UMR Communications is offering the latest headlines in the RSS format.
Commentary
GEN-X RISING: Social etiquette rules: online and otherwise Andrew C. Thompson, Jun 3, 2009
Andrew Thompson
By Andrew C. Thompson UMR Columnist
Mention the word “etiquette” and most people think of Miss Manners or Emily Post. But etiquette is more than a quaint set of rules for how to navigate dinner parties, weddings and thank-you notes.
Etiquette describes the standard of how we treat one another in our most basic interaction. It sets the tone for individual relationships and community life.
As more and more of our interaction takes place online, we’re seeing whole worlds open up that we couldn’t have predicted just a few years ago. What started with e-mail and online chat rooms has evolved into real-time Twittering and sophisticated social networking sites like Facebook.
The online arena is just begging for a new etiquette. But who’s got the time? And who would teach it?
Virtual forms of community are flourishing even while real flesh-and-blood communities seem to be in decline. Coincidence? People are now using digital venues to interact in ways that used to be reserved for face-to-face conversations, telephone chats and letter writing.
But the “old-school” forms of communication came with their own standards. My parents taught me to use “sir” and “ma’am” when addressing grown-ups, to avoid interrupting and to always be polite in conversation.
Mom also taught my siblings and me a very specific greeting when answering our home telephone (rotary-dial, of course): “Hello. This is the Thompsons’ residence. May I help you?” Mom’s required greeting served a dual purpose: It taught us kids basic courtesy through repetition, and it also was supposed to suggest something to the caller about the character of our family.
The proper etiquette for letter writing came in school. I’ll never forget the lessons in elementary school about the difference between a “friendly letter” and a “business letter.” We got drilled on the use of acceptable greetings and closings, the content of the letter and even how to address the envelope.
But when interactions move from real space to cyberspace, everything gets muddled.
Part of the point of sending an e-mail is that it is both fast and relatively impersonal. You don’t have to go through the trouble of finding the “closing” that matches the intimacy with which you know the person you’re writing, à la letter writing. And you don’t even have to engage in the pleasantries of asking how the person’s day is going, à la the telephone. E-mail is short, sweet and to the point.
But that’s also its problem. E-mail is tone-deaf when it comes to communicating emotional intent. And the tool meant to make life easier can lead to the occasional office fracas, due to a too-hastily composed message.
Facebook’s very sophistication makes it an etiquette obstacle course. If someone writes on your wall, do you have to write back? How bad is it to ignore a “friend request” from a high school classmate? And what about “Facebook activism”—all those worthy causes that your friends want you to support by joining a group. Should I really feel guilty for hitting “ignore, ignore, ignore” every time I get invited?
Twittering is probably the worst of the lot. Not only is it voyeuristic by nature, but the 140-character limit on a tweet encourages bad spelling. Arrgh!
The online world is designed to limit (or even eliminate) etiquette. And for folks in the church, that’s going to be a problem. Bad online etiquette leads to bad face-to-face etiquette.
Our technology shapes us to believe that we have a chronic shortage of time. And when time is short, etiquette has to go out the (desktop) window.
The poverty of online community impoverishes our real communities. What does that mean for a people who believe that loving your neighbor is more than just a way to be polite?
Andrew Thompson
