November 6, 2003
HANG UP AND CONNECT:
Disconnected Urbanism: The cell phone has changed our sense of place more than faxes, computers, and e-mail. (Paul Goldberger, November 2003, Metropolis)
There is a connection between the idea of place and the reality of cellular telephones. It is not encouraging. Places are unique--or at least we like to believe they are--and we strive to experience them as a kind of engagement with particulars. Cell phones are precisely the opposite. When a piece of geography is doing what it is supposed to do, it encourages you to feel a connection to it that, as in marriage, forsakes all others. When you are in Paris you expect to wallow in its Parisness, to feel that everyone walking up the Boulevard Montparnasse is as totally and completely there as the lampposts, the kiosks, the facade of the Brasserie Lipp--and that they could be no place else. So we want it to be in every city, in every kind of place. When you are in a forest, you want to experience its woodsiness; when you are on the beach, you want to feel connected to sand and surf.This is getting harder to do, not because these special places don't exist or because urban places have come to look increasingly alike. They have, but this is not another rant about the monoculture and sameness of cities and the suburban landscape. Even when you are in a place that retains its intensity, its specialness, and its ability to confer a defining context on your life, it doesn't have the all-consuming effect these places used to. You no longer feel that being in one place cuts you off from other places. Technology has been doing this for a long time, of course--remember when people communicated with Europe by letter and it took a couple of weeks to get a reply? Now we're upset if we have to send a fax because it takes so much longer than e-mail.
But the cell phone has changed our sense of place more than faxes and computers and e-mail because of its ability to intrude into every moment in every possible place. When you walk along the street and talk on a cell phone, you are not on the street sharing the communal experience of urban life. You are in some other place--someplace at the other end of your phone conversation. You are there, but you are not there. It reminds me of the title of Lillian Ross's memoir of her life with William Shawn, Here But Not Here. Now that is increasingly true of almost every person on almost every street in almost every city. You are either on the phone or carrying one, and the moment it rings you will be transported out of real space into a virtual realm.
I'd not realized how ubiquitous these things had become until we were at Disney last week. What a mixed blessing. On the one hand, they're undeniably useful for meeting up with folks in the park or later. On the other, there's something horribly atomizing about being on the monorail or a bus or in a restaurant or even just walking around the park with people who have a phone pressed to their head the whole time. It's a really obnoxious and antisocial behavior. There ought to be jamming devices so that parks, businesses, etc. can disrupt service and make them unusable within their confines. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 6, 2003 9:08 AM
We're having a major debate at my country club about whether cell phone should be allowed on the premises. The anti-cell phone crowd argues that cell phone useage detracts from the atmosphere of the club (and slows down the golf!). On the anti-anti side are doctors, those who care for young children or older parents, and others who say that their day-to-day lives require them to be available at a moment's notice. The physicians have argued that in the 21st century not being reachable by phone 24/7 could constitute malpractice. Of course, there's an easy solution: leave your cell on vibrate, and if you get a call you can pick it up and talk just long enough to determine if it's an emergency. If it is, you can then leave the club. That way, no call should last more than a few seconds.
Posted by: Foos at November 6, 2003 10:08 AMNo one who need be available at a moment's notice need be on a golf course.
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 10:44 AMHeck, if the choice were between malpractice suits and golf, I'd choose golf any day....
Posted by: Barry Meislin at November 6, 2003 10:45 AMHere, here!
Posted by: Paul Cella at November 6, 2003 10:48 AMThe jamming devices exist, but are illegal to use in the US. In fact, the only place I know of that does use them is Saudi Arabian mosques.
"There ought to be jamming devices so that parks, businesses, etc. can disrupt service and make them unusable within their confines."
Words spoken by a man who does not have to keep track of teenagers.
Posted by: Robert schwartz at November 6, 2003 11:41 AMMike:
If only we took our culture as seriously.
Robert:
One word: convent.
