A Point of View: Why I don't tweet

Woman uses smartphone by World Trade Center, New York

Smartphone-loving Adam Gopnik is no technophobe. But there's something stopping him from joining the social media revolution.

"I do not twitter, and yet there are thousands who wait for me to tweet." That sentence, which would have been a spoken symptom of madness, a crazy man's sentence, a few short years ago, is now a simple form of confession. Well, it is a form of insanity, I suppose, but of a different kind.

I'm sure you understood what I meant - that, while I have a Twitter account, I almost never use it. I'm not sure why I don't. Partly because there seems something embarrassing, self-advertising about it. Partly because I just don't have the habit. My 14-year-old daughter not only sends tweets. She speaks tweets. If I say, for instance, that I never Google myself, she replies: "Hashtag: Obvyliesdadtells." Yet I have many Twitter followers - only because everyone even marginally "public" does. And I leave them unsatisfied, untweeted.

Find out more

Adam Gopnik
  • A Point of View is usually broadcast on Fridays on Radio 4 at 20:50 GMT and repeated Sundays, 08:50 GMT
  • Adam Gopnik writes for The New Yorker but has only ever sent nine tweets

Nonetheless, I'm not convinced that never tweeting is actually very different from tweeting all the time. I am, you see, neither an optimist nor a pessimist about social media, neither an enthusiast nor a Luddite. I am what might be called a steady state technologist. Everyone insists that the technological transformation of the daily shape of our lives by new gadgets is enormous, while allowing that their emotional effect is more dubious, leaving us with emptier, or at best, unaltered souls. I think the truth is closer to the direct reverse. The emotional effect of new devices is overwhelming - they are like having new pets, new children, trailing with them an overwhelming attachment. But the transformational effect they have on our lives is actually, looked at squarely and without sentiment, quite minimal. After the introduction of a new device, or social media, our lives are exactly where they were before, save for the new thing or service, which we now cannot live without.

I couldn't live without my computer, for instance. The idea of going back to a typewriter - a thing with keys that clack and an inky ribbon that jumps - is impossible to imagine. But my professional writing life is neatly divided between the typewriting era and the word-processing era, and I was exactly as productive when I was banging keys and struggling with correcting fluid as I am now that it's all instant cut-and-paste and spell-check. The most productive writers who ever lived preceded even the typewriter. Would Dickens or Balzac have written an extra line without it? How could they? They had no time. They made our industry seem like torpor, our era's idea of energy look like stasis. To describe my relationship to my laptop I need the language of affection - I need it, I depend on it, I'm attached to it, I would be bereft without it - more than the language of real necessity. I couldn't do my work without it? Well, I could. I did.

Charles Dickens Charles Dickens at his desk: Not a laptop in sight

Start Quote

Like so much modern media technology, [the smartphone] creates a dependency without ever actually addressing a need”

End Quote

And, while I merely like my computer, I love my smartphone. I clutch my phone tight to myself, I hold it in my hand like a talisman - a feeling of panic overcomes me when in a strange city I find I have mislaid it, or that I forgot to bring its charger. But though it has altered the shape of my days and hours, has it really altered the life those days add up to and achieve? No - less than a decade ago I had no smartphone at all, and nothing was significantly different in my life... except for the possession of my phone. I never felt particularly remote from my family. I seemed to get all the email I need. The distribution not just of happiness and sadness in my life, but of all the smaller domestic emotions that small domestic devices are presumably there to assist, existed in exactly the same amounts. I talked to my wife as often, I worried about my kids as much, I was in the same amount of contact, or not, with my friends. It is not merely that I got along fine before I had it, but that I got along in exactly the same way - in precisely the same spirit in days that were shaped along exactly the same lines - save for the fact that I was not, then, consulting my smartphone every five minutes. Like so much modern media technology, it creates a dependency without ever actually addressing a need.

