appropriate and inappropriate actions; respectively. In other words, kids, lacking the complex cognition necessary to understand why things are right or wrong per se, instead base their actions purely on consequences. Therefore, if parents refuse to acknowledge their role as the primary disciplinarians/moral teachers in the lives of their children (primary as in both first and most impactful), how the hell can we expect kids to ever adhere to societal rules and regulations, let alone respect future authority figures who will inevitably enter their lives via school, the workplace, and just life in general?

Despite the current fashion’s insistence that “friending” your offspring is the way to go, it has long been established by development psychologists that the MOST effective of the four parenting styles is the form classified as “authoritative”. The perfect combination of nurturance and boundary-setting, authoritative parents “monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative,” (Baumrind, “The Influence of Parenting Style on Adolescent Competence and Substance Use“, Journal of Early Adolescence, 1991.)

The point I’m trying to get at is that, for one thing, there’s a reason why the Facebook group entitled, “If I Spoke to My Parents How Kids Talk Now a Days I'd Been Knocked Out!,” is so popular. The other point is this: can you name another 26-year-old who cried when issued her very first speeding ticket because she was so disappointed with herself for tainting her record of perfect law-abiding citizenship? Likely not.

I “get” parents wanting to be relatable to their children. Heck, I especially “get” parents wanting to try and minimize the potential for conflicts with their kin. But what I don’t get, and what you shouldn’t accept either is parenting WITHOUT a sense of discipline. There’s a wild epidemic out there spreading among many members of my own generation, along with the one that follows it, and that wild epidemic has been labelled quite concisely as “a sense of entitlement.” To the parents who “befriend” their children, all I’ve gotta say, is what the hell did you expect? As I wrote in my very first paragraph, nothing, indeed, nothing comes for free.

Vol #1, Col #7: Electronic HandShaking & the Technological Divide: More than Just Smoother Business Practise

The term “net” implies a device of capture and/or constriction that possesses enveloping properties. When used in reference to that little old invention known by html hypertext coders as the world wide web (www, for short), this is a rather apt analogy considering that few of us can live without it, and online addiction isn’t as rare as one may think. For that matter, I’m sure many of you can’t even begin to recall a time in your lives when the internet did NOT exist (though I still remember the days of typewriters, word processing and Ataris – shut up, I know I’m getting up there!) – when you weren’t able to conduct all of your research for school projects via the web, when you couldn’t maintain long distance friendships/relationships without racking up the phone bill, when you couldn’t check the status of your bank account(s) from the convenience of your living room sofa, when you couldn’t find out about the latest fashions and pop culture from around the globe, without having to ‘leave on a jet plane’ (as they say). The advent of the internet has literally changed lives – there are no two ways around it – but whether its life changing properties are for the better or worse is still largely up for debate.

Like any ground-breaking innovation, it too has some serious downfalls: the commodification/de-valuation of music and consequent stealing of tracks (a phenomenon to which I personally relate and to which I’m strongly opposed) merely scratches the tip of the iceberg. Child porn rings, white supremacist message boards, organized crime solicitation, online instructions for bomb and drug manufacture, pro-anorexia websites, and services to aid in eliciting extramarital affairs are just some of the web’s more “fantastic” (note the sarcasm) offerings. But with that said, all of this stuff already existed in the REAL world. It wasn’t that the web corrupted humans. Rather, it merely has served as a MEDIUM through which our corruption has become concentrated.

While I would never discount that the “digital web revolution” has aided tremendously in terms of conducting business (for that matter, much of my own entrepreneurial efforts would not be feasible economically if it weren’t for email) and has led to a more international perspective in terms of world issues among the general populus, when it comes to the business of personal relations, I gotta tell you, I maintain a vastly different view.To me, in the age of globalization and technological advance where academics and suits alike postulate the “interconnectedness” of our globe, it would seem, in fact, that we’re more disconnected than ever before.As knowledge of each other, different cultures, and “the underground” has become increasingly more accessible (albeit still highly oriented around the perpetuation of stereotypes), our relationships have moved into progressively more superficial terrain.

