Our current cultural age has earned many monikers depending on the pet issue one wishes to highlight. The ‘trump’ syllable has been added to every -ist and -ism this side of the Atlantic. The Digital Age. The Age of Social Media. The Plastic Age. One moniker I found that struck a chord with an issue I care for: David Brooks’ Golden Age of Bailing. David Brooks is a NYT columnist who is probably forever branded ridiculous in the cultural zeitgeist by his silly breakdown of gender politics the other week. In the not-so-ridiculous category of his assertions was this awareness that the Age of Smartphones has made it far too easy to be non committal. This is some pretty common sense. In 1970 you couldn’t just call from the car or send an instant telegram to that dinner party you were supposed to arrive at in an hour. It is a lot easier and more convenient than it once was to call off plans at the last moment. I don’t think the circumstance of this convenience is as dire as Mr. Brooks makes it out to be; that’s probably what makes him a true conservative and me decidedly not. The more troubling aspect of this issue, to me, is something I’ve come to learn is colloquially known as ‘ghosting’.

To ghost someone is to bail on a rendezvous or cease communication without any statement of cause. One could think of it as a prolonged digital cold shoulder. It seems to be the ultimate avoidance of even the potential of discomfort or conflict. My heart tells me that this is the behaviour that should be socially unacceptable. It also seems, like it’s a more prevalent social practice in the post 2000 era. Complete social rejection has always been a part of socializing as a whole since time immemorial, but its function seems to have morphed into something banal in the 21st Century. One can find examples of it in stories or drama, but almost always in the function of a weapon used to harm. It seems to have eroded into something that equates to more of a shrug.

“Why didn’t you tell me you couldn’t make it?” “I ‘unno”

Somehow we, as the social media society, have collectively decided it's no longer faux pas to be a flake. Flaking is one thing, but to flake without any communication is cruel to the person you made the plans with or were having the conversation with. Some people clearly fully realize that “ghosting” is a weapon and do it with the intention to be cruel and to hurt someone else’s feelings. I’ve known of far too many instances where this was how one romantic partner decided to end the relationship, just to add insult to injury. You’re not even worth breaking up with. I suppose I’m not really against that; if your goal is to be cruel, and you use this tool, then you clearly have an aptitude for cruelty. More power to you! Maybe it’s what the situation called for! Many valid scenarios spring to mind!(Mostly involving abusive relationships)

What I want to call your worry’s attention to is what I want to call casual ghosting. This is where one ghosts out of pure fecklessness. The don’t-care-enough-to-move-the-thumbs ghosting. This is the truly unacceptable behavior, because neither party’s goals or emotional well being are perpetuated. The person on the other end waiting for some acknowledgement or signal goes through all the same pains, distress, and suffering that a victim of a deliberate ghost would. But the causal ghoster also suffers needless consequences. They burn a bridge. They start a new conflict. They earn a reputation for being a no-show. Etc. Etc. No good comes of this. If there’s a lesson to be learned here: it’s best to be direct with your intentions and save the crueler tactics for when you intend to put on your black robes and spiky helmet.

(Brace yourselves for more spew when I work up the nerve to figure out how the hell subtweeting works.)