(by Alessandro Capezzuoli, ISTAT official and manager of the data observatory professions and skills Aidr)
The digital transformation of human relationships began many years ago, and it did not originate with instant messaging systems. She is the daughter of an unsuspected culprit named link. Or, better, hyperlinks. I have always believed that hyperlink is one of the most important inventions of the last century and, all in all, it originates from a simple idea: I am here and with a click I go there. Calvinian lightness. Speed. Initially, the link linked hypertext documents, but soon it began to link people, feelings and emotions. Just open any social network to (re) discover how current and revolutionary the link is still. Friends are links, the curriculum is a link, the photos posted on instagram and the researches that are done to understand, always remaining confined to human relationships, the characteristics of the person, who he is, what he does, what he does . The reputation and private life of a person are in fact entrusted to links, which have totally supplanted the millennial role of the village wives. I am here and I go there, to see, without being known, who is that person who has piqued my interest.
It is valid for a job selection or for a sentimental selection. Without looking in the eyes to see inside. Without listening to how the voice and facial expression change at the dry sound of a question. Without the possibility of understanding, from the gestures of the body, the involuntary reactions, those that cannot be hidden behind words. Give me a link and I'll subvert the world, Archimedes would have said, if he had been the inventor. And the superficial information that can be obtained from the links are many: interests, hobbies, work, participation in social life, the sentimental situation ... even opinions on values and morals. Everything but the feelings, those from the links are not seen. The first signs that something was changing came in the late 90s, with the mass use of email in the workplace. Nostalgics will certainly remember those useless and endless discussions, consumed by hundreds of emails full of insults and provocations, in which anyone felt entitled to write anything. Italy soon transformed into a country of keyboard fights, capable of giving rise to real challenges to the OK Corral, which clumsily tried, with rivers of often ungrammatical words and phrases, to claim some reason, to discharging responsibility or attaching some blame. Parallel to the long-distance quarrels, however, the first virtual clandestine relationships also flourished. Then there was a further evolution: social networks and chats have speeded up exchanges and relationships have speeded up.
They have become products to be consumed quickly, where they have always required time and slowness. The language had to adapt to take on a role for which it was not designed: express emotions, reactions and feelings in a few ticks on the touch screen, and beeps of notifications. For those like me who are attentive to words, suffer their charm, beauty, and consider them the gift that the great father Jupiter gave to men to communicate effectively, it is easy to notice many small nuances that denote the danger of relationships. digital. For example, when you chat (oops, I was about to write speak, a slip ...) with someone with whom you have a free and loyal relationship, you pay little attention to punctuation, it becomes almost superfluous. The questions and answers are left open. Every chance is given. It's a bit like relaxing in the pub with a mug of beer. But when you're on the defensive, or want to express disappointment, punctuation becomes an essential communication requirement. Writing No might be enough, but No., or No !, is much more effective. It highlights the closure, it makes the refusal definitive.
It removes the right of reply. Frankly, the point added to the words during an exchange of messages always leaves me a bit dumbfounded. I feel a kind of tenderness towards those who think that matters can really close like this. That that point is really able to create walls and to consider the question closed. Punctuation in narrative plays an essential role, but while speaking, even when pausing Celentano style, it is difficult to perceive where the point begins and when it really goes to the head. And the exclamation point? I find it ambiguous, it can be difficult. If someone answers Yes !, what is the correct meaning to attribute to the answer? In terms of emotions, I mean.
Does that exclamation point mean "yes, yes, yes"? Is that an exhortation, like, "yes, move"? Is it a desire to quickly end the conversation and move on to something else, without lingering too long? Well, it can mean anything, it depends on the mood of the writer and interpreter. Guccini, in Cyrano written with Dati, used an evocative expression: “I will stick the pen well into your pride because with this sword I kill you whenever I want”. Maybe that's not the case, maybe words don't kill, but they can certainly hurt a lot and hurt deeply. If it were not a sad reality, it would be laughable in the face of a grotesque situation in which someone feels pain, cries, suffers and is moved not in front of a person but in front of a screen that does not even have human features. Yet, with this type of slavery we have to deal with it. There are those who calculate the response or display times of a message because even silences, pauses and digital delays have taken on a different meaning and are carriers of a considerable burden of anxiety. If he doesn't answer, there will be a reason, it means he is ignoring me or "who knows what he is doing". The hypothesis that he may have left the phone aside is not taken into consideration. Raise your hand if at least once you have not been assailed by uncontrollable anguish while, during a (so to speak) heated discussion, perhaps in a topical moment in which the end of a love story was consuming, the message "He's writing ..." he stopped abruptly. To then resume. In those fragments of time the whole relationship is concentrated: thoughts pile up, rivers are in flood, emotions and moods follow one another quickly as never before in human history. On the other hand, there is someone who has changed their mind. And that pause makes evident a very common reaction, but one that is usually not perceived in real life, unless a forehead display is invented that signals “he's changing his mind” during a conversation. In digital relationships there are a man, a woman and two screens that separate them. Which act as a filter. Which hide and deceive. Virtual words and real suffering. All. Strictly. Front. A. One. Screen. Quickly. Here the points suited us ...
