Concern 1: Technology is damaging our relationships

 

Turkle begins her concern about the potential of technology to damage relationships by using an example of parents picking up their children at school to explain a sentiment among children that they feel like they have to compete with technology for their parents’ attention. This is an example of the perils in transferring from multi-tasking to multi-lifing or the “lifemix”. In addition to distracting from face-to-face interaction, communication technologies have also given us the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship. They have given us the ability to keep people at a distance, in amounts that we can control - connection made to measure - she says that we can titrate the nature and extent of our human contact, i.e. we are able to hide from each other even as we are connected to each other - we would rather text than talk.

 

Concern 2: It is changing our social environment

 

A key element of our changing social environment is our “culture of distraction” illustrated by the previous example. Turkle uses the example of the “phantom limb” to help illustrate further.

Connected with this is our ability to “bail out” of the physical world into the digital (virtual). For some the cultural change is not simply a distraction from life, but is acting as a substitute for the “other kind” of life (face-to-face, verbal, physical, personal). A third aspect of this concern is that we have become too busy communicating to think, to create, to really connect to the people we’re with in the ways that would really count - if we are in continual contact, we’re alone together. Because of these dynamics we are losing our capacity for the kind of solitude that energizes and restores.

 

Concern 3: Technology makes us feel helpless

 

Technology taps into our human vulnerabilities. Specifically, that we wish to not be alone. Technologies (communication) offer us the opportunity to connect with others. Ideally, technologies are an individual's’ place of hope, newness, and where loneliness can be defeated. Helplessness occurs as we are unable to fulfill our obligations in the  emerging social environment and satiate our loneliness. Additionally, the use of the term “addiction” in terms of how people relate to their technologies continues to fuel this sense of helpless, hopeless passivity. This is because if a person is truly addicted, the only solution is to get rid of that substance, which seems impossible, since technology is so heavily embedded in our culture.

 

Concern 4: We need to rethink how we use technology

 

Because the internet continues to mature we have the ability to rethink about our relationship with it so it best serves our human purposes. Turkle uses examples of how we need to rethink our relationship with technology including how workers seek to limit their electronic fingerprint or ask questions that might reveal potential mistakes or inabilities. In addition, she explores how we tend to to use social networking to perform an ideal self; because of this, we cut ourselves off from the kinds of conversations that will help us. Similarly, we don’t share “bad news” on Facebook or other social networking sites because it doesn’t seem like the right place. Subsequently, we must restart this conversation - instead of casual fridays, we should ask for conversational thursdays. Reclaiming conversation: that’s the next frontier.

 

______________________________________________________________________________

How Legitimate are Turkle’s Concerns: A Dialogue

 

Claim 1: Technology is damaging our relationships

 

Sarah: There is certainly evidence that our use of technology can damage our relationships. Examples: the mom in The Guild (children competing for attention with technology), Anthony Weiner’s sexting scandals (and other people using technology for “lifemix” where they can be a different person online than they are in person, sometimes used for affairs, pedophilia, etc.), various statistics showing that many people (especially young people) prefer to text rather than to talk, and will often text even when they are with other people.

         However, even now technology doesn’t have to be used to keep people at a distance - skype or email is often used to stay in touch with family/friends that are far away. Additionally, Turkle seems to be privileging oral communication over written - while there might be some validity to this in terms of creating and sustaining authentic relationships, at times using written communication is the best way to maintain ties - exchanging texts or emails allows for asynchronous communication, enabling people with busy schedules separated by distance to maintain at least a modicum of intimacy.

 

Erin: I agree that she seems to be privileging oral communication. That seems like an important point to bring up in the post.

 

Ashley: I think another way to look at what Turkle is doing is that she sees written communication as "overcrowding" or "crowding out", to use Shirky's terms, oral communication; this is under the assumption that oral communication is normally performed "real time" or in-person. We've read material that suggests that performing phatic communication essentially only (and just barely) keeps social ties close, and that we typically use pathic communication in the digital. So, I would challenge you, Sarah, in thinking about how valuable or fulfilling written communication is when it isn't attached to a pair of eyes or a mouth or a face. Or in other words, I would question whether or not written communication, apart from the physical presence--or maybe materiality such as a handwritten letter--is "intimate."