Hand holding mobile phone

Which has us circling back to Twitter, and its discontents. Twitter, spitting out its brief public messages, is given credit for making revolutions - and certainly, throughout the Arab Spring and the Ukrainian and Iranian near-Springs the instant news shared by its tweets raced around the crowds and helped order its actions. But in truth, every popular social revolution since at least the French one has followed (I think) the same pattern - a government weakened by war or financial crisis or both meets popular resistance, which for the first time takes in members of the elite and the masses. They find a meeting space - it could be Tahrir Square or a French real tennis court - and occupy it. Then, in the crucial moment, the army, called on to disperse the mob, identifies with the cause and refuses. The government is forced to surrender. Then, time after time, the best organised of the militant minorities takes over - and then, in 18th Century France or 21st Century Egypt, there is a contest to see if the militant minority can dominate the army or if the army will destroy the militant minority. Whether texted and twittered or papered and pamphleted, the shape of revolution is about the same.

Protester with Egyptian flag by "twitter" graffiti, Tahrir Square 2011 Protesters in Cairo's Tahrir Square, 2011

I have, indeed, a larger theory - that while information technology gets all the glamour (mostly because writers use it) all the really great revolutions in modern times have involved transportation more than information. I happened to be reading a letter by the great 19th Century English wit Sydney Smith the other day, where he talks about the transformations of his time. All involve transportation - hansom cabs, steam boats, above all the train: "It took me nine hours to go from Taunton to Bath before the invention of railroads, and I now go in six hours from Taunton to London!" The only other technology he mentions is… the umbrella.

It's true. That I can travel from New York to London overnight really has changed my life. In principle, at least, I can go to interview an artist or rescue a stranded teenager in six hours. That I can send an instant message to London should change my life, but when I review the old and new, the amount seems about the same as it has always been. The speed of human bodies travelling changes, but once the secular miracle of speed-of-light communication was achieved more than a century and a half ago by the telegraph, each advance since has been, so to speak, essentially an advance in envelopes.

Telegraph receiver, 1860 A telegraph receiver, 1860

Why, then, do we love our smartphones and Twitter apps so much? Because we want to be lovers of our time. The urge to belong to our age is more powerful than the need to use our time efficiently. My kids use text-messaging at every moment. It's painstaking, time-consuming, finger-jamming and ultimately inefficient. "You'd resolve this in a second if you phoned her," I say. But they fear something much worse than being inefficient. They fear being traitors to their time, renegades to their generation.

More from the Magazine

Martin's typewriter

Gordon Martin, UN Correspondent for Vatican Radio, is writing his latest dispatch on a 40-year-old Remington Performer manual typewriter.

In the age of social media and digital diplomacy, Gordon Martin is a resolutely analogue journalist.

"I don't have a mobile telephone," he tells me with a slight hint of pride. "I don't understand a lot of modern gadgetry and I think sometimes gadgets get in the way of clear use of the English language."

Why I don't tweet

That it is our desire to be in our time that moves us, is evidenced by a curious block, a kind of pre-emptive amnesia, that all of us share. The one thing about the future that we know for certain - absolutely for sure - is that whatever seems most thrillingly modern now will look most poignantly comic in the future to come. Hashtags and twitter feeds will say "2014" as much as the cranks on cars say, maybe, 1906, or fax machines the 1990s. We know that we will laugh nostalgically when someone in a distant movie set in our era tweets, and acts as though it matters, as we laugh now at the microwave ovens in American Hustle. Knowing that the future will laugh at us, we still cannot take part now in the laughter without being alienated from our age, and that is a sad thing to be. The people from earlier ages who were alienated from theirs - those Luddites and holdouts - get our sympathy but rarely our affection. We love the early adopters (the old, late early adopters I mean) because we see our own selves in their enthusiasm, they mirror our necessary naivete.

So: I shall arise now, and twitter for almost the first time. I will enjoy the brief romance of relevance. Thousands, perhaps, will follow. I have in mind to tweet these simple words: Nothing is real.

Follow @BBCNewsMagazine on Twitter and on Facebook

Here is a selection of your comments.

There are two points I would like to make about this point of view. First, if using a computer rather than a type writer doesn't result in an increased output, you're not using the computer to its full potential. The ability to cut and paste content from several drafts should save a considerable amount of time alone. The second is a more personal point. Social networks have made several dramatic changes to society. If, like me, you are housebound, it provides a much needed line of communication with the wider world. We should also consider the number of relationships that now start online. People who would have never previously met, can now get to know each other through a shared interest in a way that is quite different from what has gone before.

