On the one hand, there is no gainsaying the convenience of cell phones. In times of crisis, cell phones are truly a godsend. That is precisely why I have two cell phones. On the other hand, though, cell phones are proving to be the very undoing of one of society’s most important social lubricants, namely politeness. Consequently, there is a kind of moral numbness that cell phones are occasioning. First, let me say a word about politeness.
To be polite, I do not have to think well of what you say or do. In fact, I don’t have to like you at all. I need only to engage in certain forms of acknowledgement in a courteous manner. I can be polite in debating my ideological enemy. Politeness can sometimes diffuse a potentially explosive situation. If I find myself face-to-face with my ideological enemy at a fund-raiser, politeness may keep the moment from becoming confrontational: “Good evening, Madame Smith. So nice to see you.” She in turn responds likewise. We then quickly move out of one another’s way thereby avoiding a nasty scene. Politeness can be grounded in sincerity, but it need not be. One says “I am pleased to introduce Jones,” even if moments before one had no idea who Jones is, and one is filling in for the person who was supposed to introduce Jones.
In day-to-day social interaction, politeness does not require much. Normally, a greeting or a “thank you” or both are about all that politeness requires. Yet, there is nothing at all insignificant about just these two things; for they are forms of recognition. Indeed, at its most basic, politeness constitutes a recognition of our humanity. To be sure, in times of crisis, we need much more than politeness. But make no mistake about it: In the absence of a crisis, precisely what we want and precisely what is essential to lubricating society is politeness.
Quite simply, then, cell phones are eating away at this essential ingredient of society rather like rust eats away at iron or termites eat away wood: bit by bit. Hence, the claim on my part that cell phones are rendering us morally numb. The cell phone has become the lord of our reality. People feel that it must be answered no matter where they are or what they are doing. The very idea of a caller leaving a message has become unacceptable, which is odd since all cell phones come equipped with voice mail. When the cell phone rings, people have what might be characterized as cellphonic seizure. It is as if a force comes over them and compels them to answer the damn thing no matter what they are in the middle of doing. Why, a student once remarked to me that his girlfriend answered her cell phone while they were in the middle of having sex! I have systematically refrained from trying to visualize how that transpired.
But if that scenario strikes one as despicable, is the following any less so? Imagine that you are a cashier, and the person you are to wait on approaches your counter gabbing on her or his cell phone. The individual does not acknowledge you at all, but merely tosses the items to be purchased on the counter, all the while gabbing. You ring up the items and then announce the amount to the customer. But the customer, still gabbing on the phone, doesn’t really hear you; and looks at the cash register display in order to see how much is owed. All the while gabbing on the cell phone, the person hands you the money as if you were a machine, and with hand extended the person waits for the change. The person receives the change and walks away. You, the cashier, have never been acknowledged in any way whatsoever. A mere 60 years ago, if a white customer had behaved in such a manner towards a black cashier, it would have been an unmistakable sign of racism. Nowadays, this form of behavior is par for the course.
But the point is this: The behavior would have been called racist precisely because it was shorn of any acknowledgment, on the part of the white, of the black person’s humanity. Poignantly, the mere fact that this form of behavior with a cashier is now commonplace does not entail that somehow we have managed to put an acknowledgement of the cashier’s humanity back into the picture. Nothing of the sort is true. The behavior is an affront to the cashier’s humanity. And the systematic exposure to this sort of thing is morally numbing.
The claim that such behavior is morally numbing might appear to be mere hyperbole. But imagine that, as a cashier, this is how most people treated you throughout the day. How inclined would you be to be kind or considerate towards a stranger whom you encountered when you were not working? Indeed, how inclined would you be to help the person you are waiting on when she or he is treating you as if you were merely a machine. On many occasion, I have saved a few cents because a cashier informed me that I could get two of a certain item for the price of one (or some such thing). How inclined would you be to say even that if the person you were waiting on was so being talking on her or his cell phone that you were not even acknowledged by the individual?
Needless to say, I think that the answer is clear. Under the circumstances that I have just described, you would become indifferent towards others. But occurrence of moral numbness is just the phenomenon of otherwise decent people becoming indifferent.
If these remarks are sound, then cell phones present a formidable moral challenge. We long for the day when none of us should want for anything by way of material goods and basic needs. Alas, that day will not be as blissful as one might suppose if the vast majority of us have become morally numb to each other’s humanity. Once upon a time, it was supposed that only evil could bring about such an outcome. Cell phones are a most poignant reminder that convenience without self-command is another way to find ourselves in the grips of moral numbness. And a consequence of moral numbness over time is none other than social death.