         On another note, I see this technology damaging our relationships in person because we are trying to juggle looser relationships with a larger number of people than ever before; there is only so much time in the day, right? I think a similar logic lies in several conversations I've had, and still have, with friends: Would you prefer to have 1/2 very close best friends? or Would you prefer to have a lot of acquaintances? That being said, it I think it depends, at least to some degree, on how you define relationships.

 

Erin: I’m also not certain about the idea of written communication not being valuable when it’s not attached to a physical presence. How are you defining valuable? Also, I don’t feel comfortable saying that everyone is juggling looser relationships with larger numbers of people. I don’t want to speak only from my personal experience, but I feel confident saying that I don’t have this problem.

 

Ashley: Erin, I think that I meant valuable in terms of highly productive or intimate, to bring in that term again, building on relationships rather than maintaining them. The very idea of phatic communication is that it simply maintains relationships. Also, the idea that we juggle looser relationships with people is a product of networks instead of communities, as suggested by the same author whose name I couldn't remember above, and presence in the digital. I will also concede that I have a bias on this particular issue.

 

Erin: Yes, I agree that phatic communication, which does take place online (but also takes place in face-to-face interactions) is a way of maintaining rather than building relationships. I see how you're getting this claim from Miller.

 

Sarah: To contribute to this conversation, I hope I wasn’t implying that written communication is the same as oral communication in terms of maintaining close bonds; I think that it’s one of the reasons why long distance relationships can be so difficult. However, I guess I was just thinking of say my parents and siblings who, in all likelihood, will remain long-distance relationships for a large portion of my life. For them, I don’t really have too much of an option, since it is difficult with living in different time zones to always coordinate phone/skype conversations, so we increasingly rely on written communication. Without this, it would be much more difficult for me to stay emotionally and mentally close to my family. While I would prefer to see my family in person, emails/texts/facebook messages are the next best thing. All of that to say, I think that written communication isn’t just a means for keeping people at a distance, as Turkle sometimes seems to imply. That might be why some people prefer it, but some people use it because it is their best option for maintaining bonds.

 

Claim 2: It is changing our social environment

 

Sarah: It is increasingly common to live in a “culture of distraction,” where the TV is always on, music is always playing, the phone is always at hand (frequently buzzing with new messages), and the internet browser is always open. With this kind of culture, it would logically be more difficult to find time to just sit and think about things, or to have deep, genuine friendships.

         However, this only seems to be a trend in our culture, not a universal reality. Many people actively resist succumbing to this culture of distraction by eating dinner at the table as a family, investing in deep friendships, choosing to not pay for broadcast television or data plans for their phones, etc. Essentially, people can select when, where, and how much they want to engage in all that technology has to offer.

 

Erin: Yes, I agree with this. Yancey herself made this point toward the beginning of the semester. As a parent, it’s your decision whether or not to buy your kids or cellphone or allow them to use technology at the table, etc. It’s also your decision to choose the phone over your kid, or your partner, or your “real-life” friends.

 

Ashley: I would disagree that this is a trend in just our culture. As Shirky points out in Cognitive Surplus, we aren't even the most connected place. Seoul is. We aren't the only beasts to be affected by the charms and dashing looks of technology. Also, the number of people who choose to "resist succumbing" are probably fewer than we'd like to hope.

 

Erin: I think the major point to take away from this is that the ubiquity of technology is not universal, even within the US. It depends on access and resources that not everyone has.

 

Ashley: This is true.

 

Sarah: Yes, I wasn’t making a statement about American culture in particular (versus the rest of the world), I was just stating that it is a trend, meaning that there are people who don’t follow the trend (either as a conscious decision or because of lack of access, as Erin points out).

