the conversation

Two brand new books on my now reading list use the word conversation in their subtitles. That may sound like a strange place to start once I get going here, but it is my blog.
Back in the Fall, I posted a blog called, communication theory. I really have tons more to say about all that, but it is still floating around in my mind being organized. Every day I experience more fodder for that ramble. But essentially where I was then, was in noticing the ramifications of a generation (especially in my context of teaching) whose communication theory is broadcast and print, clashing with a generation whose theory is digital. I noted that for the most part, broadcast and print generations have gathered information. In my context, most gather information and pass it on to students. We have entered an age of digital communication theory that is both interactive and immediate. Folks embracing this theory are more likely to be interacting and contributing to the formation of culture, than to be gathering information about culture to pass on to a third party. And in this context, the third party, to whom the gathered information is passed, is more and more often the digital contributor from whom the information was gathered.
Already we have seen the digital communication world topple giant personalities in the broadcast communication world. Many, about the digital world and in print media, are saying that there are bloggers with more credibility than some network anchors and broadcast journalists.
I have mentioned in some rants that I have not yet posted, how so many people are co-opting language that doesn't apply where they are using it. This word, conversation is one of them. For over nine months, emerging church folks have been waiting for the publication of a book called, becoming conversant with the emerging church. All the voices, digital communication theory/emerging church types, have been in an ongoing conversation asking one another in near-real time, "has he talked to you?", "no, has he talked to you?" So what does it mean to "become conversant with?" Does this really mean, "become conversant about?" How can one write a book called, "becoming conversant with", without ever conversing with anyone about whom he is writing?
Anyway, more rants about that later. That's not where I'm headed. I just needed to drive the word conversation home.
In nearly every conversation I've had with anyone about digital/interative communication theory, I've sent up red flags that some sort of virtual community and relationship paradigm is replacing real life, physical space community and friendship. "All my daughter wants to do is IM with her friends." Yeah, and your generation didn't talk on the phone into the night. "I think we should be very careful not to think that online community replaces real life." No, it expands the community and adds to the conversation. The folks who hole up in their living rooms with the internet and never have relationships, are the same type people who holed up in their living rooms with a remote control and never had any relationships. The difference is, some of the folks holed up with the internet are actually interacting. Folks with the remote are mostly being spoon-fed drivel.
It seems to me that now, in retrospect, I can see digital interactivity inserted in between two poles that existed before, the gathering of information, and relationship. In my context, they might be said to be, the gathering of information and the dissemination of that information, because most of the relationships of the information gatherers are relationships of passing along information. For many, it is all about the flow of information, and it all goes one direction. So they see digital interactivity as a replacement for relationships, while I see digital interactivity as a replacement for one-directional, after-the-fact information gathering. In this case, it is all about relationship, and the interactive sharing of information is a part of relationship. The whole process is truly a conversation in which everyone can participate rather than one group becoming conversant about another group.
Even if I am wrong about relationships having become about information flow, a person's communication theory can be determined by what they see digital communication replacing. Is it replacing person to person real-life relationships? Or is it creating more relationships by replacing one-way information flow?
We are in an age where community and community oriented language is spoken and tossed around, but where real community is rare.
We speak of mentoring and discipleship, but what we mean is curriculum based, one-size-fits-all, get-with-the-program formation. Cloning.
In a broadcast society, every tweenage girl dresses and acts like Britney Spears, but in a digital communication society, the would-be trend setters and heroes reflect the personalities of everyone involved in the conversation. The music sounds like the people, the books reflect real life.
oh, I don't know. I'm just rambling.