Too Busy to Listen?

“Americans too busy to listen to the other side,” read the headline. Susan, writing a letter to the editor of the Denver Post (printed 9-3-09), explained:

“It seems to me that many Americans are so busy with instant communications – from instant messaging to texting – that they no longer listen to the other side of the ‘conversation.’ They are too busy thinking about their response.” *

I imagine we’ve always had this tendency. Not just as Americans but as humans. We are more interested in airing our own opinions than hearing those of others. When we do listen, it may be just to figure out what so-and-so says so we can borrow their authority and parrot their words to someone else. A form of listening, but a weak one.

Such habits may cut us off from thinking and deprive us of the joy and insight that can come from dialogue and conversation.

The Problem of Reductionism

Is instant communication part of the problem?

Even that is a yes-or-no question, isn’t it?

Our short, immediate communications are like that, too.

I don’t know about you, but I cringe to see sophisticated ideas reduced to T-shirt slogans and bumper stickers, tweets and texts and tiny little comments. Such media seem to provide little room to explore beauty or pain, to acknowledge complexity, ambiguity, and ignorance.

Oh, sometimes less is really more. But I wonder if in years to come there will be a “slow mail” movement along the lines of the “slow food” movement.

If a five-hour BBC version of Pride and Prejudice still finds a cult following among members of my MTV generation, if video-game-addicted children (and adults) can still get lost in a Harry Potter tome, maybe some of us can still read (and write) thoughtful essays and hold conversations that stretch languidly across the years...

In Defense of Instant Communication

On the other hand, I do not think I agree with Susan that instant communication leads to less listening. Maybe instant communications can be a tool for listening instead of a weapon to defend us from having to do it.

1. In spite of the name, instant communication often moves more slowly than face-to-face communication. You have more time to decide if and how to respond. Maybe in a true IM environment there's more pressure for an immediate reply. But tweets, texts and the like often go back and forth with more time and deliberation than a live conversation or phone call allows.
   
   
2. Instant communication invites expression from those who may otherwise lack skills or opportunities to write, publish, preach or teach. Ordinary people can get into the game. At least, they can if they have a keyboard and internet access.
   
   
3. Instant communication may lower the bar psychologically as well. Many who would find it too much trouble to do what Susan did – write a letter to the newspaper editor – or do what I'm doing, to blog about it - will respond to, “What’s on your mind?” in a line or two, or answer the question, “What are you doing?” in 140 characters or less. It seems so much easier.
   
   
4. Instant communication usually encourages and includes a means for instant feedback. These things are interactive. They can create community. Many probably find a greater sense of connection through these means than through older, slower means of [at least written] communication.

To the frequent accusation that texts, tweets, social networking, and the like are taking the place of “real” friendship, I would respond that many harness these media to support and maintain their face-to-face relationships.

* The rest of Susan’s letter: This was a fine introduction, but I was waiting for Susan to transition into something about health care reform and how the big problem was that the people who are wrong won’t listen to the people who – thinking as she does – are right. But she held back, instead continuing her letter with a fairly even hand:

“I believe this has spilled over to many of the town hall meetings being held on health care reform, where yelling seems to be a great part of the exercise. Recently deceased Sen. Ted Kennedy was a listener, albeit a strong supporter of his causes. He listened to members of his party in Congress and to members of the Republican Party. As a result, during his long career he was able to help craft many bills to the benefit of those in society who are unable to speak for themselves - on issues such as health care, civil rights, immigration, a fair minimum wage and educational reform.”

And that's all she said. (No, "and so, MY point is....")

See other posts on "Listening"