Personal Space 2.0

I noticed when I was on the shuttle in San Jose taking me from the rental car facility to the terminal that many people were choosing to stand rather than take the empty seats that were clearly available around me. Now, while there were doubtless many factors contributing to this phenomenon, one that particularly got me thinking: perhaps it was because, while the seat to my left was empty, my elbow was kind of overflowing into the "space" of that seat, and a similar thing was happening on the left side of the empty seat, as another man was in that seat. So I started thinking about personal space.

Specifically, I found myself asking the question: Has the American concept of personal space changed in recent years (say, in the last half-century)? I believe that it has, and even if it hasn't, that it will. Then I started to think about the influence technology must have on these kinds of concepts. Since technology greatly influences how we define our day to day experiences, it must have an impact on our interactions with other people and therefore, on our feelings and beliefs about personal space. What is the increased prevalence of technology in our culture doing to our notion of personal space? I wondered.

Clearly, there are two basic options; technology either expands our need for personal space (causing us to require more in public situations) or shrinks it (causing it to need less personal space to feel comfortable). I thought of some arguments for each option.

One reason to think our personal space is shrinking is not so much related to technology as it is to an increasing population. As more people populate the Earth, cities become by necessity more crowded. Everything is packed in closer. The trends even over the last few centuries have been toward a more "individualistic" lifestyle: there is less emphasis on doing things communally, and greater emphasis on a smaller, "self-serving" lifestyle (the montages in Fight Club demonstrate how prevalent this is in air travel). As this occurs, newer generations become more used to dealing with less space, and so they need less.

Another reason for the shrinkage is the increased abundance of personal digital devices (iPods, laptops, PDAs, cell phones). With these devices gaining popularity and being used by more classes of people, space does not need to be limited to the physical realm. These devices create virtual space, which allows the users (read: cyborgs?) to actually expand their personal space while needed less physical space. An extension of this argument might be that people are using their computers to do more. No longer is the personal computer used just for sending the occasional email, researching a topic for school, typing an essay, playing solitaire and watching pretty screensavers. Today people live most of their lives on their computers. This is due to cheaper PCs available, widely available internet connections, and social success requiring computer literacy. People are living the majority of their social lives online. They can create an entire other (replacement?) life online, they can book flights, go shopping, chat with friends, get a degree, create a stock portfolio, and even work online. It would seem all of these advances lead to less of a need for physical personal space (would the brain treat virtual personal space the same way and in that case, is this actually causing an overall increased need for space?).

However, along with these developments in technology and culture comes the plight of the digital age: the problem of choice. With so much now readily available at our fingertips, we are having a crisis nearly every day about what to choose to do. Which social network should I belong to? How long should I spend researching the best deal on a product before buying it?

This of course paralyzes most people (maybe our children's children will be different, having grown up with it), and causes a general decrease in self-confidence. No longer does "the other" define who we are: we see less and less emphasis on group membership, be it ethnic or social otherwise, and more emphasis on individualism. You get to decide every day what kind of person you want to be, and in which direction you want to take your life. You no longer have to earn a belonging to a social group; with social networking online, you can decide exactly which groups you belong to. The problem with this, of course, is that group mentality depends on exclusivity and inclusivity. If there is no criteria by which to determine inclusion in a group, then there is no group. What was called a "group" is now just an ad-hoc collection of individuals, and whatever membership criteria was created can change at a moment's notice.

Our family ancestry and lineage used to determine the line of work we would go into, or whom we would marry. These days we have more "freedom" of choosing these things, and our culture's mantra seems to be "be whatever you want to be." Again, this freedom paradoxically paralyzes us. My argument would be that this decreased confidence in ourselves makes us paranoid and, when combined with increased fear-mongering from the governments and goading from advertisements and corporations, creates a greater need for personal space. We don't feel comfortable closing any doors, wanting to make sure we maximize the amount of choices we have at any given time. This carries over to our sense of space: we don't feel comfortable with less space, wanting to make sure we maximize our possible physical "paths" at any given time. In other words, we are becoming more claustrophobic.

But given these arguments, doesn't the aforementioned prevalence of digital devices satisfy our increased need for personal space? I believe the answer is becoming yes. Think of how many people quickly and easily get turned on by the newest space-creating gadgets and software. Think of how readily they spend their money on them. They crave the wonder and excitement, yes. Until recently I believe that's mostly what they craved (and they believed these devices would also make their lives easier, as though that were a principle of physics toward which everything converged). In the past decade or so, however, I believe that it is the need to augment personal space that keeps people coming back.

I think we are in a period of change right now. I think our progeny's generations will be comfortable with the amount of choice they have; they will have to learn to deal with it to survive. So they won't purchase these devices so much for the need of personal space. Of course, it's also possible that our legacy to them will be this almost genetic need for more space, so they will have a biological need for these devices.

A biological need for electronic devices? I think at that point, we will no longer be talking about homo sapiens. This will be the first true generation of homo technologicus, the first real cyborgs. That's what we're evolving into, and that's what our children will become.

So I am basically reading a journal article for the new study & I am finding it amazingly difficult to stay focused. It alarms me that after such a short time away from academia, my mind has atrophied to the point of being unable to read confidently anything more than a magazine article or blog entry. I feel like the only way to get back into the groove is to start college all over again from the freshman level.

Question:

Is multitasking the only way to exist as a modal upwardly mobile young professional?

. . .

In my opinion, yes. While not being psychologically ideal, it is the only way that allows one to take advantage (but not full advantage) of all the opportunities available.

You know, I've been actually grappling with this issue a lot lately. So much of what I've read (mostly from Fromm) outright denounces multitasking, blaming it largely for our culture's plight of attention disorders and general lack of concentration and even will power. I feel in the long run that it's so much more worthwhile to have a mind that is capable of focusing on one thing completely. However, I know that in the short run having the skills of a multitasker are necessary for survival in society. In short, I do not think it is the only way to exist as an upwardly mobile young professional, but that it is the only way to be a successful young professional. Still as I write this, I am serenaded by Pandora, I have the TV on, and readily available pizza to my left. I think when I retire I want to stop multitasking, if not sooner.

Not only does Fromm denounce multitasking but so do psychologists everywhere, especially media psychology for all the reasons you already have stated. The current trend of practicing mindfulness as a way to combat anxiety or worry (which is also on the rise given our lifestyle) runs in complete opposite of being able to multitask. You cannot do many things mindfully at the same time. I have been trying to practice this when doing the dishes, which seems to be the only time I can just focus on what I am doing. Actually any sort of physical labor is just about the only thing that I can do without doing or thinking anything else. Maybe we need to become more physical, so multitasking just isnt an option.

I would much rather relinquish success and all that it may bring in order to have the ability to be patient and do only one thing at a time given the quiet that acting mindfully can create, even if only superficially.