Totes blogging, at the mome.

When thinking about arguing the superiority of speech or writing in today’s society, it is important to think about in what ways and for what reasons do we use each of these forms of communication? What do we write in emails, text messages and Facebook comments? What is not socially acceptable to message about, but is socially acceptable to say face to face? When do we message, and when do we talk? Basically, one must consider in what sense are they superior? When thinking about these questions, I began to get the impression that it is impossible to label neither speech nor writing as the absolute superior mean of communication. Though, with the emergence of email, texting, and online social networking sites, it is apparent that writing is superior in the sense of frequent use. However, one could also argue that, because of its depth and sense of intimacy and transparency, speech is superior in a substantive sense.
When considering how many Americans rather text a quick message or type up an email to respond to friends, family, or business acquaintances than call them, it does not take any stretch of the imagination to understand the ways in which writing has taken over speech in frequency. First off, there is a factor of convenience in sending quick, written, digital messages that is appealing to a great majority of society today. Time is especially precious in society today, and it seems that communicating by writing helps us preserve our time (Until we waste it lurking on Facebook). Also, writing is also popularized by the fact that it allows us to keep in touch with more people in difference places than speech ever made necessary before. Like Howard Gardner explains in the End of Literacy? Don’t Stop Reading, “young people seem to have a compulsion to stay in touch with one another all the time,” and we can stay in touch with multiple friends at one time through medias like Facebook, MySpace, Instant Messenger, and text messages. I believe this is another reason why writing is so widely used and is so popular in today’s society. Finally, I feel as though the frequency of use of writing could be attributed to its deliberateness enabled by secondary orality. There is a certain amount of comfort we get from knowing that there is a backspace key on a keyboard and an eraser on a pencil. Most people write with more confidence than speak with confidence, and you’re going to do what you’re comfortable with.
In past societies, however, written messages were not as expedient. Fifty years ago, you would not have written a letter to your neighbor about making plans for the weekend like you might write an email to them today. You would walk down the street and talk to them. Speech was what was convenient, efficient, and fast in the past. And however taken-for-granted speech may be in today’s society, it is apparent that speech is superior in a substantive sense.
Generally, when we take the time to meet one another or call and have a chat, conversations go more in-depth. There are more opportunities for questions, comments, and spontaneous thoughts. Though it takes more attention to diligently listen to another person during a conversation than to read an email on your own time, I feel as though more comes out of a face-to-face conversation than a meaningless Facebook comment. Also, in addition to depth, speech is certainly the only socially acceptable way of communicating certain important ideas. For instance, you would not ask someone to marry you over an email. You would not tell a family member about a death in the family over a text message and you should not tell someone you love them for the first time in an Instant Message. That would be absurd and disrespectful, so it is obvious that speech is superior in this sense. Speech is extensively more personal; therefore, it holds more substance and feeling. Finally, we can certainly learn more about someone through their speech than through their writing. You can easily hide behind a computer keyboard and have whatever persona you would like. Unless you are a fabulous actor or a convincing liar, it is a lot easier to lie about yourself in writing than to someone’s face. When you speak, you lay everything out for everyone to see. This is why, for instance, you would not see a presidential debate done over Instant Messenger. Americans expect to see their presidential nominees duke it out on the air, face to face, in order to get the best feel of their personalities and views by listening to the confidence, hesitance, and frustration in their voices. It’s true, as Susan Jacoby explains in The Dumbing of America, that we cannot learn much, if anything, from a 7.8 second soundbite from a presidential nominee. However, as good as she may sound on paper, it is hard to dispute the fact that we learned a lot about Ms. Sarah Palin from her Katie Couric interview by listening to the way she spoke and her hesitance during certain questions. Certainly, if she was able to check with John McCain on certain questions and “bring ‘em to ya” via email, she would have sounded much more intelligent. However, thanks to the telling nature of speech, we were able to learn a lot.
To me, there is no clear-cut winner in the race for superiority between speech and writing. Writing is clearly more convenient and more often looked to in order to get the word out in a fast and efficient manner. On the other hand, speech is distinctly more superior in a substantive sense, for it lets us reach further into conversations, express important issues, and gives us a more transparent look at one another. Both speech and writing have their pros and cons, and they have both contributed a lot and have been detrimental in certain ways, too. Regardless, it is hard to imagine life without either of these forms of communication.