"We
don't need to reject or disparage technology. We need to put it in its
place.” -Sherry Turkle
In her book Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each
Other, Dr. Sherry Turkle explores the dynamics of human relationships with
technology in the 21st century.
Outlining the basic paradox that technological devices which claim to
foster connection, in fact precondition disconnection. Disconnection takes many forms – isolation,
misunderstandings, withdrawal, loneliness, an altered sense of reality, loss of
social skills, a decreased comfort with vulnerability, and a stripping away of
intimacy.
Interestingly,
when she began doing research in 1984 in the areas of human interaction with
technology, Dr. Turkle's first couple of books were considered ‘pro-computer.’ In her studies of the dynamics of
participating in virtual-life online culture, she argued that online and
technological performance allowed for connection and identity development in
unprecedented ways. Since then, Turkle’s
attitude has clearly changed: while her writing still carries an undercurrent
of appreciation for the marvels and potential benefits of technology, her main
thesis serves primarily to warn of its dangers from a social perspective.
The format of Alone Together is binary and case-by-case. The first half of the book focuses on the
topic of the psychology of human interaction with robotic devices ranging from
toys to nursing aides to sex dolls. The
second half of the book explores the complex psychology behind human
interaction within the realm of digital connection – the Internet, social
networking platforms, cell phones, and texting.
Throughout the book, Turkle’s style remains consistent as she presents
layer upon layer of qualitative research in the form of interview snippets and
analysis and anecdotal case studies.
Though she is a social studies scholar, her writing is not the work of a
statistician; it is the work of a social psychologist, and poignant interviews rather
than bars and charts and graphs comprise the compelling content of her
arguments.
The first part of the book, on the
topic of human-and-robot interaction, examines the dynamics of expectations
that emerge when humans interact with robotic devices. Turkle especially probes the grey area of how
humans – especially children interacting with their seemingly innocuous robotic
playthings – become caught in a conflicted perspective as they question how
much “humanity” actually lies in their robots.
The case studies Turkle presents prove how artificial intelligence is
eerily capable of manipulating humans into a state of empathy for an inanimate
object. This concept comes across as
sinister through Turkle’s analysis, because she argues that at the same time
that the robots invite empathy, they also offer an escape route from messier
human realities like intimacy, unpredictability, and responsibility to
others. Particularly in the case of
robotic toys, Turkle points out the disconnection from others and loss of
compassion and imagination that children experienced only after days or weeks
with their technological companions.
Essentially, Turkle’s main argument for this part of the book is that
interaction with robots should not be taken at face value since it has an
underlying danger. Dependence on
robotics, at any level, is insidious because it is risk free, and once a person
becomes accustomed to avoiding riskiness, a vital aspect of human experience is
stripped away. While robotic
companionship is “safe”, it is also a “closed world” that yields less meaning
and fulfillment than human-to-human relationships.
Shifting into a different realm
but maintaining the same analytical intent, Dr. Turkle spends the second half
of her book examining the psychology of human interaction with digitally
connected technology – namely, the Internet, texting and instant messaging, and
social networking and virtual life. She
uses interviews from all age groups but focuses primarily on those conducted
with youth and teenagers. Several
patterns of dynamics emerge through the course of these case studies. Some of these include:
-the idea of online performance and promoting an ideal, edited self (social networking, Facebook, MySpace, Second Life)
-the slow sapping of capacity or desire to initiate personal, face-to-face interaction or even voice-t0-voice conversation (texting, instant messaging, e-mail)
-the spread of a culture of inauthenticity, distraction, feeling “tethered” to the responsibility of 24-hour devices, and a fear of unpredictable, flawed, risky, vulnerable communication without the veneer of premeditation, control, and noncommitment
-coping with the consequences and ultimate shortcomings of “efficiency” when we maintain the illusion of friendships and relationships without embracing their real-time, complicated, inconvenient demands
-the cheapening of experience through the culture of “sharing;” media and texts communicate states of being, not the nuanced complexity of human feeling; believing the lie of “I share, therefore I am”
-an inability to cope with solitude or non-digitalized self-reflection/self-awareness
-the issue of generational exacerbation: both parents and children opt out of being present or authentic, giving too much attention to the demands of their devices and online image; these patterns become a vicious cycle of substituting technology for humanity
-the idea of online performance and promoting an ideal, edited self (social networking, Facebook, MySpace, Second Life)
-the slow sapping of capacity or desire to initiate personal, face-to-face interaction or even voice-t0-voice conversation (texting, instant messaging, e-mail)
-the spread of a culture of inauthenticity, distraction, feeling “tethered” to the responsibility of 24-hour devices, and a fear of unpredictable, flawed, risky, vulnerable communication without the veneer of premeditation, control, and noncommitment
-coping with the consequences and ultimate shortcomings of “efficiency” when we maintain the illusion of friendships and relationships without embracing their real-time, complicated, inconvenient demands
-the cheapening of experience through the culture of “sharing;” media and texts communicate states of being, not the nuanced complexity of human feeling; believing the lie of “I share, therefore I am”
-an inability to cope with solitude or non-digitalized self-reflection/self-awareness
-the issue of generational exacerbation: both parents and children opt out of being present or authentic, giving too much attention to the demands of their devices and online image; these patterns become a vicious cycle of substituting technology for humanity
Reviews of this book acknowledge its
extensiveness – Turkle’s qualitative source material is broad and detailed, and
undeniably supports her theses – yet many of the reviewers are averse to her
tone, which they believe is superior, whiny, and condescending. After writing this book, she came to be known
to some as a “techno-phobe” because of her disparaging views of the negative
effects of technology. I agree that her style is a bit condescending, generalizing, and brusque at times. However, I think
she counter-argues the techno-phobe accusation quite adequately in the book itself when, in
her conclusion, she points out a striking pattern in the story of
human-and-technology interaction: as technology evolves, each new stage invites
us into a state of idealism, and this very idealism can blind us to the dangers of
the very technology we treasure. Turkle
never denies that technology has its benefits; many of her interviewees seem to
have almost a smitten, lover’s view of the Internet and their multi-purpose
connective devices, and she does not negate this. She doesn’t deny that technology can be
capable of somewhat assuaging select deep, universal fears like loneliness or
confusion. What she does argue is that
this same beneficial connectivity can simultaneously disrupt other life-sustaining
human experiences – experiences like vulnerability, risk, and complexity.
Dr. Turkle’s ultimate argument is
not one of disparagement; she doesn’t want to rip down technology and remove it
from our lives. Rather, she advocates
that we remove our rose-colored glasses in the way we view and approach
technology use in our daily lives. She
stresses the importance of preserving distinctions between technological worlds
and real-time, humanly interactive worlds.
The time for idealism has passed; now, she writes, “we have to love
technology enough to describe it honestly and accurately, and we have to love
ourselves enough to confront technology’s true effects on us… The realtechnik of connectivity culture is
about possibilities and fulfillment, but it is also about the problems and
dislocations of the tethered self.
Technology helps us to manage life’s stresses, but it also can create,
exacerbate, or falsify them.”
In the end, Dr. Turkle’s title
perhaps says it best: the relationship
between humans and technology is absolutely fickle. Technology makes no demands while making many; it makes us feel connected while
isolating us from one another; it allows us the security of control and
emotional safety but removes us from situations that give fulfillment, complex
understanding, and growth. It’s time to
wake up, stop trusting technology too much, and garner some self-control and
discretion in how, when, and why we use it.
It’s time to reverse the dangerous pattern: we should expect less from technology and more from each other.
