The Tyranny of E-mail Read online

  THE TYRANNY OF E-MAIL

  The Four-Thousand-Year Journey to Your Inbox

  JOHN FREEMAN

  Scribner

  A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc.

  1230 Avenue of the Americas

  New York, NY 10020

  www.SimonandSchuster.com

  Copyright © 2009 by John Freeman

  All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form whatsoever. For information address Scribner Subsidiary Rights Department, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020.

  First Scribner hardcover edition October 2009

  SCRIBNER and design are registered trademarks of The Gale Group, Inc., used under license by Simon & Schuster, Inc., the publisher of this work.

  For information about special discounts for bulk purchases, please contact Simon & Schuster Special Sales at 1-866-506-1949 or [email protected].

  The Simon & Schuster Speakers Bureau can bring authors to your live event.

  For more information or to book an event contact the Simon & Schuster Speakers Bureau at 1-866-248-3049 or visit our website at www.simonspeakers.com.

  Designed by Carla Jayne Jones

  Manufactured in the United States of America

  1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2

  Library of Congress Control Number: 2009032087

  ISBN 978-1-4165-7673-0

  eISBN 978-1-4165-8812-2

  Photographs on page 1 courtesy of Museum of Archeology, Istanbul; image on page 10 courtesy of the Print and Picture Collection, Free Library of Philadelphia; photograph on page 14 © ThinkStock/Superstock; photograph on page 43 courtesy of Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of American History; photograph of H.L. Mencken on page 54 courtesy of Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library; photograph on page 62 courtesy of Western Union Telegraph Company Records, Archives Center, National Museum of American History, Behring Center, Smithsonian Institution; photograph on page 70 courtesy of Photography Collection, Miriam & Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints & Photographs, The New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox and Tilden Foundations; map on page 88 courtesy of Bolt, Beranek & Newman; photograph on page 92 courtesy of Leonard Kleinrock; photograph of William Burroughs on page 103 taken by Brion Gysin, reprinted with permission of The Wylie Agency LLC on behalf of The Estate of William Burroughs; image on page 125 courtesy of Aubrey Jones; photograph on page 190 © Ingram Publishing/SuperStock; image on page 193: Samuel Yates, Untitled (Minuet in MG), 1999, mixed media, 15in. x 26in. x 65ft., Collection of Rene & Veronica di Rosa Foundation, Napa, CA. Photo by Ben Blackwell.

  This book is for my grandmother, who wrote the most wonderful letters, and for my mother, who taught me how to reply

  No man can be turned into a permanent machine…. Immediately the dead weight of authority is lifted from his head, he begins to function normally.

  — MAHATMA GANDHI

  CONTENTS

  INTRODUCTION

  WORDS IN MOTION

  THE INVENTION OF NOW

  ALL TOGETHER NOW

  THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON E-MAIL

  DAWN OF THE MACHINES

  MANIFESTO FOR A SLOW COMMUNICATION MOVEMENT

  DON’T SEND

  SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  INDEX

  INTRODUCTION

  The oldest love poem in the world sits behind a glass case at the Museum of the Ancient Orient in Istanbul, where it was placed on display on Valentine’s Day 2006. Carved in cuneiform, it rests on a clay tablet the size of a piece of toast, the script as small as bird tracks. “Bridegroom, you have taken pleasure of me,” the poet, a ghost lost to time, pleads in Sumerian. “You have captivated me: let me stand trembling before you.”

  Love may not be forever, but this expression of it has outlasted swords forged by fire, cities designed by the finest architects, the largest machine ever to fly, and the most titanic boat ever to sail. To write his verse, the poet would have had to compose the lines in his head or recite them to a friend. Then he would have molded the clay tablet and slowly, but deliberately, carved his verse into it with a reed staff before the clay hardened. Finally, he would have dried the poem in the sun and waited another day for it to cool, when it could be delivered to his beloved by hand.

  Feelings may not have a terminal velocity, but it should be said that certain expressions benefit from careful deliberation. Love is certainly one of them, but so is regret. So are longing, forgiveness, curiosity, and anger. Communication—the conveyance of meaning from one person to the next—depends on how we frame it. The second-most important question we must face, after choosing to communicate at all, becomes how to deliver what we want to say. Four thousand years after this poet bent over his writing desk, we have as many options as we have languages.

  You can write your message in the sky, send it by singing telegram, speak into voice mail, shove it in the post, and hope for the best. You can write it in free verse, broadcast it to three hundred of your closest friends on Facebook, fire off an instant message, post it to your Twitter channel. If we think of modes of communication as a mirror spectrum of the human voice, we have as many registers as our mouths can make. The telex machine may have died, but most copy shops and offices still have fax machines. Phone booths still huddle, in various states of molestation, on many street corners. We can sign a message, pantomime it, text it, shoot a video message, record it as a song, upload a declaration of love onto YouTube, chalk it on pavement, scratch it on a tree trunk.

