The loss of public space
Today cell phones are commonplace and they are rapidly changing our society. Putnam discussed the decline of social capital as a result of the Internet because of its effect on place. We cannot distinguish between private and public places because they have diffused into one. In “Disconnected Urbanism,” Goldberg discusses how cell phones have changed our sense of place, making it more difficult to draw the line between them. He believes that cell phones have privatized public space, and people miss out on shared social experiences that public spaces once provided. Putnam valued shared experiences, and cell phones are rapidly decreasing our shared experiences, decreasing our social capital. I would argue that while the cell phone is not allowing for new interactions, it does strength our pre-existing relationships. I agree with Goldberg’s main argument: private and public spaces are no longer distinguishable from one another. The cell phone places people in contact with virtually everyone else, creating a mobile social network. However, this social network that may be strengthened by the use of cell phones cannot replace the value of shared experiences and public space. We are narrowing our social network, making it more difficult to interact in public places.
Cell phones raised many etiquette issues that Ling discusses in his article, “The Social Juxtaposition of Mobile Telephone Conversations and Public Spaces.” It is true that cell phones disrupt public spaces for both the people around the cell phone and the user. Eavesdropping is a result of the introduction of technology into public spaces. Simple things such as eye contact between strangers is far more difficult because the cell phone users are completely engaged in his or hers conversation, but they disengage him or herself from the public space.
Ling’s first article is based on his observation; his second article, “One Can Talk about Manners!” is based on his research. He found that 75% of men used cell phones, while only 30% of women did. However, he used a very small sample size consisting of 34 men and 16 women. This sample is far too small to draw broad assumptions across the general population. I believe a more accurate study would show an even higher percentage of people that are cell phone users. Although the study appears flawed, the conclusions he draws are relevant. The disturbance of cell phones in restaurants is everywhere. Cell phones allow access to anyone at anytime, but the consequences appear for those who are around the cell phone user. Not only do cell phones affect the conversation at the restaurant, but it also affects the conversations of everyone around the user, forcing the user to choose between his or her cell phone conversation or the public conversation at the restaurant.
The article “Grande WiFi: Social Interaction in Wireless Coffee Shops,” categorizes WiFi users in coffee shops. The “true mobiles” are the people that go to the cafes to be more productive, spending their time on-line or working, not socially interacting. The second group is the “place makers.” These people go to the cafes for the social experience. It is hard to say that the “true mobiles” are actually doing work, or they may be connecting to a larger social network on-line. I believe that more research is required to examine how people use the internet in cafes.
Questions: Does the cell phone strengthen pre-existing ties?
Has cell phone etiquette increased, meaning, are cell phone users more aware of the disruptions of the cell phone? Are they taking action by placing their phones on silent in order to experience the public space?