This will be a series of blog posts that I am writing to assist me in the work of developing my book. Basically, I want to engage in a critical analysis, as it pertains to my interest in civics and citizenship education, of some of the key scholars in a range of different fields. I will be aiming to describe their arguments, the relevance of those arguments to my work, and any differing points of view related to the work in question.
This section is on Sherry Turkle’s Alone Together
Turkle, S. (2017). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Hachette UK.
I’ve actually come across Sherry Turkle’s work before, in the context of a learning design project about ethical leadership that I undertook for another group within UTS. In particular, I was drawn to her discussion about the importance of solitude and even boredom as being necessary and vital for stimulating creativity. This book by Turkle develops on that them in a much more detailed – and, if I am honest, fascinating manner.
Turkle begins by discussing the lure of technology. She suggests that it offers a solution to our vulnerabilities and concerns. She suggests that technology is often described in terms of care and companionship, and presented as a solution to those issues. Technology she argues, might very well fill these voids we feel in our lives, but it might do so in a way that is either ultimately unsatisfying, or prevents us from benefiting from that void.
Naturally, there is a lot to examine in these claims. Turkle begins by describing the increasing use of robots within society, and comments on whether robots can ever be considered to be truly authentic- whatever authentic means. She comments on the way robots are used as care animals, as toys, and even as sexual companions – but is sceptical about the value of these robots for providing companionship and intimacy, even if they do, apparently, offer comfort. She also engages with the challenging notion of whether robots are new forms of life – and I know that in some cultures, it is possible for robots and other inanimate objects to have a soul. Perhaps, then, our definition of what it means to be alive needs to change? However, I think the most clear point that she makes is that our desire for robotic companionship is not necessarily a reflection on the developing technology that we are presented with (she refers to the Eliza program that gives the simulacrum of counselling and has been around since at least the 1980s), but rather a reflection of our disappointment with the human relationships we are having: that is, we are seeking better relationships with robots and technology, because we are so dissatisfied with our human ones.
Another point that she makes is the way that the internet – and other social networks aided by technology – have promised more control over our relationships. These online connections were originally envisioned as a way to manage or replace face to face interactions, but they quickly became the preference for most to communicate. The crucial factor is that they allow us to engage and disengage with others at will: that is, they fit neatly into our already overworked lifestyle. The example Turkle provides here is Skype – ostensibly an improvement on face to face communication, but in reality a disappointment for many in that it allows us to multi-task – and so we lose that intensity of the face to face connection. In a memorable phrase, she writes, ‘cyber intimacies slide into cybersolitudes’. (p. 16).