The ringing phone adds a need for an urgent decision (to answer the phone or not) and immediate responses during the conversation. A scheduled meeting (or planned phone call) might bring with it nervous anticipation. Traveling to meet someone on their turf can communicate that you are going out of your way for the sake of the relationship.

A general pastoral rule of thumb is that difficult issues can be better resolved face to face, or at least over the phone. Rather than ever-lengthening replies and replies-to-replies, a direct personal mode of communication can be both more irenic and efficient. Irenic, because both parties are reminded of one another’s humanity, and when one hears the other’s tone of voice and sees their facial expression they are a little less likely misunderstand their intentions and goodwill. Efficient, because clarifications and context can be provided straight away, avoiding painful and unnecessary sidetracks.

Social Context

But face-to-face (or voice-to-voice) isn’t always the best way to deal with a difficult matter. For one thing, culture and technology do shape social interactions and expectations. The telephone is a relatively new technology and has since been augmented with text message options, both SMS and instant messaging apps. Giving someone a call isn’t more socially or morally upright than sending a telegraph or a letter—or an SMS or voice memo for that matter. Like all technologies, it has its strengths and weaknesses.

Even the ease and frequency with which we can prioritise face-to-face communication depends on economic independence, health, transport technology and proximity to others.

Possible Escalation

Further, moving a conversation to a more direct and personal mode can, in some contexts, escalate a situation, rather than soothe it. It has the potential to raise anxiety. It might, unwittingly, be perceived as a power move, forcing a more confrontational form of interaction that might even intimidate.

Read More