#turkle

Turkle

McMurphy: Candy, codename: Been There Done That.

McMurphy: Harding is Currently Doing That.

McMurphy: Cheswick is It Happened Once in a Dream.

McMurphy: Turkle, codename: If I Had to Pick an Aide.

McMurphy: And Billy is... Eagle Two.

Billy: Oh, thank god.

***

Social media has enabled, even encouraged smartphone users to be “always on” (boyd, 2012), which has fundamentally altered the way we relate to one another, how we use language, as well as our basic sense of selves. Many people (myself included) experience nomophobia, the “fear of being unable to use one’s mobile device” (Arpaci et al. 2017). The definition goes on to include the “affordances these devices provide”, suggesting that it’s not just not having a phone that’s responsible for the anxiety we experience; it’s what we can do with the phone that we don’t like being without. Personally, I like to be able to find answers to questions I have as soon as I wonder about something. I’ll forget the answer almost immediately, but it’s nice to have the knowledge for 10 minutes or so!

Sherry Turkle speaks about receiving a text as like “getting a hug”. I absolutely agree with her. When I moved to the country, being connected to my friends back in Melbourne via SMS and social media was like carrying them around in my pocket. I could include them in my life through Snapchat, see what they were up to on Instagram. Turkle then goes on to make the point that we want control over how we appear through texting and posting, which struck a chord with me. The amount of time I’ve wasted poring over a post, both for uni discussions and social media engagement, is ridiculous. I’ll overthink what I’m saying and how it’s written, trying to perfect it. And I often bail on posting at all because I can’t get it right. In a classroom or a real life social situation, I’d just make a fool of myself and move on. Turkle goes on to point out that “we use conversations with each other to learn how to have conversations with ourselves”. Applying this to my situation is a perfect way to demonstrate that my social skills won’t get any better without practicing.

Siapera’s statements about individuals being able to join a virtual community “to meet like-minded people” rings very true. In my case it was like-gutted people, because when I was diagnosed with Coeliac disease, it was a Facebook group where I learned everything: available resources, not-so-well-known unsafe food practices to look out for, safe places to eat, recipes for foods I can’t eat anymore, and short and long term side effects. Then there was the support on the page – people who knew what I was going through were (and are) so supportive and understanding. Therefore, I cannot agree with Putnam’s statement of technology, that “the result (of technology) is a society that is not much more than a collection of individuals, meeting and socializing occasionally… Who do not share any strong bonds or any sense of common purpose.” My argument would be that strong bonds can be found anywhere in society, whether a common purpose is present or not. We’re social animals, after all.

Comments welcome! Thanks for reading :)

REFERENCES

Arpaci, I, Baloğlu, M, Özteke Kozan, H & Kesici, Ş 2017, "Individual Differences in the Relationship Between Attachment and Nomophobia Among College Students: The Mediating Role of Mindfulness", Journal of Medical Internet Research, vol. 19, no. 12, p. e404, viewed 3 December, 2018, <https://www.jmir.org/2017/12/e404/#ref28>.

boyd, D 2012, 'Participating in the always-on lifestyle', in M Mandiberg (ed) The Social Media Reader, NYU Press, pp. 71-76.

Siapera, E 2012, 'Socialities and Social Media', in Understanding New Media, Sage, London, pp. 191-208.

Turkle argues that sociable robots reduce the meaning of relationships and confines us to a world that is closed off. This is true to an extent. The book also showcases people who are genuinely lonely and have no other means of forming the relationships we yearn for. For example, seven-year-old Brooke reveals that “at home she feels ignored, in the shadow of her eleven-year-old sister Andrea...” (88). She further explains that no one talks or listens to her. Cog, the robot, fills that emptiness. In this situation, Brooke is not in a closed world. Rather, she is being open to a superficial connection, which is better than the lack of connection she had before. 

The instance also shows how robots can profit off loneliness. Our interactions with them reveal a deeper issue of isolation, family dynamics, and the individual mindset mainstream American culture adopts.