black on white is boring

Communication is most valuable when it is most intentional and when there is a cost involved that shows a willingness to communicate.

The cost could be financial (like a phone call) or it could be the cost of time… or the cost of effort in order to make the contact. But whatever the cost is, when it is spent, communication becomes more valuable.

I have recently (last 10 months) got into Instant Messaging (otherwise known as IM- in the world of abbreviated language… and yes, such a world does exist and is growing in number). My attitude towards it has fluctuated between poles of loving it and hating it. I have seen it’s usefulness but also its pitfalls.

We cannot, however, analyse the tool without analysing the user of the tool. Money is not bad. It is not evil. It is a tool that we use- a medium of exchange. But money is able to unlock and amplify things in a human that are not commendable like greed, envy, selfishness and materialism. It can also unlock positive things like generosity and dependence. Money is blameless. It’s the humans that give definition to the situation, not the tool. Likewise, when analysing something like chat, it is key to remember that the problems don’t lie with the programmes but rather with those using them…

(Please note: I have failed to identify and scrutinise the BENEFITS of chat and there are many! In the same way that my golf coach never told me what I was doing right and only what was wrong, I am doing the same here. It is a biased article. It’s the black side of the grey.)

Here are some of the dangers of instant messaging…

1. It’s convenient. It is easy to hop onto mxit, or gmail chat, or msn. You can do it anywhere and it takes quick.

2. It’s inexpensive. It costs next to nothing to chat to someone online.

3. It’s situational. I see you online, you see me online. We say hi. We wouldn’t have bothered to say hi if we weren’t both online. There was no purposeful intent, merely the response to situational ‘proximity’.

4. There is a greater dependence on text to achieve what previously required human involvement. What if someone is really not doing well when you ask them: ‘how u’ in hurried tones as you seek to reply to the people replying to you? What if you catch wind of it through the bland vehicle of text? Do you go visit them? Or do you reply something like: “shame, sorry to hear that… thinking of you.” Cute. Real cute. Text achieved nothing.

I would just like to mention that I have not been personally hurt through chatting, although it does seem to sound like it as I re-read what I have written. I guess my point of frustration is that I know that text can be full. I read John Donne, Philip Yancey, The Bible, even John Grisham, enough to know that text can be loaded with content, thought and meaning. Text can be rich in how it makes you think, feel and reason. So it is only natural that I should feel some sort of disappointment at the hurried use of text nowadays. Text that is empty. Devoid of genuine concern and lacking in its ability to comfort, counsel and captivate.

And the power of language is stripped by the speaker. The very man who wants his words to mean something renders his voice an inaudible whisper.