  In his book The Gift, Lewis Hyde argues that one of the most effective ways to send a message into the world is to wrap it in a form that only it can possess and give it away. Why buy a card when you can make one? Why sermonize when you can write a sonnet? But how many of us have the time for this—or the skill? All over the world we are working longer hours than ever, sleeping fewer winks, taking shorter vacations. In this environment, frazzled and fried, tied to a machine that gazes back at us more hours per day than even our spouses do, we do what makes the most sense: we send our messages the fastest way possible.

  The Inbox of Kings

  In June 2004, the Internet giant Google made an announcement that quietly marked the apotheosis of the e-mail age. Gmail, its Web-based mail program, would offer users unlimited storage. Imagine for a moment what this means. Thanks to a group of 450,000 machines scattered across the United States like underground missile bunkers, I could store more e-mails than there are blades of grass in Kansas. This is beyond unprecedented—it is superhuman. Is God’s inbox this big? Prior to the electronic age, dictators and kings did not enjoy such epistolary armories.

  Still, their capacity is dwarfed by the Herculean arms of an everyday individual’s e-mail inbox today. What busy individual needs this industrial-strength capability for his correspondence tool? What buzzing, humming megalopolis tunes in to this techno-rave of send and receive, send and receive? Is the human brain wired to receive this much stimuli? Can our eyes scan this many separate pieces of information? Is anyone listening? Who is it behind the screens, tapping the bellows and pumping the organ keys of this huge, throbbing machine at all hours of the night?

  For the Love of E-mail

  The answer, of course, is us. We love e-mail. In 2007, 35 trillion messages shot back and forth between the world’s 1 billion PCs; in the time it took you to read to this point, some 300 million e-mails were sent and received. They sluiced down corporate drainpipes, piled onto listservs, promising a return on investment in a small African country and providing jokes about pigs and news about your grandmother’s heart surgery. According to a Stanford University survey, 90 percent of all Internet users e-mail. In 2009, it
has been estimated, the average corporate worker will spend more than 40 percent of his or her day sending and receiving some two hundred messages. Instead of walking down the hall, picking up the phone, or sending an interoffice memo, we e-mail.

  E-mail goes with us everywhere now. We check it on the subway, we check it in the bath. We check it before bed and upon waking up. We check it even in midconversation, blithely assuming that no one will notice. We check from our loved ones’ deathbeds. Even the most powerful people in the world do it. On most days during the 2008 presidential race, Barack Obama’s BlackBerry “was fastened to his belt—to provide a singular conduit to the outside world as the bubble around him grew tighter and tighter throughout his campaign.” President George W. Bush, who received fifteen thousand e-mails a day at the White House, said that one thing he looked forward to after leaving office was e-mailing. There is even a service that allows you to send an e-mail after you’re dead. If there is an hour or a minute or a second to spare, e-mail is there. It is our electronic fidget.

  It’s hard to blame us. Once broadband connection arrived, e-mail became the world’s most convenient communication tool. Not much more than a dozen years ago, most of us printed letters out, placed them in envelopes, and then walked or drove them to the post office, where we waited in line, wasting more time, so that the letter could arrive in maybe a week. The U.S. Postal Service estimated that, even if 99.8 percent of e-mails do not replace a letter, the sheer volume of e-mail means that more than 2 billion pieces of mail are diverted electronically each year. And that’s just personal correspondence. Between 1999 and 2005, the number of people who opted to pay their bills electronically rather than by mail diverted 3 billion pieces of mail. In the postal world, this replacement of tangible mail with electronic communication is called electronic erosion—and some of this is a good thing. Today we can type a note on our computer in New York and it will be received in New Zealand in nanoseconds. We use e-mail to send documents, music, wills, photographs, spreadsheets, and floor plans, communicate with our banks, send invitations. We no longer have to fill out those irritating forms to receive a return receipt by post, proof that our important letter arrived. The computer does it for us. We can even get a message the moment someone opens our e-mail. In just this one area, e-mail has given us back several days each year.

  But it would appear that we are spending that surplus time e-mailing. The average office worker sends and receives two hundred e-mails a day—and that figure is rising. Forget about time spent stumbling absentmindedly around the Internet; this habit is destroying our ability to be productive. Information overload is a $650 billion drag on the U.S. economy every year. E-mail has made us a workforce of reactors, racing to keep up with a treadmill pace that is bound for burnout and breakdown and profound anger.

  The form’s inherent blind spots always catch up with us. According to a survey in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we misunderstand the tone of e-mails 50 percent of the time—and for good reason: there is no face on the other end to stop us in midsentence, to indicate that what we are in the process of saying is rude, not comprehended, or cruel. We say what we want, like the CEO who recently belittled the effect of mortgage foreclosures, inadvertently sending the e-mail to someone who had just lost his home. The unlucky call this mistaken judgment. Psychologists call it disinhibition, and its pervasive effect—as can be witnessed every day in nasty comments appended to newspaper articles online, in the aggrieved tone and intent of some blog postings, in e-mail inboxes scorched by flame wars—has turned many parts of the Internet into a nasty place.

