Cellphones in Public: Social Interactions in a Wireless Era, by Lee Humphreys, explores the ideas of how “Singles” and “Withs” interact in public (813). Singles are those that are by themselves in public – often feeling vulnerable, leaving them to fidget in any way to occupy them. Withs are those that are in a couple-setting, having someone to talk to. Sometimes, a With can become a Single, if a With leaves for a moment (maybe to use the restroom), or if one person engages in another conversation – particularly, on a cell phone (814).
There were many parts of the study that I related to and with because they I’ve experienced them so many times before either first hand or in observation. When [the study] discusses how one reacts when one half the “With” ends up on the phone, leaving the second person to fidget in the meantime (816). In my experience, when I’m the one who gets the call, I feel really bad that I leave my friend with no one to talk to. So usually, in those situations, I cut the conversation as short as possible and most likely suggest that I will call that person back (and I do, as soon as I am by myself). The reason I feel bad is because I know how awkward it can be, if only for just five seconds, to be left with no one to occupy your attention. When I’m in that situation, I usually look to my phone. And even though I have no texts to respond to, or a missed call to return that that time, I still click around. I might even send a text to someone, even if unnecessary, just to occupy myself. The study also references how we listen in to conversations if in this situation, even though social norms dictate that we shouldn’t (818). I have experienced this more times than I could even begin to count – we don’t really mean to listen in. It’s just that we don’t have anything else to distract us, so we listen.
Usually after a friend gets off a call, after having listened in for most of it, I ask whom they were talking to. Sometimes we end up talking about their phone call – depending on how close of friends we are. Sometimes we also talk about it, because either me or the other (whoever was on the phone) just felt bad about being on the phone and wanted to explain why we made the other person walk, sit, or stand with no one or nothing to distract them.
The most interesting assertion of the study is of the “caller hegemony” (822). It’s preposterous – and yet, not completely unbelievable – that a person in a heated discussion would still pick up the phone if it rang in the middle of said discussion. Maybe it provides a much-needed breather from an argument, an idea that the study doesn’t really address. However, since Caller ID was still not as prevalent at the time of the study, it seems like they do not address some aspects also (823). Again, when one is in an argument, you might be more inclined to pick up the phone just to take a break. But, as the study suggests, most people look at their cell phone when it rings, then decide whether or not to answer (824). The study writes that if the Caller ID is unavailable, like it might be for a landline, people feel more inclined to answer it (824-825). However, in response to screening calls, I believe I would take a moment to decide whether or not to answer. When I’m by myself – and this is something the study does not address – and I’m not busy in another way, I’m always okay with answering the phone, regardless of who it is. I’d also rather answer a call at that moment, because I’d feel bad if I forgot to call them back. But I know that if the person calling had something important to talk to me about, they would either leave me a voicemail or text me afterwards to let me know.
More posts about the uses of technology in art are coming soon!
No comments:
Post a Comment