Mark Bowyer, Banbury, UK

I've been a 'techie' since 1976 and I agree new technology doesn't necessarily change our living habits. It makes communicating easier or simpler. That's the line I draw. Twitter, Facebook, and all the technosocio habits we're creating in the next generation focus on socializing remotely. That's not the biggest concern I have. All the time and energy used in techie socializing is time taken away from face-to-face time in work, family , friends, etc. Our advancement as a society seems to be stuck on a 'safe' one-upmanship game instead of using our technology for the betterment of our world's societies.

Computerguy56, Cedar Rapids, US

I have worked in tech support and live in front of 2 PCs at home and another at work, where I swipe my digital ID badge to get in the door, and interface with the federal government mainframe in Ottawa, 3500 miles away. I thought the idea of techno-stasis spot-on: I have a smart phone, but its principal function is playing MP3 music files. I do sometimes decry the decline of civilization when I ride the bus with a silent crowd of tappers and swipers, illuminated in the warm glow of their precious tethers to what mates had for breakfast and pictures of Nanas and puppies, but then I'm right there too I suppose, comfortably cut off from contact by the omnipresent white earbuds. Change itself is inevitable, and just like the CompuServes and Lotus 123s, all things must pass. Take heart, you're not alone. Put another way, hashtag let'sgooutsideandplay.

Ian Johnston, Edmonton, Canada

I have never tweeted, and don't intend to learn to tweet. Never believe that one can and should express oneself properly with only 140 characters. Communication is a form of social etiquette, and it should be done properly. I still prefer to talk to people face-to-face, or send out e-mails with my messages properly written out. Old-school? Sure, but where communication with another human being is concerned, effectiveness and courtesy must be taken into consideration.

Kim Tan, San Francisco

I'm in my early thirties and can very much identify with this article. I work in tech, and wrote software for smartphones years before the iPhone and Android existed. But I never got too excited about social media, mainly because it felt like a great way of getting less done. (The same reason I don't play online multiplayer computer games, in fact.) I use tech every day; I appreciate tech for the ways it has made my life easier. I even work on making new cool bits of tech occasionally. But the easier communication becomes, the less thought seems to go into it. The signal-to-noise ratio goes through the roof and the amount of time spent filtering through the dross... well, it's time you could spend doing something more productive. As for comparing communication speeds to travel speeds - the travel budget is always the first to get cut when business is going badly, but in every project I've worked on that spans multiple countries, at the end of the project it is meeting the rest of the team face-to-face that comes out as one of the most useful things that were "done right".

Tom S , London

I also refuse to tweet. Why? I think there's a danger in an instant response to events - of getting carried away in the heat of the moment. There are times when you need to think things out before telling the world about your latest thoughts. Remember the peer who was falsely accused of being a child molester by tweeters? Instant reactions are often wrong and damage innocent people. You need a sense of caution - a sense of danger. Tweeting has removed that.

Roger George Clark, UK

Adam doesn't get Twitter because he follows less than a hundred people. This is typical of celebrity writers. They expect to talk and everyone else will listen. Twitter is about listening to other people - rude, witty strangers - and riffing off what they tweet. If you're trying to walk across the top of Twitter instead of immersing yourself, you'll never leave the shore.

Ashley Zacharias, Ottawa, Canada

Just as I was starting to think there was something wrong with me along comes someone who is speaking my language! I can't be doing with all this time consuming technology. It impinges on my ability to do the job I am really employed to do and just to make my life even more complicated, my employer has done me the 'favour' of making it possible to access my work desktop from home via my iPhone/PC/tablet , the expectation being that I might just want to link up to the work's system when I should be enjoying some down time! I can now find them on Facebook/twitter and goodness knows what else, not to mention texting, which I abhor for its habit forming tendency to make everyone who uses it sound as if they are stoned. I get my own back whenever I am called upon to use text by writing all my messages in long hand. As for tweeting - never! I'm far too busy getting on with my life to enter into conversation with complete strangers.

Patricia Green, Sheffield

More on This Story

Features & Analysis

Elsewhere on the BBC

Programmes

  • A map of social media interactionsClick Watch

    Twitter's map of the Middle East conflict – how the two sides react to each other on social media

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.