This weekend, Gothamist, The Verge, Gawker — and numerous other sites — had a blast mocking a Newt Gingrich video, in which he solicits help finding a new name for our cellphones.
If you haven’t seen the video, here it is:
In fairness, Gingrich opened himself up to the mockery by not referencing the term, “smart phone.” Had he done so, he would have undermined the notion that he was unfamiliar with it.
But getting past that childish “gotcha” play, Gingrich does makes some valid points. For example, calling it a smart phone still implies the device is primarily a phone.
But is it?
Not really. For me, at least, the phone function isn’t even a primary use. I utilize the camera, email, Twitter app, music, etc., much more than I ever talk on the phone. Calling it a phone (preceded by the word, “smart,” “cell,” “i” — or whatever) belies its true purpose.
Yet, we still do it. Why?
Probably because cell phones came first, and then we started adding bells and whistles. As Newt notes, our language often hearkens to the past. Just as we once called automobiles ‘horseless carriages,’ clinging to the “phone” paradigm is a similarly understandable, if inaccurate, choice of words in the 21st century.
It takes a while for language to catch up with reality.
Back to the mockery: It is regrettable that complex, nuanced ideas become such easy fodder for snarky and the simplistic critics. This is why politicians stick to boring talking points.