"The Day the Conversation Died"

I have often considered myself temporally displaced. How is it I missed the age when conversation was a social art form? People don’t converse anymore. They send text messages and emails and write blogs and join social networks… but, somewhere along the way, artful, unadulterated conversation died. Sometimes I think I’m the only one who showed up to pay my last respects. Bummer.

Mind you, talk still abounds. So by way of concession, there is a difference between prolific dialogue and verbosity. The former is intellectually productive. One careful thought may instinctively lead to another in compounding depth and expansion. The latter is just too many words. I should know. I’ve been told I’m pretty good at both.

I process my environment very quickly—in my head, that is. But the depth required for working observations into livable principles usually involves some ruminating, and ruminating some talking out. Therein lies the problem. Catch me on a topic I have processed and my language may be quick, careful and ready for discussion. Challenge me with a situation for which I’ve yet to lay sufficient cognitive foundation and watch out! I have to get my bearings. However, few people these days seem sensitive to the difference between or respective value of both processing-speech and engaging conversation. Though I prefer language, there are other viable means of process. But truly engaging conversation? I believe its value unequalled and frequently discover I’m starved for it. Once found, I am ravenous and sometimes, before I realize it, pick the carcass clean.

I am self aware enough to know I often have too much to say. Sometimes I find myself rattling on simply because I fear the awkward staring if the conversation dies (and I cannot escape). Still other times, I credit a conviction that good conversation has a beginning middle and end (even if it is punctuated with an ellipsis). This, however, requires mutual investment. A one winged plane spins wildly out of control until it finally crashes. A natural, graceful landing takes the balance of two.

Too often I observe and/or experience a profound inequity in substantive verbal engagement. I want to know the people around me and feel as though they know me. I want to hear who and what and where they are and work life out together. There are many wonderful people with whom I’ve had the privilege of doing just that. But, of late, amid all the IM-speak, mobile etiquette and cerebral loitering, finding people who value thoughtful dialogue has become increasingly difficult. Conversation requires thought. It tests defensible opinions. It is an investment in one’s self and others. It is inconvenient. It is extraordinarily worthwhile.

Recognizing how selfish it would be to blankly indict society upon this point, I self examine. A few of the (many) discoveries...

1) My relationship balance may be unhealthy (between protégés, peers and mentors – emotional, social, intellectual and spiritual relationships)
2) I may mismanage how others perceive or measure my intensity in conversation, inadvertently pushing them away
3) I can misinterpret an invitation to deeper thought and exploration (optimistically project shared value)

I yet have much growing to do. Still, none of these considerations disarm my original contention. Where have all the meaningful conversations gone? Is it just me? My humble observation—with the wealth of global information at our disposal, we still don’t really know one another and have, insomuch, lost ourselves. Christian faith is rarely rooted in community these days (read the New Testament epistles and compare). I believe this is one reason the Emerging Church is gaining so much ground. Real conversation sparks real thought about real life. Without it, we live in a cursory world, dangerously superficial. Why are we in such a hurry to get on to the next shallow activity or relationship? What is it we fear?

Here’s to resurrecting the art of great social dialogue in 2008. Vive la conversation!