Conversation as a space of virtue and perversion - Part I: The place of otherness in the age of individualism

A few days ago I was having lunch alone at a pavement café. The city of Porto was cold and sunny. I noticed a group of teenagers, all boys. There were six of them, I think. They sat snugly - it was cold, in fact - around a table for four, right in front of me. Each with his mobile phone, they argued, took offence, cursed and congratulated each other while their thumbs and eyes remained stuck to the lighted glass. I deduced that they "were" in the same game at the same time, as there were references to scores and rankings.

Although they had physically arrived and remained as a group, I got the impression that each one was alone. The group was deeply silent for many minutes. The silence was occasionally interrupted by rapid, short, precise, intense and loud interventions. There were no answers and so it was not possible to see if there was listening.

It got me thinking how different that kind of interaction was from the ones I remember having as a teenager, around a single screen projecting some game that you controlled with controls still connected by wires to a console. It was a single device that brought us together and connected us, literally. Now everyone has their own device and the exercise to detect the wires is purely metaphysical. I also noticed how different from a conversation the interaction between the six teenagers was.

It is often heard that we are no longer able to converse. The responsibility and the blame are commonly attributed to social networks or to our growing dependence on mobile phones and other screen sizes. In fact, the devices that increasingly capture our attention are not addictive in themselves. What is addictive is the information they transmit. The answers to our doubts, worries and memory lapses come quickly and precisely. What is addictive is also the feeling of connection with others, distant or near, who press us with thumb or heart icons. Are we truly connected, without visible wires? Do radio waves have the property of connecting us?

It is also said that we live in the age of the individual. I would add that we live in the age of individualism: the age of the individualistic individual. The devices that accompany us and the networks that feed them lead us to interact, yes, but not to converse. Conversation comes from the Latin conversatio, which means "to live with; to meet frequently". The Latin word is formed by joining "com-" (together) and "vertere", (to turn, turn towards). A conversation, therefore, implies that those who take part in it turn towards each other, together. Such an exercise requires an attention that is not stolen by any device and a dedication, an effort, to find another, different. Here is a possible definition of an exercise in otherness: encountering the other, necessarily different from ourselves.

The type of interaction that social networks stimulate and, perhaps more importantly, the use we make of them, reveals a form of exchanging messages that does not fit the definition of conversation. What is worse is that even outside the networks, in physical presence, the same dynamic seems to be taking hold. A space where each participant waits their turn to speak is not a real conversation. A space where silence is individually occupied by the preparation of what one wants to say and not by the search to understand and clearly respond to what we are being told is not a conversation. Yet we are trained to imply that we are listening when in reality we are only waiting to speak. We are prepared to show that we are including others when, in fact, we are alone with the pretence of entertaining and convincing with our ideas. This posture does not show an interest in otherness but reveals an inability to move away from individuality.

A conversation, to be good and rich, is not just entertainment. It involves effort, dedication and a good dose of self-denial. Montaigne in his "Essays" said that the main reason why a conversation is unsatisfactory is that many people become defensive when their views are questioned. To have a conversation, really, we have to decentre ourselves. Are we being able to have conversations in our teams, in our families, in our schools, in our relationships? In both private life and in organisations we should invent more moments where technological tools are forbidden (smart phones, lap top computers, presentations and projections, etc.) and only the word, the good conversation, the sharing through the word is allowed. There are even companies, such as Amazon, which have already abolished presentations from their meetings. If it were me, I would make those moments compulsory. Like a prescription. Because much of what is interesting happens in a conversation.

Written for Link to Leaders on 8 December 2019; published 11 December 2019.