David Brooks: Mobile Phones Are Destroying Courtship

from the why,-I-do-declare... dept

Tue, Nov 3rd 2009 3:15pm — Mike Masnick

It looks like David Brooks has officially entered into the old curmudgeonly "well, back in my day" phase of his NY Times op-ed columnist career, with a rant about how mobile phones are breaking down the proper social rules of courtship between a man and a woman. What is his basis for this? Would you believe the "sex diaries" of NY Mag? Seriously. Brooks apparently has been spending time perusing the lurid details of what people send into NY Mag for its "sex diaries" feature, and decided that it's a representation of how the modern single person uses mobile phones for the process of hooking up (er... courtship):

Once upon a time -- in what we might think of as the "Happy Days" era -- courtship was governed by a set of guardrails. Potential partners generally met within the context of larger social institutions: neighborhoods, schools, workplaces and families. There were certain accepted social scripts. The purpose of these scripts -- dating, going steady, delaying sex -- was to guide young people on the path from short-term desire to long-term commitment.

Over the past few decades, these social scripts became obsolete. They didn't fit the post-feminist era. So the search was on for more enlightened courtship rules. You would expect a dynamic society to come up with appropriate scripts. But technology has made this extremely difficult. Etiquette is all about obstacles and restraint. But technology, especially cellphone and texting technology, dissolves obstacles. Suitors now contact each other in an instantaneous, frictionless sphere separated from larger social institutions and commitments.

People are thus thrown back on themselves. They are free agents in a competitive arena marked by ambiguous relationships. Social life comes to resemble economics, with people enmeshed in blizzards of supply and demand signals amidst a universe of potential partners.

The opportunity to contact many people at once seems to encourage compartmentalization, as people try to establish different kinds of romantic attachments with different people at the same time.

I have to admit, in reading this, even as he's condemning it, it sort of feels like Brooks is... envious? Does he feel like he missed out on his opportunity to have been a young player?

But, seriously, he presents no evidence other than the "sex diaries" quotes to support this. He seems to assume that, thanks to technology, suddenly everyone out there is a player with multiple partners, all lined up via mobile phone to figure out who makes the best pairing for the night. I know plenty of single people these days, and I don't know anyone who does anything remotely like this. I'm sure there are some, but is it really that different from people who went out to bars and compared their different options in the past? This has nothing to do with mobile phone technology at all.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: courtship, david brooks, mobile phones

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 3:25pm

Those 4 quotes paragraphs essentially say...nothing. What will we do without such quality journalism?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 3:28pm

agreed with #1
the question that comes to mind for me of anyone who decries a cellphone is "who cares?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 3 Nov 2009 @ 3:56pm

Why Cell Phones?
The internet is even better about the anonymous, guilt free "courtship"

check out:
craigslist
match.com
cupid.com
plentyoffish.com
adultfriendfinder.com
or even
myspace
facebook

If you so choose you can meet people on there and have all the "relationships" you want and even bring them into real life if you like.

So my question simply is why did he decry cell phones?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 4:26pm

Halfway between stupid and obvious
The thing that bugs me is that there is such a great missed opportunity for meaningful analysis here. I mean, there can be no denying that communications technology is altering our social interactions (how could it not?) -- but there are a lot of worthwhile and interesting questions about the details, and about how deep these changes actually run. It's not limited to courtship either.

But why stop and think when you can just wildly extrapolate on one particular theme?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 4:27pm

Re: Why Cell Phones?
Tee-hee.
Someone should send him a link to Craigslist Casual Encounters. Then we'll get a curmudgeonly-but-eerily-envious column!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 4:31pm

It's the way people wanted it, and here it is. What's the problem? Even if this was well-sourced and meaningful, it still wouldn't explain why anyone dating today has a responsibility to play-act old peoples' nostalgic fantasies. If those "social scripts" had any value, people would still be following them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 4:32pm

Re: agreed with #1
It's true. Someone, somewhere, right now is working on a Foursquare for prostitutes, but this guy has just caught up to the fact that people are ohmygod texting each other about sex!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 4:32pm

Who pays this guy's cell phone bill?
I don't even know where to start with this editorial.