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 11:58 AMIt seems probable that those who are in a unique location, such as the woods or the beach, and are on a phone constantly, would not have appreciated the location BEFORE cell phones, either.
As for amusement parks, since they're largely for the young anyway, it seems like a win-win if the kids get to go, and the adults stay in contact with whomever they need to.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 6, 2003 12:14 PMWe used to be a free country, but when the people who claim to be defending our ancient way of life want to clamp down on everything, it makes you wonder.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 6, 2003 12:18 PMIf you guys are getting all excited about mobile telephony as it exists today, wait till we have to deal with the intrusion/blessing of GPS identification 24-7...An interesting subject of cost-benefit analysis.
Posted by: MG at November 6, 2003 1:15 PMYes, Harry, it does.
Especially about something so easy to just plain ignore.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at November 6, 2003 1:33 PMJust wait till the chips are implanted in our brains.
Posted by: David Cohen at November 6, 2003 2:20 PMMichael:
Where's the winner when parents ignore their kids on a family outing?
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 3:26 PMHarry:
What's the point of freedom if your society is indecent?
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 3:30 PMOrrin:
Of course, but are cell phones on Disney monorails the epitome of indecency? I suggest the chair for people who wear blue shoes with brown suits?
Is this about good taste or do you really feel there is an argument that you are being imposed on here?
Posted by: Peter B at November 6, 2003 4:06 PMI meant brown shoes with blue suits.
Posted by: Peter B at November 6, 2003 4:07 PMRemember the commercial about the guy having a business conference at the beach. We were supposed to say "That's cool, working at the beach!" What (regular) people really thought was "why would I ruin an experience like the beach by doing work there?"
The people who really love cell phones are the Type-A hyper-driven stress junkies for whom work is a drug and a minute being "out of the loop" is a minute that they are not moving their career ahead. These are generally the people who market new technologies to the masses, and get it wrong the first time, because they can't understand why someone wouldn't want to be in touch 24-7.
Then they do focus groups to find out how real people feel about the technology. Thus we get the Corona commercial of the guy skipping his pager across the waves.
MG, David:
Cool ! Can't wait.
oj:
At all of the amusement parks I've been to with several generations, everyone had different ideas about where the "sweet spot" was.
Also, are you suggesting that when choosing between going, and being ignored by the 'rents, or not going, kids would choose the former ?
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at November 6, 2003 5:04 PMI am old enough to remember riding on the N.Y. subway before there were cell phones. The amount of interaction among the passengers was not greater then than it is now, with cell phones.
If we go back a generation further, though, we find that the amount of personal (very personal) interaction among strangers on the N.Y. subway was much greater. However, it was indecent.
See Page Smith, "A Letter from My Father."
Posted by: Harry Eagar at November 6, 2003 5:33 PMHarry:
Even I, who loathe people, fell into innumerable conversations on airplanes and all over Disney, with all except those wearing cell phones.
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 9:09 PMIt's not just indecent. It's a serious disruption to work. My company has banned cell phones on the main floor where I work (which has a lot of computer workstations in close proximity to each other) because the constant cycle of incoming calls keeps distracting employees, not just the ones who are getting the calls but the ones who are working, or trying to work, near them. I've had other people's cell phones set to vibrate suddenly go off and send those vibrations right through the table to where I'm sitting, and it's VERY annoying. So, henceforth, cells have to be turned OFF except at lunch and breaks.
Posted by: Joe at November 6, 2003 9:14 PMYes, Michael, the point is you do things with the kids even though you'd not pick them yourself.
Posted by: oj at November 6, 2003 10:15 PM"emember the commercial about the guy having a business conference at the beach. We were supposed to say "That's cool, working at the beach!" What (regular) people really thought was "why would I ruin an experience like the beach by doing work there?" "
Because if not for the cellphone, he wouldn't be at the beach at the first place! He'd be in an office doing work.
If you have to do work anyway, is it more pleasant to do it at the office or at the beach?
Posted by: Ken at November 8, 2003 11:40 AM