 

David: Both of you are correct, but even though there are groups of individuals who resist certain aspects of our emerging digital culture they must continue to engage with it in the workplace and within their personal lives. One could say that they are resisting certain aspects of our digital culture because they are becoming the norm. A personal example but I think it would fit many different types of relationships is from when my wife and I got our first smartphones, Blackberries actually. Blackberries with their bbm feature allowed for what seemed instant access to another person, even though structurally it is not much different from a SMS. For the first few months of having them there was an expectation from my wife that I should be answering her bbms as soon as she sends them. Why? because I technically could, even if I was at work. After some of the luster wore off and I calmly explained to her that I needed to do work instead of 15 min bbm conversations her expectations of immediate communication subsided. We can still find this today when people get impatient if someone hasn’t texted them back after a few minutes. We can see this scenario replicating itself in a number of private and professional settings. The level of connectivity between individuals has created new social norms.

 

Claim 3: Technology makes us feel helpless

 

Sarah: I think this is true because people compulsively check their phone, feel compelled to spend hours playing Farmville or browsing the internet, some gamers have died while playing video games because they didn’t take enough time to rest. Turkle argues that we’re not going to get rid of the internet or other recent technologies, and therefore we need to stop discussing our relationships to these digital technologies in terms of addiction, since this just fuels a sense of hopelessness. I mostly agree with this - most people are not compelled by or addicted to their technologies - they just need to rethink how they use them, and set specific goals/guidelines in place so that they can balance their use of these technologies with other aspects of their lives. However, I think that there are some people who are literally addicted to technologies (or at the least have a very difficult time exercising self-control in this area), i.e. some gamers, people who watch hours upon hours of TV, those who can’t go fifteen minutes without checking their phone, etc.

 

David: Going back to Turkle’s point about technology contributing to a feeling of helplessness. Technology is supposed to make our lives more efficient, effective and allow for opportunity. If we can not fulfill these expectations, whether professionally or privately, we have failed. I would agree that communication technologies can contribute to a feeling of hopelessness if the individual places a premium on the fulfilling the expectations of others whether it is their level of productivity to the maintenance of private social networks. Of all her points, I think this one is driven by how we as individuals and our personalities react to the affordances and social expectations that communication technologies bring about. There’s a concept in organizational communication, requisite connectivity, that reflect this societal change that Turkle is describing and that can create a sense of helplessness. In order to fulfill our professional and personal expectations we must strive for requisite connectivity, “the state of having robust and reliable communication and/or transportation media/modes, with operable alternative work-around options, so that contact may be initiated or maintained at the rate, richness and intensity that we desire for a given task or social outcome” (Kolb, Collins and Lind, 2008).

 

Claim 4: We need to rethink how we use technology

 

Sarah: I agree with Turkle that we need to reconsider some aspects of our relationship to technology, particularly in how we use it to distract ourselves from deep thinking, from face to face, conversationally based relationships, and our narratives of addiction or helplessness. However, I think that at times she overemphasizes the dangers in how we are currently using technology, and largely ignores the beneficial aspects that new technologies make available to us. I also think that she doesn’t address the fact that some people already are taking different approaches to technology, and that some of the things she is calling for are already happening on an individual basis.

 

Erin: I agree with this. I do think that she overemphasizes the negatives without fully considering the benefits of technology and the kinds of communication it has enabled. Thanks to Skype, I can “hang out” with my friends who live thousands of miles away, and while that’s not necessarily the same as physically sitting with them, it definitely beats texting or email. I also agree that she doesn’t seem to consider the fact that technology use falls along a continuum. Not everyone sleeps with their cellphone or lives with their iPad attached to one hand.

 

Other Thoughts

 

Erin: The only thing I would add, and I think it’s mentioned in your notes as well, Sarah, is that I’m not completely persuaded by her statement that we’re too busy to think, create, and connect. Maybe Turkle is looking for “creation” or “thought” in an outdated sense. Many creative things are happening on the web all the time--new genres of music, text, and film are constantly cropping up, and these likely wouldn’t have been possible without technology and our uses of it. So perhaps rather than saying that we’re not thinking or creating, we should say that our processes of thinking and creating have changed, just as they always have when new technologies are introduced. Also, it's likely that our definitions of thinking and creating (and communicating) have changed, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

Ashley: Great point.

 

Sarah: I agree with Ashley that this is a great point, Erin.