Does this guy even have a cell phone? If he does, he needs to ditch it for a few months. But then again, it may be that he doesn't have a cell phone, and needs to get one.

Or maybe he just got a Palm Pre and the salesperson told him he could 'socially share' music with others like he could with his Zune. Something isn't right here. Poor guy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Nov 2009 @ 4:32pm

At this point, what haven't cell phones been accused of destroying?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 4:36pm

Re:
He does concede that the old standards don't apply now (though he calls it the "post-Feminist era" which would not be my first choice of phrasing)

But he complains that no new standards have taken their place without realizing that they quite clearly have, and that "social scripts" are a constantly evolving thing anyway, and they just happen to be a bit chaotic right now since mass communications are, y'know, completely changing the world in an ongoing revolution.

p.s. I love the phrase "play-act old peoples' nostalgic fantasies"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Marcus Carab (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 4:43pm

Ooh, the first comment on the Times site really nails it:

"Seems to me that texting has changed the nature of promiscuous adventure for adventurers, but the second date is still the second date, and relationships are little changed by the technology, except that a partner may demand more contact, more constant intimacy. Those who used to write love letters are now parceling out their love letters throughout the day." - David B, Boston
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kyle clements (profile), 3 Nov 2009 @ 4:56pm

so...
He is arguing that things used to follow a set social script, and the courtship process was static and predictable (we can call this "boring").
Now courtship is dynamic and unexpected (or "exciting").
And this is a bad thing?

sorry Grandpa, I'm not all that interested in doing things your way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymoose, 3 Nov 2009 @ 5:06pm

also...
Get off my lawn. Damn underpants, anyway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
June Cleaver, 3 Nov 2009 @ 5:17pm

Gee Ward, you were a little rough on the BEAVER last night!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mojo Bone, 4 Nov 2009 @ 12:08am

Nowadays, when I "play-act nostalgic fantasies" with other old people like myself, I like to don a pair of buttless chaps. Maybe that's just me. Seriously, though, technology changes ever, courtship seldom and human nature, hardly ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gumnos (profile), 4 Nov 2009 @ 4:31am

Certain accepted social scripts
There were certain accepted social scripts

Yeah, back when men used to club women over the head and drag them into the cave. Dread lest times change and we progress further up Maslow's hierarchy from physical needs (caveman sex) to love/belonging (Brook's view of sexual intimacy) to self-actualization (spontaneity and problem-solving).

-gumnos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 4 Nov 2009 @ 7:44am

The funny thing is...
I am engage to a wonderful woman. Our courtship was, I think, fairly normal. Whatver that is. It certainly wasn't without rules.

And yet, particularly in the early days, probably half of our communication was through texting and emails.

Just because the social scripts change doesn't mean they don't exist. Also, people tend to romanticize their past (I'm looking at you, David Brooks) and turn it into something better than it really was. Courtship is as healthy and strong as it ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
LBD, 4 Nov 2009 @ 8:08am

Personaly...
Personaly, I don't see how it's a bad thing that people are being forced, by the frictionlessness of social media, to be more open with others about their intent.

And what he seems to be ranting about is that people are being more open with others about their intent instead of hiding behind complex social dances because there are 'some things you can't say aloud.'

Personally I like the fact that if someone doesn't want a romantic relationship they'll usualy just say it via cellphones or text instead of a long 'will they won't they' period.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Grae (profile), 4 Nov 2009 @ 9:56am

I thought this was particularly amusing:
... Social life comes to resemble economics, with people enmeshed in blizzards of supply and demand signals amidst a universe of potential partners. ...
Has Brooks ever heard of Victorian era England? In that time you were pretty much considered a fool if you married for love rather than status and money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Iron, 5 Nov 2009 @ 11:22pm

It's an opinion article from the New York Times. What were you expecting, research? I believe the NYT has proved time and time again that when it comes to opinion pieces and editorials they feel justified in making whatever claims they want without providing any data to back it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
mobilnye telefony, 16 Feb 2010 @ 10:53am

thanks
Thank you very much!
Very useful article

see also http://kolibri.com.ua/mobilnye-telefony.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]