  It’s tempting to simply argue that the Internet attracts aggressive people. But all of us, at some point or other, have behaved poorly over the Internet and via e-mail. There’s a reason for these communication hiccups and explosions. According to some neurologists, we learn to interact with the world by mirroring others; not only do we need to see people to understand them most effectively, but our mind learns how to move our limbs and make sense of the world by mirroring the actions of others. There are even neurons in our brain that fire only in response to mirroring the actions of others, and they are intimately connected with the parts of our brain that allow us to move and understand the world. The part of our brain that controls grasping motions shows heightened levels of neural activity when we see someone else pick up a glass of orange juice, as if we were doing it ourselves. According to Marco Iacoboni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at UCLA, this has bolstered the notion that “our mental processes are shaped by our bodies and by the types of perceptual and motor experiences that are the product of our movement through and interaction with the surrounding world.” Consider, then, the ramifications of an era of communication in which we are disembodied as never before. In our new context of e-mail overload, we are working in an environment in which there is nothing to mirror but our own words.

  Beating Back the E-mail Tsunami

  Who has time to think clearly when under assault by this tsunami of other people’s needs? That’s what it feels like when you turn on your computer first thing in the morning at the office and find fifty e-mails, the tide of your inbox always rising. One’s instinct is to beat it back because e-mail has reoriented time; communication that once took hours, days, minutes, now takes seconds, and the permitted reply time has shrunk as well. Let an e-mail linger for a day, and you risk a rift in a relationship. A 2006 Cisco research paper concluded that failing to respond to a sender can lead to a swift breakdown in trust. Lose an e-mail forever, and you are sitting on an unexploded land mine.

  In the past, only a few professions—doctors, plumbers perhaps, emergency service technicians, prime ministers—required this kind of state of being constantly on call. Now almost all of us live this way. Everything must be attended to—and if it isn’t, chances are another e-mail will appear in a few hours asking if indeed the first message was received at all.

  In the face of this ever-rising onslaught, there appear to be just two choices: keep up at all costs or put up a moat, declare oneself unreachable for the time being—and start all over again. E-mail bankruptcy is the communication subprime mortgage crisis of our era. Ironically, among the first to declare this were the Internet visionaries, such as Lawrence Lessig, founder of the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, who believes that computer code will or can regulate our world as legal code has done in other realms of life. “Dear person who sent me a yet-unanswered e-mail, I apologize, but I am declaring e-mail bankruptcy,” he wrote in the summer of 2004. With one quick message, Lessig’s correspondents who were waiting for replies became his epistolary creditors, and he pleaded with them just as a bankrupt man does with his lenders. “That’s not a promise of a quick response,” he continued after five paragraphs. “But it is a promise that I will try.” Ironically, his plea for a reprieve generated a “torrent” of new e-mail.

  In the beginning, this type of e-mailer—the tech-savvy fellow who sent and received a few hundred e-mails a day—was called a “power user,” who took technology and made the most of it. Now every white-collar employee is expected to be one. Not surprisingly, workshops and office coaches will tell you the problem isn’t the technology or even the work ethic—it’s ourselves. We have bad habits; we reply to all; we waste time treating e-mail as if it were an instant message tool, asking open-ended questions—“How are you doing?”— in the middle of the day. Get it together. You can keep up if you try. But is this really possible when most of us have a water cooler inside our computer surrounded by five thousand people, all talking at once?

  In the Western and well-to-do parts of the world, in offices in Dubai and Duluth and Dunkirk, the world’s workers are typing themselves into a corner, ever farther out of touch with people beyond their sphere. Walk down a corridor in many companies, and it is eerily silent. You might think it was Christmas morning. In some places, all you hear is the ambient hum of the central air-conditioning unit, the creak of Aer
on chairs, the cricketlike click of the mouse, and the faint clatter of keystrokes. But if you lean into cubicles or peer between doorways, you will see hunched, tense figures at their computers frantically trying to keep up with their inboxes. Interrupt them, and you will find their expressions glazed, their eyes dried out and weary. Their keyboard has become a messaging conveyor belt—and there is no break time.

  This electronic conversational buzzing has become so loud, it’s easy to forget there are people who are not taking part in it. To e-mail one has to be literate, have access to a machine, and be connected. The world’s netizen population is approaching 2 billion, but this means only one-third of us are taking part in this enormously useful, endlessly irritating tool. Technology, so often assumed to be the cure for the world’s inequalities, has once again simply transplanted them into a new space where English has become the new superlanguage. Africa may be home to 14 percent of the world’s population, but it accounts for just 3 percent of the earth’s Internet users.

  Becoming the Machine

  In 1900, Henry Adams, the grandson of a U.S. president and one of his age’s most observant historians, visited the Paris World’s Fair and had many of his suspicions of the future confirmed. Standing before a Corliss steam engine like the one pictured above, Adams witnessed the demolition of human narrative, of human scale. Powered by dynamos, huffing away without a single human hand touching its controls, the engine was an enormous testament to the will to power of technology. “Between the dynamo in the gallery of machines outside and the engine house outside,” Adams wrote in The Education of Henry Adams, “the break in continuity amounted to abysmal fracture.” In other words, in this one machine Adams saw how energy that originally would have come from human beings had been replaced by something insentient, a thing that would run itself with no input from human hands except in its creation.