People often change their use of technology to facilitate their creation of a desired social reality, but could this be creating a false sense of community and connection? The internet as a tool for communications can harvest both positive and negative effects, a significant bulk of technology specialists, examiners, and myself, say it improves social relations and will continue to do so (Pewresearch NP). While others believe we are “tethered” to our personal technology, to extent that we may be physically present but absent emotionally. The medium of the Internet creates an abundance of tools for people to help themselves attain their real-life aspirations, so rather than creating a false sense of “community.” wouldn’t it make more sense that people are thinking and behaving the way they always have, just with different mediums of communication? (Gopnik 41).
This raises the question, “what is a social reality?” “If biological reality, is created by nature, social reality, on the other hand is created by humans through social interaction” and “it involves somewhere along the line a negotiation between speech partners” (Bockting 25). The internet serves as the stepping stone in which people communicate in this day and age, so it holds a vast significance. The penetration of the Internet has virtually established itself in every sphere of social life. From companionship and dating to economic, political, and cultural, from social networking to virtual conferencing, no aspect of life as we knew and understood has lingered unaffected. In this sense , it can be supposed that the Internet is no longer just another tool that people use, but an atmosphere within which people function and live their desired social reality.
“Both robots and the Web will have a profound, and bad, effect on human psychology”, says Sherry Turkle, the Abby Rockefeller Mauze Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at MIT and author of “Always On.” Turkle believes technology will lead to devalued and alienated lives rather than enriched ones. In other words, technology creates a new state of the self, which she calls “tethered and marked absent” (38). People use the Internet and technology as this “new state of the self” and create what Turkle feels are false identities and false communities (37). My view, however, contrary to what Turkle has argued, is that people aren’t necessarily creating a new “self” but rather just applying themselves to the abundance of communication technology, in order to create a desired social life. For example, the Internet erases “geography” as a problem in social relationships, which I personally feel is great, because distance often kills the best of intentions. In other words, the Internet allows people to stay “connected” to an atmosphere that feels comfortable for them, which ultimately creates, in my opinion, stronger relationships and communities.
Turkle goes on to say, "We are witnessing a new form of sociality in which the isolation of our physical bodies does not indicate a lack of connectedness but may be its precondition” and “The connectedness that ‘matters’ is determined by our distance from available communications technology" (39). I can not attest to this because personally, I feel she is forgetting about the people who consciously separate both physical life and what we do or say in a text or email. Throughout my busy weekday schedule, I often find myself yearning to create a desired social life with my friends and family by using the medium of the Internet. In using the Internet, or any form communicational technology for that matter, I’m still fully aware of the “outside world.” Turkle makes an overriding assumption that just because someone uses communication technology, their entrenched in the “isolation” of technology. I fully endorse that people use the Internet to help themselves attain their real-life aspirations, which in my case, is to spend more time with my family and friends. In this sense, I use technology to facilitate the creation of a desired social reality, in order to sustain personal relationships. Ultimately, I don’t think Turkle considers how people often have incompatible schedules, so in order for them to feel connected to their loved ones they use the medium of the Internet.
On one occasion, Turkle encountered a student at MIT, who explained to her how technology made him feel like a new person. The student even when on to admit that he had “become” his device. (Turkle 36). In other words, the student felt he could function a lot better with his device in hand. He goes on to say, “I feel invincible, sociable, better prepared. I am naked without it. With it, I‘m a better person.”(Turkle 36). In this sense, according to Turkle, “we all are cyborgs now;” in which she describes as being “always wirelessly connected to the Internet, always online, free from desks and cables.” The guy she talked to was remarkably insightful, but she fails to recognize that the effects of technology are thin on the ground. By focusing on the amount of time people spend digitally connected, Turkle fails to see Internet life cannot stand on itself without real-life. Research shows that people sooner or later convert their cyber contacts into more traditional face-to-face, the same as I do (PewresearchNP). For instance, I speak to my cousins from Chicago every week, but when I see them every six months or so, we don’t spend time talking about little details since we already discussed those things over the Web. Ultimately, we‘re better prepared, which I would say makes me feel the exact opposite of “naked,“ which ultimately helps us create a closer-knit relationship. In this case, the has Internet helped us build a more concrete and connected relationship, but does not necessarily makes us feel like new people or having “become” our devices.
From personal experience the ease of electronic communication has never lead to
weaker social ties, it’s actually done the opposite. Many people I’ve encountered often feel so “tethered” to technology because it’s a place where they vent out their emotions. Since the primary use of the Internet is communication, some people might reason that the Internet will have positive social consequences in peoples’ everyday lives because it increases the frequency and quality of interpersonal communications among people. Personally, easy access to others makes me feel better connected and more strongly supported by others, which ultimately leads to happiness and commitment in families, organizations, communities, and society in general.
In opposition to Turkle, Alison Gopnik, a professor of psychology at the University of California - Berkeley and the author of “Diagnosing the Digital Revolution: Why It’s So Hard to Tell Whether It’s Really Changing Us” comments, “she can give us an excellent picture of what people think about the effects of technology. The trouble is that it doesn’t tell us what those effects actually are” (41). Gopnik states that people think and behave as they always have, just with different forms of communications. I agree that people are just habitually adapting to their surroundings during the Internet age, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people still believe technology is some bizarre form of indoctrination to a specific template of community and connection. Computers are certainly intriguing and captivating, and the Internet is most assuredly alluring with its research and communicative capacities, but the characteristics and effects of technology are at a standstill and unidentified.
In the end, our society maybe be “tethered” to personal technology, but not to the extent that we may be physically present but absent emotionally. People have behaved as they always have, just with different forms of communication and connections, so people shouldn’t feel utterly alone or absent. Ultimately, as with many things in life, it seems that moderation and steadiness are key to amplifying an element’s positive effects, especially the Internet‘s. The essences of my argument is that moderation is creating a new form of socializing and empathizing with others, but with the same token, still understanding the importance of face-to-face conversations. People use the Internet, to help themselves attain their real-life aspirations and to facilitate their creation of a desired social reality that the tyranny of daily life does not allow.
Works Cited
Bockting, Ineke. “The Literary Character: Between Life and Linguistic Sign.” Character and Personality in the Novels of William Faulkner: A Study in Psychostylistics. Lanham, Maryland: University of America, 1995. 25. Print.
Gopnik, Alison. “Diagnosing the Digital Revolution: Why It’s So Hard To Tell Whether It’s Really Changing Us.” Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical Reading and Writing. Eds. Diana George and John Trimbur. Boston, Pearson, 2012. 35-40. Print.
Turkle, Sherry. “Always On.“ Reading Culture: Contexts for Critical Reading and Writing. Eds. Diana George and John Trimbur. Boston, Pearson, 2012. 35-40. Print
No comments:
Post a Comment