Encounters: The new rules

Why it pays to be nice and not caught kissing fish

Encounters are everywhere. So much so, the dilemma often lies in the when, where and how to disconnect. Being a social scientist and etiquette being my ‘thing’ I like to fall back on the assumption that if you treat other’s as you would be done by, then this is shows ‘good form’ for all elements of social life.

Social life is full of obligations – that email you’re supposed to be replying to right now, that conference call scheduled for tomorrow. Thus, by mediating our encounters to the nth degree this can exhibit an almost neurotic orderliness as commitments are fulfilled and expectations realised. Or not.

But, where is the social structure upon which we can all rely? Presumably, we learn a good deal about the various nuances of how to handle encounters, by experiencing such interactions as they crop up in daily life. Face-to-face the ‘whatever’ that happens through social exchanges is, for the most part, kept in check by knowing both what you and I are doing at the same time. When this is mediated through various technologies, social platforms and ‘geeky’ trails’, other methods recommend themselves, however.

A characteristic of face-to-face encounters is that they occur in the immediate presence of one another. In this instant parties are usually uninterrupted from other social persistence. Increasingly social technologies make possible the same type of exchanges. Take Twitter. Real time. All the time. Here the order pertains because of what is bought to the table – or rather Twitter’s – and, thus, this is accepted as ‘normal’ for the interaction order. This is why you can’t tweet more than 140 characters.

But there are degrees of difference. Not better, nor worse, but certainly different in conventions and in protocols. For example, generationally those of my father’s age (dad you’re still young at heart and in looks – Mr Clooney has nothing on you!) tend to be more conservative. Not socially in terms of the number of friends (although this can be a truism on Facebook) but conservative as in a small ‘c’ for cautious.

This can be frustrating for many those of us who have grown up as the popularised GenX, who are confident with an array of technology gadgets and belong to more than one SNS at one time. Pervasive, yes. But this does not necessarily make us careless. In contrast to others we appear as the go-getters, what my father would observe as the ‘risk-takers’ and ‘makers’. Risk takers, because it is likely that you, like myself, hold people in your network that you may not even have ‘met’ – but share friends, work colleagues etc in common, so they make for a valuable contact. Risk makers as you actively seek choose to live daily life through various broadcast channels; to see ‘what everyone else is up to’; to ‘keep in touch’; and establish and retain your own of social presence.

Ultimately this is about getting used to living a constantly connected, pervasive and (potentially) minutely examined lifestyle. ‘Easy’, or rather second nature for technology enthusiasts. But this represents a lifestyle that is harder to understand and infiltrate for those who are at a distance from such platforms and devices.

What we all share in common, however, is the process of creativity, embracement of change and a sharpening of the resolution of our present experiences – as it occurs in the NOW. Rather than ever being ‘offline’ or ‘unreal’, by allowing the momentum of the flux and flows of social information to rise in a cacophony of noise around us takes us from sheer being into becoming. And by ‘becoming’ I mean becoming more networked and more adept to share constant updates and information with others. In short, ‘geek it good’ and avoid kissing fishes.

Unexpected Encounter. Friends Reunited. Or ‘I’ll spit in your handbag’.

Even though personal convention and social *wisdom* suggests the opposite, I will share the most recent outcome of an incidental (re)meeting in the street of an old friend. The Smack the Pony’s sketch – Friends Reunited - is an excellent portrayal of the potential social awkwardness of this situation…

H: Lucy!

L: Hannah! Hello,

H: Great to see you! Well I had your number but everything just got burned!

L: Oh great to see you. Lets change numbers.

H: Write on my hand. Here’s a pen.

L: Bus ticket! Oh no that’s broken. Damn it.

H: Lippy, lippy, lipstick on the paper.

L: Really got to rush rush rush,

H: No I can’t read that at all.

L: What to do?

H: I could scratch my number on your glasses.

L: I must go.

H: Spit in my bag.

L: Err no.

H: I could likck your back, and then you roll on the ground it adheres.

L: Quick! A tattoo.

H: There’s no time.

L: Must go.

H: Numbers. We can remember numbers…

L: No I’m never going to remember that. Really got to go.

H: What to do?

L: Meet here in a year. Same time and place.

H: Or even sooner.

L: I can’t. married to a rock star.

H: Wow.

L: Bye.

How difficult is it for us to reconnect and to accept an invitation from someone else? We feel under pressure to communicate, connect and reconnect. Then we find instead that ‘life just gets in the way’ – and so we are left with the option to either ‘spit in your handbag’ and walk away with mention of a rock star husband. OR, to really reconnect and then to take the time and effort to follow this up from the ‘hi’ in the street.

Someone I know recently went looking for lost school friends (he was bored in bed with flu and had just discovered Facebook). The result of his social daliance were that most 'friends' would accept his invitation, but did little to follow up this reintroduction. My explanation was that I was not surprised. Particularly when he explained how he was motivated by Lemsip combined with a flu fever. I too would probably be reluctant to follow up a friendship ‘hint’ had I received such a request myself.

Hi I have flu, long time no see! How are you doing?

There are a few reasons for this reaction. First, we live life through and with those we know, and who know us best. Had we wanted to reconnect with old school friends, by now, we probably would have already done it. (Apologies to those old school friends I have not got back in touch with and who may be reading this!). At the heart of this is the idea that there is no such thing as the ‘pure’ friendship/relationship – there is always a reciprocity that is expected and attached to such actions. Hence a message/invitation etc. is always sent with the (implicit) expectation that we will give something in return and in order to make it worth our while to offer up our attention. Second, there is a sense that we attach different kind of meaning to seemingly random and out of the blue incidents - Whether the bumping into an old friend in the street, or the unexpected friend request on Facebook - One member of the party may take this very seriously, the other does not know, understand, nor care to receive it.

These social negotiations are tangled up in need for personal protectiveness and prevention of risk.An assessment that quickly changes from 'what to do' or 'how to respond' to such requests. This is weighed up against the personal effort it will take on our part and demands such actions will make on our personal time.

These observations may seem negative, but they are mainly about asserting our expectations and opportunities around everyday interactions. In this way perhaps we should not be so hard on ourselves if we want to assert we are married to a rock star and would rather walk away than 'spit in your handbag'. Personally, the more I research and pursue my own connections, the more social etiquette matters. Here self-reflection is key for establishing the shared rules for acceptable behaviour and to avoid handbags at dawn.