Should The Professor Beale Russel Supporting Social Interaction With Smart Phones

In the article, “Supporting Social Interaction with Smartphones” Professor Beale Russell from the University of Birmingham, makes the argument that smartphones are the next step to effective communication. With the smartphones recent innovations from a computing device to a communication device, social interactions will become more prevalent. Russel claims that smartphones encouraging social interaction is flawed because phones are addictive and time-consuming, leave little room for face-to-face communication and lead users to become incapable of communicating properly.
Russel argues that the high accessibility of smartphones is a positive attribute for the advancements of communication. Yet the obsessive attachment smartphone users have with
their phones claims otherwise. The author argues that the smartphones availability gives users the freedom to communicate at any time, providing opportunities for more conversations. Although that may be true, smartphone users are now constantly dependent on their phones to connect them to their wide-ranging social network. Russell’s article, which was written in 2005, illustrates smartphones as a recent emerging phenomenon, referencing to outdated applications and software. Russel failed to see the future implications of a device with such broad functionalities. Mengue Bian and Leung Louis authors of “Linking Loneliness, Shyness, Smartphone Addiction…” state “[smartphone addicts] hide their actual use from family and friends…and use mobile phones to escape from problems and emergencies” (63). Rather than creating ways for social interactions, smartphone addiction causes users to push away the ones closest to them. Users turn to their devices for solutions and comfort instead of confiding in those around them. The increased incorporation of smartphones throughout our lives have allowed many to complete a variety of tasks virtually anywhere. Bill Thornton, author of “The Mere Presence of a Cell Phone May be Distracting”, states “Indeed, multitasking with the cell phone has the appearance of not taking up extra time; instead, it creates the illusion of giving you more time” (480). With information always available a person’s preoccupation with their mobile devises has proven to be time-consuming. For example, smartphones have allowed users to take their work home with them, sending emails and answering phone calls at the dinner table. Although to most it seems like affective multitasking, when closely examined time is significantly deducted for intimate conversations at the dinner table. Despite Russel’s argument that a smartphones ability to provide multiple forms of communications pushes forward social interaction, all such applications have been known to hinder progress in face to face communications.
Russel claims that the diverse ways to communicate “[p]rovide…an easier solution to an old problem” (36). According to Bian and Louis, applications that allowed a user to type, where easy outlets to avoid face-to-face communication. (64) In correlation with smartphone use a person’s time is consistently being sacrificed from possible direct interactions, which in contrast smartphones aimed to increase. Thornton states, “The “constant connectivity” afforded by mobile technology has contributed to a preoccupation with the cell phone- an overwhelming majority of users check their phone upon waking and as the last thing before bed, are continually checking calls and texts and report they could not go without their phone for one day” (479).In many occasions instead of creating opportunist for contact, cell phones have become a middle man between social interactions. Direct communication has become less prevalent in the current information technology era. Furthermore, Thornton argues that, the ability to always connect becomes a constant distraction for us. Its makes it difficult to stay focus and think critically (479). Do to features like social media and different applications, the conventional way of communication and entertainment have been replaced. But
the argument that it has changed for the betterment of social interaction is incorrect and unsupported. What is clearly seen is people’s obsession over mobile technology. Teenagers will arrange a birthday party or casual social gatherings and most likely at each event every individual would be staring at their smartphone screen. Although in the presence of each other, the mobile phones influence has become too great of a distraction to engage in conversation.
Russel argues that ability to digitally communicate with others will help find a way to interact more freely, although many users’ smartphones have become the main form of communication.
Smartphone users are so used to communicating over the phone or through text messages that they rarely understand the etiquettes of face to face communication. With little experience preforming the act, many are unaware of how to conduct themselves properly. According to Bian and Leung, “Some users even put the mobile phone on the table for all to see, implying that if the interaction is not interesting enough, and they have alternatives. Furthermore, some users appear invasive, impolite and disruptive” (62). Checking their phones and not maintaining eye contact while holding a conversation, is one of the many mistakes that smartphone users unintentionally make. Yet not only is the etiquette of direct communication affected but also the conversation. Body language speaks volumes over what a person is actually saying. People who are unaccustomed to this form of interactions will be unaware of these subtle cues. According Thornton, smartphones have been proven unfavorable to conversations held face to face in the present. A persons mind begins to wonder to the interaction opportunities within the broad range of their mobile devises and their actions soon reflect these thoughts (480). The mere presence of smartphones has an effect on the way we communicate effectively. Russel made the claim
that the old ways of communicating were no longer effective so a new way was created to fix this “old problem”. Smartphones have not fixed this communication problem but has added new complications to the mix.
Smartphone over indulgence along with time-consuming applications have had a negative influence on society’s social interactions. Time wasted multitasking on these devices has taken from opportunities to interact with those around us. Further, the inability for people to communicate properly due to excessive smartphone use has led to a greater decline of true face to face interactions. With the rapid growth of technology Russell’s arguments have become outdated and are no longer valid in this information technology era.