Comments on: Free at Last? http://blog.followingchrist.org/2008/free-at-last/ The (Un)official Blog of Following Christ 2008 Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:22:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Jeff http://blog.followingchrist.org/2008/free-at-last/#comment-33 Jeff Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:02:37 +0000 http://blog.followingchrist.org/2008/free-at-last/#comment-33 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? 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?

]]> By: Steve Hinkle http://blog.followingchrist.org/2008/free-at-last/#comment-31 Steve Hinkle Wed, 28 May 2008 18:33:08 +0000 http://blog.followingchrist.org/2008/free-at-last/#comment-31 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. 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.

]]> By: Jeff http://blog.followingchrist.org/2008/free-at-last/#comment-12 Jeff Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:44:29 +0000 http://blog.followingchrist.org/2008/free-at-last/#comment-12 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’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.

]]> By: Tim Cupery http://blog.followingchrist.org/2008/free-at-last/#comment-11 Tim Cupery Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:29:39 +0000 http://blog.followingchrist.org/2008/free-at-last/#comment-11 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 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.

]]>