The problem is that we've gotten too used to the speed of life. We are no longer able to hold back anything, to savor. Let's summarize. Sometimes you feel the need to "close your eyes to stop something that is inside you but is not there in your mind". And breathe. And give it time. Give it space. Instead, digital relationships are running fast, they require speed, There is no time to reason, to slow down, to reflect, to explain, to apologize, to express a concept that concerns the infinite areas of daily life. Let alone if there is time to shake hands, kiss, hug, walk side by side. For what purpose, if there are dozens of ready-to-use emoticons that perfectly synthesize as many gestures? In the past, out of curiosity, I read the correspondence between physicists and mathematicians of the 800th century. These were very long and respectful letters in which complex issues were debated in order to arrive at some conclusion. There was no winner. Digital conversations often want there to be a winner and a loser. And, in the competition, emoticons play a central role. The dynamic is often the following: one begins to exchange messages in a soft way and, for one reason or another, one arrives at the climax, at a breaking point where anger has exploded, the face becomes red like the juice of pomegranate and the heart gallops like Fury horse of the west. But you can't react, there's a screen, you have to use an emoticon. But to represent that state of mind well, we need an animated gif that depicts Mario Merola in "placed" mode shooting random threats of the caliber of "T'accid 'a madre". But no, what is the emoticon that is used to represent that state of agitation and cut it short? The thumbs up of Fonzie, used not to say “everything ok” but for a more provocative “you're okay”. And those who use it know very well the violent reaction it arouses in the opponent and which goes far beyond the threats of Mario Merola: stuff like “I would break that thumb, if I were there”. But luckily there is always a screen. The thumb is not true, it is a fake thumb, which leads to an incontrovertible truth: if Leibniz had answered Newton's epistle prior and posterior epistle with a raised thumb, we probably would never have known Monads and universal gravitation ...
Paradoxically, however, and this is truly a communicative mystery, the image that represents anger (pass me the term) exists, it is a red and angry face that never takes on the real meaning to which it is assigned. It is not taken seriously, because, let's face it, when the embolus of the fight starts, no one would think of assuming the expression of a pleasantly pouting red face.
Far more dangerous are the emoticons that represent the different shades of love. And the different shades of hypocrisy and falsehood. There is an abuse of mylotic symbols which in reality would never turn into concrete actions. Kisses and pecks sent to people you don't want to touch even with your fishing rod in person. Instead the proliferating network of bits that carry hearts and “heartfelt” kisses to anyone, even to complete strangers, to pretend empathy or to express some feeling. So there is the phone screen to act as a filter. On the other hand, however, there is always someone who interprets, misunderstands, hopes, suffers ... and often the other party is not clear what it is, whether that of the sender or the recipient.
If virtual exchanges between two people are amply demonstrating the relational difficulties of this and future generations, group exchanges denote much more important inconveniences, which reinforce the impression expressed by Umberto Eco a few years ago, namely that "the internet has given right to speak to legions of imbeciles ". For example, if in a group there is someone who writes, I know, Can anyone tell me the real recipe for the coda alla vaccinara ?, the answer does not come only from those who have something to say. Do not mention it. Everyone has to have their say. And when does a moment of visibility reappear? No, not me. NO! Not me, sorry. I had it, but I lost it. I try to ask my grandmother and let you know. Not me, but I have that of the Roman-style strozzapreti, okay? I'd gladly give it to you, but I'm away from home. Dozens of messages to achieve nothing, apart from an unsolicited increase in network traffic. Then there are the service communications, those that should be read without repeating and which instead give rise to the 50 shades of "thank you". Thank you. Thank you! Thanks so much. Thank you very much. Thank you (little heart). Thank you (emoticon surrounded by hearts) But thank you! Nothing. Because of you. And finally there are the good wishes, those that in reality no one remembers, apart from those few people who take us seriously. In any case, all hell breaks loose every time at the signal of good wishes. A triumph of festive faces, toasting glasses and confetti of all kinds. Perhaps it depends on age, perhaps it depends on tiredness, perhaps it depends on the lack of ability to understand different values because I am too anchored to mine, but I just can't live these relationships with participation. Decent detachment. Yet I have always supported digital transformation and in almost all the countless positive aspects it brings. Except this one. I don't understand it. I need all those manifestations that man is capable of expressing only live. In short, of that life that the virtualization of feelings has somehow clouded. Ad maiora