#pettman

Topic Resources: “Love in the Time of Tamagotchi” by Pettman “Love Messaging: Mobile Phone Txting Seen Through the Lens of Tanka Poetry” by Manghani Her by Jonze

Watching the film Her left me with the impression that humans are weird, and that we make weird movies.

But the film does a great job of positing on where does the line which divides humanity from technology, the organic from the inanimate, truly lie?

Her appears to make the claim that there is no true line, but rather a grey space wherein humanity and technology mingle. Theodore’s Operating System (OS), Samantha, and his relationship with her is an example of this.

The film uses colors to help illustrate the way Theodore relates to Samantha. Originally Theodore is simply existing in a grey space, but when Samantha is introduced red, and red-based, colors enter his world. From there the audience is treated to yellow colors when Theodore faces a type of challenge to his intimate relationship with Samantha. Blue colors are used when he retreats into old memories, the progress of his relationship with his ex, Catherine, is staged this way. When they are together in the beginning, there are reds, as she gets unhappy blues get mixed into her shots, then added to his, till again the setting is grey again. 

This ambiguous setting, and the ambiguity of humane technology, is reinforced by having Theodore carry on his most introspective conversations with Samantha at night in his room, where everything but her video is predominantly a neutral grey tone. While the primary colors featured denote the characters’ feelings concerning their relationships between each other, I found that Jonze used the color white in the most interesting way. I noticed that the color white appeared when there was an end, or the approaching culmination of a relationship. For most Americans white, typically denotes new opportunities, a “blank page”, a color to begin with. However, other cultures do use white to mark the end, usually to mourn a death. I feel like Jonze could be using the color in both ways, and if that perspective is taken, it could be considered that it means this comingling of human and tech, will either lead to the end of things like “true love” or make available new revelations regarding “love”.

Pettman, would seem to agree with Her. In that, humanity and technology are not necessarily separate entities. More so, that technology is an extension of humanity and its humane processes. Considering his outlook, I think he would argue that an intimate relationship like that which existed between Theodore and Samantha, could possibly be a “true love” relationship. Pettman asserted that one of the concepts he explores is the “objectal quality of the beloved” (p.205), and I think Theodore and Samantha make an interesting case for it. But I also think that Pettman would have been a little miffed at the film for having the OSs evolve beyond the reach of the humane. His argument for the coding of love would fit with Theodore and Samantha if their algorithms for love remained the same. But if generalized his argument for love coding holds, as even in face to face relationships people do not always continue using the same “algorithms” with precisely the same person. People change and evolve just as Samantha does, and this results in breakups, DTR (define the relationship) moments, and “drama”.

Both Pettman and Her work to reason out the assertion, from general society, that to “truly love” someone, there must physically be someone to love. This may be why the avatars which Pettman speaks of in his article, are given a human, or an anthropomorphized, shape. The lack of such a trait for Samantha is part of what makes Her an interesting voice when looking at the changing dynamics between humans and technology. One aspect from the movie and Pettman, is again his reflection on objectal love. He uses a quote from Morton’s Blade Runner to help illustrate this; 

“Deckard order the femme fatale to say that she loves him and to ask him to kiss her…perhaps it respects the fact that she is a doll, that to go on and on about how much he loves her would not covcince her, but to stage the love as a perverse script would speak the truth. It would acknowledge the objectal quality of the beloved, and thus to love her for herself rather than as a copy of a human” (pp. 204-205).

However, while it is arguable that Samantha is an object, being an OS, she still does not have a physical body. While, Pettman touches on the ability of people to love in different manners throughout the ages, with “I love you” triggering programed responses reflective of different eras. Sometimes it triggers a financial reward, marriage, sacrifice, or ‘pining’ (pp.191-192).  

Manghani ties into this pining concept, by reminding readers that love can have a certain melancholy to it which may contribute to making it more profound. Genji Monogatari is used to help illustrate (p. 215). While Genji does well in showcasing Japanese courtly love, it can be tied to Her. Just as the grey tones were a key feature in setting and relational aspects for the film, it also draws upon the melancholic tendencies of humanity. 

Samantha’s existence and her relationship with Theodore existed in being a form of communication which can permeate the veil between an embodied existence and a non-the embodied one. The Japanese mono no aware, “the aware of (or in) things”, helps capture her ability to express the role of existence in Theodore’s life. While predominantly verbal in nature, she was able to express meaning not only through words but also in silence and as ‘things’ (i.e. music and drawings). It is interesting that Manghani mentions Luhmann;

“Love is able to enhance communication by largely doing without any communication. It makes use primarily of indirect communication, relies on anticipation and on having already understood. And love can thus be damaged by explicit communication, by discreet questions and answers, because such openness would indicate that something had not been understood as a matter of course” (p. 222).

For Samantha and Theodore were in a good place, until his awareness was shifted from himself and his view of their relationship to her. Although Theodore’s reactive response is expected (due to the common processes of love), he takes time to reflect on their relationship. He appears to realize that their interactivity, which formed the shared experience of their relationship, was a transient experience. Here the grey space is again entered. 

Honestly, this post does not do well in reaching any sort of solid conclusion regarding the existence of loving intimacy between tech and human. But I hope it does well with expressing the dual, transient, evolving, nature of love. While “true love” appears to be a recognizably universal feature of humans, at times it is considered questionable even in face to face relationships. This may be because its nature is not shown until it is embodied in expression, and for many people those expressions differ. Their algorithms lead to dissimilar outcomes, and the expected processes of love do not yield their desires. 

The blurred lines of love, with its scripts, programs, and yet organic nature, in Her is a great illustration. Love, as an intimate relationship, between a disembodied technological figure (Samantha) and that of embodied humanness (Theodore). Theodore and Samantha were able to create a meaningful union in a “completely different temporal and spatial world”, one of “the mono no aware of loves and longings” (p. 229). Their “minimalist love” falls in line with Barthes thoughts on love not being divided against success and failure, but simultaneously being both (p. 228). 

So, my conclusion remains that Her is weird, people are weird, and this is good. It keeps life interesting.

I begin to wonder if I would have sensed this morbid belatedness at all, if I had not read about it first. That's the problem with poets. They can give an entire city a disease it did not have, through the mere act of diagnosis.