Texting seems to have opened up a wee little box of Pandora . . . so, here is yet another opinion on the subject started a few weeks ago. For those who don’t know, I projected into the future with some gobbly-gook about texting ruining everything that is good and true. I don’t feel like repeating it, you can click under my mug shot (on my name) and find the column, to which I refer.

Below a letter from Ewa (pronounced E-va — “w’s” ain’t pronounced in Poland — well they are, they just sound like “v’s”). Eva, ‘scuse me, Ewa gets pretty deep — even takes a swipe at John Wayne. I like John Wayne, and I like Ewok, pardon me, Ewa, too. — don

Ho Don,

Your articles on texting have started an interesting discussion. With globalization, even what we’ve traditionally called ‘civilization? has been redefined by scholars around the world in recent decades. A book, called Civilizations, by Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, comes to mind, which shows how a lot of this is relative.

Even within our own culture, what one calls ‘civilized,? another may find ‘barbaric.? Take what’s now known as ‘the old John Wayne? type of history. That’s what I was taught as a kid. It stemmed from extremely selective perspectives of military and church records that tried to silence all others, which has proven to be quite problematical. It could ‘pass? when the U.S. appeared safely isolated from the rest of the world, which is no longer the case.

Perhaps those who found comfort (and privilege) in such isolation are those who feel most threatened by inevitable change? In large part, that’s where various types of fundamentalism’trying to go back to a selectively imagined and idealized ‘good old days?’come in. Ironically, the ‘good old? escapist move to the suburbs in the 1950s was followed by multiple movements in the 60s, when issues that many tried to neatly (and naively) brush under the rug exploded. Have we set ourselves up again?

People tend to gravitate to what they feel is missing, even become obsessed with it. Could texting have become so popular because, despite perfect spelling, we really weren’t communicating on a deeper level in the first place?

‘Communicate? has several definitions, including: ‘to give or interchange thoughts, feelings, information, or the like, by writing, speaking, etc.? or ‘to express thoughts, feelings, or information easily or effectively.? The latter definition is particularly interesting to me.

I was raised by strictly traditional parents who believed there was ‘only one right? way to think, feel, act, etc. We lived in one of those ‘nice? suburbs where anything uncomfortable was hidden (but didn’t disappear) and narrow-minded parents desperately tried to stifle any type of different thoughts, feelings, and information (which didn’t work either.) Looking back, I don’t find it surprising that the many kids who felt trapped in such a situation (especially) made up ‘codes? that allowed us to communicate with each other in so-called radical ways. And it taught me an important lesson.

When I was raising my own kids, I tried to focus on open-mindedness, rather than simply follow in ‘snoopy and punitive? footsteps or pretend everything was just ‘nice.? That opened a channel of communication between me and my kids (doesn’t mean it was ‘perfect.?) I learned a lot from them’not only my children, but other kids who would come to my house to (freely) talk to me, kids who would tell me, ‘I wish my parents were more like you. If they were more open-minded, I wouldn’t have to be so sneaky about stuff that’s important to me.? Is it easier to bar something than to try understanding it?

Another thought to consider… When I was studying foreign languages and cultures as an undergrad, computers were just becoming available to the public. Way back then (as my kids say when they have difficulty imagining such a time) one of my Russian professors told us that it posed a serious problem to the isolated ‘business as usual? in the Soviet Union. Computer technology meant public (and often controversial) access to knowledge. Barring people from outside information was one way of maintaining control of what was taught as ‘The Truth? (i.e. Pravda), to keep people from questioning the underlying dynamics of the system. But choosing to not open up (which computers entailed) also meant the Soviet Union could fall behind other nations.

In a way, the United States faces a similar dilemma in our current global society, where our own version of ‘The Truth? has morphed into many different types of previously unacknowledged truths. Is that what some people fear is ‘the end of [a limiting] civilization?? It can also be perceived as an opportunity to create something new’a way to step out of either/or thinking, into both/and. That, in itself, is challenging (even terrifying) to many people who’ve been taught to fear what is foreign, different or unknown (xenophobia.)

With mounting evidence, it’s increasingly difficult to deny that isolated sectors which have tried to monopolize ‘The Truth? have a lot of catching up to do’including our traditionally bureaucratic education system.

Texting is just the tip of the iceberg and involves a lot more than spelling. If parents are thrown off kilter with abbreviations, how will they (especially stay-at-home mothers) manage to keep up with their children (not to mention our rapidly changing world) when they have to learn about new, often radically different, beliefs and world systems?

To lessen an irrevocable gap between generations during this era of change, perhaps a new type of community ‘adult education? is likewise in order. It could include cross-cultural information that Oxford area students are learning, questions, and on-line discussions to promote open-mindedness.
Ewa J.

(The column really did give interesting food for thought.