Is the art of conversation dying?

I see the term ‘conversation’ as a broad concept with thought-provoking implications.

‘Conversation’ can be termed as ‘communication’, such as the communication between
friends, the communication between neighbours, family members, world leaders, bosses
and organisations… However, I see conversing with someone being slightly different to
communicating with someone. A conversation holds a deeper, more provocative meaning. A
conversation holds a sentimental, more personal value to those who are a part of the
conversation, whether it’s between two people or a group of people. Even so, you cannot
converse without communicating. In an age of technological triumphs in the last few
decades with the easy access of telephones and smartphones around the world as well as
the internet, surpassing the need to communicate face-to-face with people, the question
arises as to whether conversation, and all the intimate connections with it, is dying.
The subject can be confronted in either direction. For example, some people would suggest
that technology has prevented the ability for people to converse authentically and lazily use
online chatting systems to converse instead of conversing face-to-face, whereas others
would argue that technology has aided the ability to converse in occasions where face-to-
face conversations are impossible, such as long-distance and international communications,
and still hold just as much emotional value.
I agree with both statements. With the endless and easily accessible websites and apps such
as Facebook, WhatsApp, and others, people all over the world are now connected to one-
another and would not be without these programmes. Conversation has in a way adapted in
this century, with people making the best use of the technology available to them and as a
result friends and relatives who are thousands of miles apart can still stay in touch. So, the
quantity of conversations happening across the world these days is without a doubt way
more than what it was several decades ago. Now the question arises as to whether the
quality of conversations is still high and hold value to the conversers. This depends on the
people who are having the conversation, but in hindsight yes, they do hold value. Long-
distance loved ones will bring emotional value to a conversation naturally and the only
difference being that they are not talking in person. Just because people can’t see each
other doesn’t mean they can’t express affection.
But what about when people have gotten so used to talking through smartphones and
webcams that they don’t have the same experience when talking in person? Has the art of
conversation in this case died? That people avoid talking in person when they can and feel
social anxiety and prefer to talk through a screen instead?
To me, if the conversation still holds sentimental value to the people involved then the ‘art’
of conversation hasn’t died, it’s just simply evolved. But human interaction comes in many
forms and if people can’t speak to one-another face-to-face during social gatherings and
avoid conversing then perhaps there is a problem in today’s society. Perhaps the art of
conversation has evolved but through sacrifice of what it truly means to converse – to
interact and share soul and mind, to express and take in other people’s emotions, to feel
empathy – to feel what simply cannot be felt through a phone app. If we can’t converse as
humans then conversation as an art can lose its true value.