Case and point: I was recently “dating” (if you can even call it that) a gentleman who refused to pick up the phone in order to have an actual conversation with me. He’d spend hours texting me and then several more hours apologizing for the miscommunication and arguments that resulted because of texting’s limited capacity to capture the emotion and intention behind one’s words (when you’re a sarcastic bastard like myself, this is particularly difficult to convey). Yet, he couldn’t seem to understand why perhaps actually speaking may be more suitable in this scenario. His excuse was that texting was more “convenient” for him, allowing him to engage in a multitude of other activities, while socializing. Like any woman with self-respect, I read this (both literally and figuratively) as essentially his desire to half-ass a so-called “relationship”. Suffice it to say, it was short-lived. I’m not here on anyone’s convenience and as “old-fashioned” (pardon the pun) as it may sound, I’m NOT actually capable of forming a deep emotional bond with someone merely by reading words on a screen. I don’t know – in-person engagement, hearing a person’s voice, and experiencing them in a three-dimensional capacity tends to work a little better (but only just a little, of course, again note the sarcasm) – but, maybe that’s just me?

It is of my humble opinion that our technological OVERstimulation has led to intellectual AND importantly, emotional UNDER-stimulation as we battle to attend to everything at once, but NOTHING in its entirety. Everything is now seen as “fleeting” or “transient”, and we can establish intense passionate love affairs as quickly as we can end them. In sum, we’ve somehow managed to convince ourselves that wishing one of our so-called “friends” ‘Happy Birthday’ via Facebook upon receiving notification that it is so and so’s special day makes up for the fact that the other 364 days a year this person’s existence remains unacknowledged in our lives.

Then there are some – more extreme tech supporters we’ll call em - who would rather be immersed to such a degree in a virtual made-up world that they’ve gone to the extent of creating fake profiles, fake bank accounts, and yes, you've got it, fake relationships via “interactive” (and I use that term loosely) programs such as SecondLife, to which membership does not come cheap. One needs to ask themselves what is wrong with society when people would rather formulate and maintain their identities and interactions through a computer screen, than actually endeavour to intermingle the good old-fashioned way?!

If you don’t want to take my word for it that the net has led to the above-described “social ill”, I hate to break it to ya, but the social scientific research is in my favour. As I recently learned in my Sociology of Deviance class, hardcore net fanatics and individuals who were raised in “wired” families tend to socialize less (and when they do, it is within smaller social circles), suffer from increased loneliness and depression and often lack a strong sense of personal identity (the net leads to a phenomenon known as “de-individuation”).

It is built within our genetic and evolutionary codes that humans are a social species – we are naturally compelled to flock together with like-others. In this way, the idea of the “technological divide” can not only be applied to differences in accessibility and use based on socioeconomic and demographic factors, but moreover said term can be used to designate how social relations have become significantly altered as a result of the net’s introduction.

Like any major change enacted upon society, characteristically there are those who are pro and those who maintain firm positions of staunch opposition. Call me a Luddite if you will, but I look back fondly on the days where conversing meant talking in-person not through MSN, cultural education involved the incorporation of ethnographic methods and phones had not yet transmutated into all-inclusive entertainment units equipped with their very own home recording and playback devices.

Vol #1, Col #2: Choose Your Words Wisely, They May Just Be Your Last

A single word can change everything. Take the “L” word for instance (and no I don’t mean lesbian).

About a month or so ago, I met who I thought was a really great guy. Now, just so you don’t get the wrong impression, let me make clear from the get-go that our relationship was entirely one of a professional nature. While I think it was likely apparent to both of us that we shared a sense of attraction towards each other (our personalities were very much complementary), the circumstances (and well, likely the fact that both of us are admittedly naïve when it comes to that sort of thing) prevented the situation from heading in the romantic direction. Although like I said, I thought fairly highly of the boy, I had come to terms with this, and was quite content with simply having him in my life as a friendly acquaintance… that was until he dropped the love bomb as part of his signature in one of his correspondences to me.

