Many would ask (particularly traditionalists): What has happened to us? Are we a bunch of hermits? People communicate more online than in person practically, nowadays. Face it, it's true. Look at how people isolate in internet cafés and wi-fi hotspots! Is it antisocial?



Stop the press. Before we start name-calling, especially when there are so many of us using the internet to communicate, let's examine what is really at play. The true issue could be reduced down to simple semantics. That is, how we define the term “social.”

If our understood definition of being social is restricted to meaning “to talk aloud,” “to interact in-person or verbally” then the answer is yes—communicating online and the social networking revolution could be dubbed antisocial activity. But if being social means interacting with people in general regardless of the means or medium used then social networking is not antisocial.

Is that semantic or is it a values issue? You decide. What can neither be changed nor stopped are the internet and its indelible effect on our lives and on our communications. It will not end. It is here to stay.

So the choice is either to resist this revolution (and go against the grain) or to accept it and enjoy it. If you can't beat ‘em, join ‘em, right?

Now let's discuss what is being accomplished by communicating in this new fashion, and whether it is effective. To effectively communicate, it would be fair to assume a couple of basic criteria are being met: what we truly want to say is being said and understood, and the feelings we wish to convey are being shared.

The fact is (and anyone who has written letters, emails, IM's or messages on social networking sites can attest to this) that the printed word lacks something that the spoken word has: emotion.

You can use caps, italics, bold, underline, and so on, but text per se' does not have actual inflection, tone, pitch, personality, soul, or body language. These are all aspects of in-person communication that we take for granted. But when these characteristics are missing, their absence is more than apparent.

So that begs the question: can the printed word convey emotion, and can it express our true feelings, meanings, and thoughts? The answer is debatable, and could be said to be yes and no.

Yes, when we communicate online, we are communicating, and (especially if the person knows you well, and knows your dialect and speech patterns) the other person can often imagine how you would have spoken those words out loud.

But no, the printed word cannot fully get across every bit of what we think and feel, most certainly not in the same way that verbal communication can.

So if that is the case, what do we do: stop emailing, IM'ing, and using social networking sites (myspace, facebook, bebo, etc.)? Obviously not.

We should, however, keep in mind as we continue into the future, the importance of that which is not digital. Not just analog things like tapes and old records, but verbal communication, nature, and intangibles like love. There are many things of value that cannot be digitized and cannot be delivered (at least not fully) via digital means.

The critics of the social revolution tell you to get outside, and although social networking is not bad, they are actually right about our need for balance and moderation. Get outside, get fresh air, talk to people, and take notice of your analog world. Digital is fun, but it is not the epitome of life.