Vol #2, Col #7: Service with a Smile

I remember even up to just a few years ago, the delight of being able to dock my car at a fuelling station for a fill-up and being greeted ever so politely by the attendants who were more than willing to oblige. The appropriate inquiries were made in regard to my gasoline preferences, and if I were in a rush or feeling particularly lazy, I didn’t even have to exit my vehicle to have my purchase processed and receipt hand-delivered. The best part of this experience was the fact that I knew my money was being well-spent and in said scenario, a gratuity didn’t have to be built right into the purchase for fear that it wouldn’t naturally be merited by the courteous staff.

Nowadays, any visit to a big box store will quickly prove that the so-called “customer service” agents are as ignorant as the general public when it comes to where anything is (or for that matter, whether the store even stocks the items in question). Moreover, by and large, said sales associates are seemingly too busy social networking to even bother to make momentary eye contact, while ringing through one’s purchases. To add insult to injury, if service is even provided (and that’s a big if), there’s a fairly high probability it’ll be with a grimace and sense of bitterness, rather than a wholehearted smile.

The ironic part about all of this, of course, is that as we continue to progress through the “information” age, the importance of maintaining strong relationships and developing interpersonal/communications skills is emphasized, all the while our actual contact with each other becomes increasingly superficial and disconnected (at least in “real” time).

While one is able to trace the roots of the aforementioned described worker-type alienation associated with menial labour back to Marx’s heyday during the time of the Industrial Revolution, there is clearly something more here at play.

I don’t think anyone has ever really had grand delusions that being a lifer at a supermarket or fast-food joint is a part of living the “(North) American Dream”. However, there was a point in recent history during which people were satisfied simply with the idea of having a job that allowed them to get by – that allowed them to pay their bills - and perhaps provided them with a bit of extra spending money so that they could occasionally treat themselves and/or savings money that they could put into an investment for their future retirement. They may not have been pursuing their ultimate passion in life, and several I’m sure quite likely hated the work that they did, but there was a sense of motivation to work hard, to work efficiently, and to work fast. It was understood that money did NOT in fact grow on trees, and the idea of getting oneself tangled up in credit card debt was something to be desired.

Comparatively speaking, the modern employee devotes far more time to gossiping with/about their colleagues and coming up with excuses for taking undeserved breaks, than actually working. Not only are we plagued with unionized workers who go on strike and demand higher wages during times of economic crisis, but further as recently reported in the news, incidents of on-the-job substance abuse are on the rise.

Inflation is definitely a factor. I mean one cannot reasonably deny that the expectations for the modern employee have risen while the benefits and pay-scale, in many cases, have remained stagnant (or worse decreased). The idea of hitting the “glass ceiling”, for young up and comers (BOTH men and women), due to the eradication of mandatory retirement and “seniority rules” has too likely contributed to a lack of motivation (why try so hard if there’s no room for growth?). Further, “credentialism” and accordingly, the amount of employees who are currently in “underemployed” positions (ie: positions for which they are overqualified) undoubtedly can be cited as a source of the development for the modern employees’ poor work ethic and poor attitude. BUT, I also think it’s generational. How else can you explain to me the striking contrast between the pleasantness of the older British woman and the general disinterest of the bubblegum-chewing teenaged girl; both of whom work as cashiers for the same low payrate at the pharmacy just down the road from my house (something too to consider is that the older woman likely has HIGHER expenses just based on demographic factors alone)?

A lot of you will likely hate me for saying this, but I think it comes down to the fact that frankly we’re too privileged. People my age and younger (in rich industrialized nations such as Canada, that is) have never had to worry about being drafted for a war, or developing a fatal condition due to poor sanitation and health regulations on the job. Most of us continue to be spoiled by our parents far past the point (and age) of reasonable. Further, the vast majority of the most undesirable and dangerous jobs have either been outsourced overseas or are completed by illegal migrant workers under the radar. As a consequence of all of this, a sizable portion of the youth population has developed a rather disgusting “sense of entitlement” – like they’re big shit and should be treated accordingly, without ever having to work for said status, and if you call them on this, they’ll go and cry to their employer (literally).

If this sounds like you, listen up and listen well. Barring extenuating circumstances (such as winning the lottery, being born a Hilton, or plainly just selling your soul), we all have to start at the bottom. Some of us are fortunate enough to rise up after years of recognized hard work and networking, while a good majority never get there (unfortunately a lot of this is still based on discriminatory treatment towards selected minority groups. Don’t be fooled by the delusion that we live in a fair meritocracy – we don’t.). But guess what? That latter group, as much as they may bitch and moan about being underappreciated and underpaid, are still thankful they’ve got money to put food on their tables. Perhaps a reality (and attitude) check is in order.

You may not have to worry about everyday expenses such as making sure there’s enough t.p. supply for your living quarters just yet, but when you do, you’ll realize pretty damn quickly that the world’s an expensive place, especially if you want to be able to take in some of the luxuries it has to offer. Maybe therefore, you should be thankful you have any job (and accordingly, thankful to the patrons of the establishment for keeping you employed) – whether you love or hate it. Bottom line: you’re there to work, so work.

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!