Free at Last?
Its mid-morning. You pull (or walk) up to your favorite coffee shop, independent or chain. Claim that favorite table or give glare at the guy who’s hogging it. Give greetings to the barristas and the folks you know dotted around the furniture-strewn room. Pull out the laptop (or blackberry). Saunter up to the counter and place an order for a tall latte. (I’m boring. So sue me.) If this is familiar to you then the latest edition of The Economist has a section dedicated to you and other urban nomads (aka, “techno-bedouins”). I prefer the latter since its so melodramatic.
Are you an urban nomad? The chances are that if you’re a graduate student (or even a professional or faculty member) you either are or occasionally are. Wireless communication is altering the way that we work. But more than that, its changing the ways we relate to one another and re-shaping the fabric of American society.
Urban planners have noticed significant variations in traffic patterns over the last thirty years. (See “The New Oasis,” 9). Alan Piraski has studied traffic patterns over thirty years and has observed three distinct and shifting patterns. In the 1980s (when work was in the city and domestic life was in the suburbs) there was a “classic diurnal flow.” Into work at 8 am and back out at 5pm. In the 90s jobs shifted away from cities (leaving many city centers severely depressed economically) and out into the suburbs creating a “circumferential pattern,” workers using beltways to get from their subdivisions to the office parks also located in the suburbs.
With his 2006 book, Piraski noted that traffic patterns had become increasingly complex. In many cities, such as Atlanta (hard to believe) or Portland, the number of car trips had actually stopped increasing. Traffic remained heavy, but was spread over wider ranges of time. People are now tending travel in “daisy chain patterns,” leaving the house in the morning, dropping the kids off at school, going to the office for a bit, running some errands, working from a home office or third location (like the Borders I’m sitting in as I write this). Individual travel patterns change every day.
That traffic patterns have altered this significantly over the past thirty years demonstrates the degree to which technology is influencing us and the communities in which we live. The question begged by this trend is how are we to evaluate it?
Sociologists are concerned that the diffusion of people into various third places (like coffee shops) may mean that we’re spending time with others, but time that is “psychologically evacuated.” There are eleven people sitting in the cafe at Borders (where I’m writing this article). That’s eleven people who are physically present but psychologically largely absent. We’re all here reading, typing, texting, and (annoyingly) some are even using their phones. We’re not looking, talking, or interacting with each other at all. Some scholars suggest that we simply have not developed to a point where such situations make us happy. There’s the psychological and neurological arousal created by being with others, but none of the rewards. Bummer.
I live this life. Moving around campus with my phone and my laptop. Sometimes in my office (which I find sort of confining) or sometimes in a coffee shop or food court, even the library. I talk on the phone, email, use facebook, but rarely text. I even roam off campus to Borders, Starbucks and to independent coffee shops like Rochet.
I bet you largely live this life, given that I often see faculty, professionals, and grad students in these places. What’s it like for you? Check out The Economist and give me your thoughts about how these trends are contributing to or detracting from a rich experience of life as communal beings.
Next Post: What About the Stranger? How technology is making us closer to those we know but further alienating us from the stranger in our midst.
I think the sociology in the article that you reference is sound. It’s pretty straightforward. The stuff about traffic patterns and what it says about our daily lives and how they are impacted by changing a) location of jobs, and b) wireless technology.
I’m not so worried about the wirelessly-mediated world as some… for example, if you weren’t being a techno-nomad at borders, around but not meaningfully interacting with others, you might be in your office, with no others at all. There is little net change here. For you, intentional person-contact will remain intentional person-contact, perhaps mediated by phone or email but not too much. Your alone-time is now alone-with-others time. And the Borders environment isn’t hugely different from a library where people might have gone in the 1920’s to read, surrounded by others reading or writing, but not meaningfully interacting. Of course, lots more people do it a lot more of the time now, which is why it’s sociologically relevant.
I’m curious, if this is a problem, what sort of consequences will be seen? More weird murders by people who snap from not-enough-social-contact? Seems unlikely, especially among the technophiles who are (maybe) having less social contact due to the mediation of technology.
I’m guessing that consequences might include a lessened ability for casual acquaintances that occur because of, say, a shared wait for the bus. In such instances technology (such as mobile phones) allow us to re-connect with people we have relationships with rather than engage acquaintances. Is this a problem? Not sure.
I am not sure about the sociological consequences with regard to work-day relationships, but I have observed some difficult trends in family and inter-family relations. Many parents who organized their family life by scheduling (Julie, I’ll pick you up at 7:00 - be ready) now organize on the fly (Julie, call me when you are ready). As a result, there is an undetermined schedule for almost all parties. Scheduling with the second tier of relationships, namely friends who are not family, then becomes very difficult if not impossible. “I can’t because I might have to pick up Julie” becomes a typical reason to stand off of second tier relationships. Whole families, as families, end up more isolated from other families, and parents are isolated from other parents. This, combined with the already present trends of the over-scheduled child, does tend toward a more fractured society. This leaves unaddressed the issues of “leaving options open for the spontaneous interactions made available by instant communication”. Another conversation perhaps.
Right on Steve. It’s really interesting to contrast generational trends concerning schedules. Any observations about this come from the one place where I interact with the greatest variety of ages, church. Older people (most of whom live fairly low-tech lifestyles) are much more willing to commit to attending an event or meeting with me than are younger folks (i.e., college students). I also wonder how much of the lack of commitment (or schedule) is due to the possibility of getting a better offer?