Poetry. Writerly Advice. Memoir. Literary Analysis. Book Reviews. Serious Journalism.
There isn’t a day that goes by that I can walk down the street without having to side-step a person sucked into their cellphone. Or have to tap on a stranger’s shoulder to ask a question because he is plugged into a media player.
‘Plugged In’ isn’t the right phrase; rather, ‘Plugged Out’ defines the ever-growing dependence of individuals interacting with technological gadgets, instead of taking part in social situations or being a productive tool within the community.
I am in favor of technology – I wouldn’t have a job without it. Technology can make us more productive and grants individuals access to information that would be hard to find without the use of the internet.
Technology allows doctors to detect and cure treatable diseases with a simple breath test. Peace officers can reduce crime in high-risk areas through analytical programs, too.
Computers, smartphones and the internet allow us to store photos and communicate with friends and family that do live within a reasonable physical proximity. Technology connects us in ways that we could have never imagined.
These advantages are great for the community, but let’s face it, how many people are actually using technology for non-entertainment purposes? How many people are using it instead of organically connecting with other people?
The misuse of technology is hindering the very purpose of its creation—productivity. The average American citizen spends 11.5 hours per day exposed to multimedia including television, computers, cellphones, and other devices.
The most common apps are YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. None of these lend to productivity. Then again, no other generation has had entertainment and work integrated into one system before. Google tracked its employees for one week and found that the average employees checks his/her email or Facebook account 37 times per hour. Mindless acts are leading to decreased work productivity and technology overload.
As individuals juggle the influx of information from emails, Facebook friends, and random web surfs, thought processes become fragmented and deep creative thinking becomes stunted. Boredom develops as people crave a constant connection with technology. When the desire isn’t immediately fulfilled, it leads to feelings of anxiety and restlessness.
Relying or misusing technology designed for productivity results in a “coming down” effect much like a hangover from drugs or alcohol. The brain needs time to recover before it can function at full capacity.
Reducing time-wasting is important, as technology seems to be a permanent fixture in our lives’, but what about its impacts on our social interactions in the real world.
Social relationships are the fundamental blocks of our community and the ‘Plugging Out’ phenomenon infringes on our abilities to communicate effectively with others outside of electronic methods.
Our ability to control usage of social media is to blame. Texting, tweeting, and facebooking (did I get them all?) reduces in-person social interactions, lessens romantic spontaneity, and cripples communication skills.
Being able to connect without having to go anywhere can create unnecessary social-anxiety fears. Sixty percent of social media users claim that they would rather communicate via social platforms than in-person because they are unsure of how to behave in a typical social interaction. This is alarming.
Instead of having conversations with people to get to know one another, individuals use Facebook or Google to hunt down every internet tidbit about the person. Five years ago, we would have labeled this as stalking, but now it is the standard norm. I guess we can say goodbye to late night conversations while lying out on the grass.
Romance? Out the door. If you are under 25 years old, you have probably never received a hand-written letter, although 70% of you would prefer one to a 140-character text. This is exactly why I don’t text and why my phone still plugs into the wall – with a cord. No text or FB message can replace the warmth you get from a person’s voice or the excitement of receiving a hand-written note.
Technology damages communication skills. How we communicate is largely non-verbal, but technology eliminates this feature. People cannot read non-verbal cues and the context of the conversation can be misunderstood. It disconnects us from authenticity. Shorthanded texting hurts critical thinking and language skills making it difficult to convey ideas.
The solution? We must balance our consumption to preserve organic social relationships and use technology to increase productivity without sacrificing our creativity. Treat technology like a bottle of wine; maintain a healthy limit of two glasses daily.
If everything is interesting, then nothing is.
This is a common thought that I have in a workshop or seminar setting. Most often, this word is used in a way that divulges zero information about the poem or story in front of me. When I hear a colleague say, “This poem was really interesting to me,” all I hear is, “I read this poem and I have nothing to say about it.”
Before I continue, it is vital to explain the definition of the word, that to me, has lost all of its meaning due to the construct of the MFA program.
Merriam Webster says,
Interesting: adjective ; attracting attention and encouraging the participant’s involvement in learning more about something…the thing being modified is not dull, nor is it boring.
The word was first used, or known of its use around 1768.
Over the past year-and-a-half, I have collected words such as this from conversations in workshop and seminar that have lost actual meaning because of the vague over-usage of them.
To change this, I think it would be wise for writers working with writers to use other words, or hell, if you are going to say the word interesting, then at least back it up with why it is interesting…and then, when you do that, do muffle together 20 big words that skirt the point. Pinpoint something. Is it the voice? Is it the tone? Is it the diction? What the fuck makes it interesting.
I am taking a contemporary American poetry course this quarter. It is my first class outside of the writing program, and the first class that I am mixed in with undergraduates. And while I strongly believe that many undergraduates are intelligent and capable of operating at a graduate level, it has come to my attention that both the graduate and undergraduate students many not understand the differences between “prejudice” and “racism.”
And I’ll say that sometimes, I muddle the definitions.
The OED defines “prejudice” as a preconceived notion not based in reality. The negative implications of prejudice can cause anger, frustration and irritation, among other things.But most prejudices do not result in the blocking of one person and a group of people’s abilities to operate in society.Many stereotypes result from prejudice.
On the other hand, racism is based in historical trends and involves a power dynamic. Racism blocks equal power from one or many groups based on race. For example, in America, Caucasian groups have used their power to unequally access resources. Racism further entails one or a group believing that a specific race (every single individual within the race) possess certain characteristics or abilities, and the race in power uses them to interfere and impede the “second class race” from achieving the same goals or accessing the same resources.
That is my understanding of it. If you would like to add to this, please do so. I would also ask you to behave professionally.