Blogging is a form of communication I enjoy, and that is accessible regardless of the ability to hear. But there are other forms of communication as well; together, these methods shape our history. As a historian, there are different ways to access information, from oral histories to written documents to eyewitness accounts to secondary sources that analyze primary sources.

Until fairly recently, there were just a few straightforward ways to communicate in society: verbal dialogue (whether through speech or sign), and writing, which until the 19th century, was largely limited to literate people who had access (and the means to purchase) to parchment paper, slates, and other rudimentary means to convey one’s thoughts.

Since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution and the explosion in technology, we’ve seen a proliferation in the various ways humans can interact with each other. I recently ran across this post that has a rather interesting table and analysis of language and how people use it.

The author’s argument, I think, centers around how humans no longer have to be in each other’s presence to converse, to discuss, to argue, to reach consensus, to unify, to advance as a species. Now we can use electronic communications, video, and other forms of global interchange.

What I found interesting is that instant messaging and blogging are roughly about the same age. But to me, they’re two distinct forms of expression:  IMs are often rapid one-liners, perhaps brief paragraphs, that often mimic spoken conversation. Blogs, on the other hand, are personal journals, editorials, online reporting, articles about food, art, theater, and other forms of culture.

Texting is older, by just a handful of years, yet I see texting as a means of talking that has supplanted other forms, and often seems to dominate over actual in-person exchanges. It lends itself to the moment, to the here and now. The author discusses this under the heading, “Immediacy.”

You might also say “latency”; how long does it take from a message to filter via language from your mind to mine? Face-to-face speech has excellent immediacy, as does a telephone conversation. The immediacy of texting is somewhat less, and a blog post doesn’t arrive until the reader gets around to looking.

Yet everywhere I look these days, half the population is glued to their phones, to their pagers, to their PDAs.  People aren’t talking to each other anymore, and if they do, it’s through artificial means. Additionally, personal conversations intrude more and more in public spaces, from grocery stores to sidewalks to parks and even to libraries.

Because many of these new technologies are based on electronic forms, the potential for messages to exist longer than that period of immediacy has expanded, I think. What does this mean in relation to history? To privacy? If we extend these two aspects, what does it mean in terms of civil liberties? Some of us are very casual about what we say, what we share, and who knows the information we have about ourselves and the people around us. Others are fiercely protective of their privacy, and some are almost manic about it. Some, like me, are advocates of privacy, but prioritize the level of privacy needed depending on what is being disseminated, why, and to whom. For example, I use a pseudonym on this forum. While I’m maintaining a semblance of privacy, I know it’s unrealistic to expect that my identity would be a closely guarded secret from everyone; the public act of blogging itself means it’s public.  So what guarantees should I have? What guarantees should I expect?

The author continues his discussion by extrapolating on a graph various factors, such as immediacy, audience, and lifespan. I found it interesting that while blogs don’t have the same immediacy as texting and face-to-face encounters, the expected lifespan is long. This makes sense, but it also adds to my sense of responsibility about what I type here!

In the middle of this post are a couple of questions I found thought-provoking. I’d like to share them with you, then open the floor to your comments (given the fact that I haven’t used the word “deaf” thus far, it’ll be interesting to see what interest this post garners, and what response I get, if any!).

I observe this, and questions occur to me. Have we invented all the communication modes we’re going to need, or will there be more? What needs are going un-addressed? And at the meta level: Does all this have a general higher-order structure that might help us think about these things?

Interesting, don’t you think? So here’s what I’d like to know. For my readers in general, “Have we invented all the communication modes we’re going to need, or will there be more? What needs are going un-addressed?”

Now, specifically for my deaf readers: How do you think the deaf community is being shaped by these changes? Are these transformations for better or worse? What can we do to influence how we use and are used by technological forms of communication? I’d also like to ask that final question as well: “What needs are going un-addressed?”