While I’m not now (nor was I then) so ridiculously out of touch with reality to believe that he was actually professing his innermost desires via this slight (yet highly noticeable from a women’s stance) interjection, I must admit it frankly, for lack of a better word, “weirded” me out! Being that I’ve been in significant relationships before, it’s not as though this was my first exposure to said term. However, I am a firm believer that the word love (well, almost all four letter words), because of the connotations with which it is associated, should be used highly selectively, moreover, only when in fact you a) mean it and b) are prepared to deal with the consequences of uttering it.

The problems between us started when I attempted to point this out to him in what I thought was a clever, humourous and non-threatening manner. I never heard back. To “save face”, I wrote him again apologizing for my “overreaction”, but I maintained I was not comfortable with his usage of that term in my general direction. Though he likely didn’t view the situation as one that was worthy of eliciting a panic attack, and despite our return back to the seemingly normal conversations we conducted prior, I couldn’t shake it – I was still really bothered by the fact that he signed his letters to me in this way (and it certainly didn’t help that he kept up this behaviour, even after I pointed out to him how awkward it made me feel!).

Because he and I both work within the entertainment biz, I could (and can) completely understand if he used this sort of tactic to reel in fans, but from a professional standpoint, I not only felt (still feel) that it was highly inappropriate, and extremely peculiar, but as well, judging by my own reaction (and yes I know I have some relationship hang-ups, but upon hearing this story, my fellow female friends have concurred), could quite possibly get him into a precarious predicament.

The easy justification would be to sum up his misuse of this term to either cultural or gender differences, but again, even taking these factors into consideration, his actions still prove bizarre. Case and point: we are both of a very similar ethnic background, and I can’t picture myself ever using the “L” word so candidly towards someone with whom I wasn’t really all that well-acquainted. In regards to the latter excuse, after imparting this story to my male friends, and asking them how they’d feel about the situation had it happened to them, and the roles were reversed, they likewise informed me that they would view it as strange.

So, what does all this have to do with being old-fashioned? Well, strict rules of conversational etiquette and decorum largely became pervasive during the Victorian Age. Advanced into contemporary society by both “Mommy Knows Best” sayings, as well as by the work of language philosophers such as Paul Grice, I think the above-documented story is good enough proof as any to indicate that clearly these rules require revisiting (moreover reiteration).

According to Grice’s Conversational Maxims, the reason for my offense, confusion, and curiosity regarding the use of the “L” word in the aforementioned situation is because my acquaintance broke the “maxim of manner” which explicitly states that in order to ensure agreeable, steady, and neutral discussion, “one should NOT use words he/she knows his/her listener(s) won’t understand and/or say things he/she knows could be taken in multiple ways.” More simply put, the moral of this week’s story is this: don’t employ words that are laden with significance, unless you truly mean them, and further, if words can be misinterpreted, they will be.

Seeing as we are now in the age of “txting” and Facebook where friendships are increasingly forged and maintained via electronic means through which the addition of emotion to (and the intention behind) one’s words is not possible, the potential for miscommunication is greater than ever before. Therefore, a return to “proper” and considerate dialogue is an absolute must. Above all, “know your audience.” While we’re on the subject of conversational etiquette, I’d also like to point out that a clever rabbit once advised his deer friend quite well when he uttered that, “if you don’t have anything nice to say, you shouldn’t say anything at all.”

Though hippies made a habit of using terms like peace, and love rather freely (mind you this was while they were often experiencing acid trips), and so resultingly, in the eyes of some, these words have lost their affective imputations, and therefore can rightly be designated as having a place in everyday casual discourse, I think it’s pretty safe to say that this view is not only inaccurate, but as well leads to problematic circumstances (to say the least!).

Unfortunately, in my final attempt to resolve things with my acquaintance, I somehow managed to only make the situation that much worst. When I merely raised the query as to why he felt it was appropriate to use said term with me, he immediately got defensive, and it seemed that everything and anything I said beyond that point would only be taken as a personal attack. Ah, and you thought intimate relationships were hard! Guess that will teach you all never to sign a letter to me with “love” and if you do, you better wash out your mouth, shortly thereafter, with soap!