Sherry Turkle The Flight from Conversation

Instructor's Notes

  • The “Make Connections” activity can be used as a discussion board prompt by clicking on “Add to This Unit,” selecting “Create New,” choosing “Discussion Board,” and then pasting the “Make Connections” activity into the text box.
  • The basic features (“Analyze and Write”) activities following this reading, as well as an autograded multiple-choice quiz, a summary activity with a sample summary as feedback, and a synthesis activity for this reading, can be assigned by clicking on the “Browse Resources for the Unit” button or navigating to the “Resources” panel.
image
Pat Greenhouse/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

SHERRY TURKLE is the Abby Rockefeller Mauzé Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the founder and director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self. In addition to being a professor, Turkle is also a licensed clinical psychologist. Her recent books include Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (2011) and Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age (2015). In addition to book chapters and articles for scholarly publications, Turkle addresses popular audiences in such venues as TED.com, Scientific American, Wired, and The New York Times, where this selection was originally published.

As you read, consider these questions:

359

1

W e live in a technological universe in which we are always communicating. And yet we have sacrificed conversation for mere connection. At home, families sit together, texting and reading e-mail. At work executives text during board meetings. We text (and shop and go on Facebook) during classes and when we’re on dates. My students tell me about an important new skill: it involves maintaining eye contact with someone while you text someone else; it’s hard, but it can be done. Over the past 15 years, I’ve studied technologies of mobile connection and talked to hundreds of people of all ages and circumstances about their plugged-in lives. I’ve learned that the little devices most of us carry around are so powerful that they change not only what we do, but also who we are.

2

We’ve become accustomed to a new way of being “alone together.” Technology-enabled, we are able to be with one another, and also elsewhere, connected to wherever we want to be. We want to customize our lives. We want to move in and out of where we are because the thing we value most is control over where we focus our attention. . . . To some this seems like a good idea, but we can end up hiding from one another, even as we are constantly connected to one another. A businessman laments that he no longer has colleagues at work. He doesn’t stop by to talk; he doesn’t call. He says that he doesn’t want to interrupt them. He says they’re “too busy on their e-mail.” But then he pauses and corrects himself. “I’m not telling the truth. I’m the one who doesn’t want to be interrupted. I think I should. But I’d rather just do things on my BlackBerry.” A 16-year-old boy who relies on texting for almost everything says almost wistfully, “Someday, someday, but certainly not now, I’d like to learn how to have a conversation.” In today’s workplace, young people who have grown up fearing conversation show up on the job wearing earphones. Walking through a college library or the campus of a high-tech start-up, one sees the same thing: we are together, but each of us is in our own bubble, furiously connected to keyboards and tiny touch screens. A senior partner at a Boston law firm describes a scene in his office. Young associates lay out their suite of technologies: laptops, iPods and multiple phones. And then they put their earphones on. “Big ones. Like pilots. They turn their desks into cockpits.” With the young lawyers in their cockpits, the office is quiet, a quiet that does not ask to be broken.

3

In the silence of connection, people are comforted by being in touch with a lot of people — carefully kept at bay. We can’t get enough of one another if we can use technology to keep one another at distances we can control: not too close, not too far, just right. I think of it as a Goldilocks effect. Texting and e-mail and posting let us present the self we want to be. This means we can edit. And if we wish to, we can delete. Or retouch: the voice, the flesh, the face, the body. Not too much, not too little — just right. Human relationships are rich; they’re messy and demanding. We have learned the habit of cleaning them up with technology. And the move from conversation to connection is part of this. But it’s a process in which we shortchange ourselves.

4

Worse, it seems that over time we stop caring; we forget that there is a difference. We are tempted to think that our little “sips” of online connection add up to a big gulp of real conversation. But they don’t. E-mail, Twitter, Facebook, all of these have their places — in politics, commerce, romance and friendship. But no matter how valuable, they do not substitute for conversation. Connecting in sips may work for gathering discrete bits of information or for saying, “I am thinking about you.” Or even for saying, “I love you.” But connecting in sips doesn’t work as well when it comes to understanding and knowing one another. In conversation we tend to one another. (The word itself is kinetic; it’s derived from words that mean to move, together.) We can attend to tone and nuance. In conversation, we are called upon to see things from another’s point of view.

5

Face-to-face conversation unfolds slowly. It teaches patience. When we communicate on our digital devices, we learn different habits. As we ramp up the volume and velocity of online connections, we start to expect faster answers. To get these, we ask one another simpler questions; we dumb down our communications, even on the most important matters. It is as though we have all put ourselves on cable news. Shakespeare might have said, “We are consum’d with that which we were nourish’d by.” And we use conversation with others to learn to converse with ourselves. So our flight from conversation can mean diminished chances to learn skills of self-reflection. These days, social media continually asks us what’s “on our mind,” but we have little motivation to say something truly self-reflective. Self-reflection in conversation requires trust. It’s hard to do anything with 3,000 Facebook friends except connect.

360

6

As we get used to being shortchanged on conversation and to getting by with less, we seem almost willing to dispense with people altogether. Serious people muse about the future of computer programs as psychiatrists. A high school sophomore confides to me that he wishes he could talk to an artificial intelligence program instead of his dad about dating; he says the A.I. would have so much more in its database. Indeed, many people tell me they hope that as Siri, the digital assistant on Apple’s iPhone, becomes more advanced, “she” will be more and more like a best friend — one who will listen when others won’t.

We . . . seem increasingly drawn to technologies that provide the illusion of companionship without the demands of relationship.

7

During the years I have spent researching people and their relationships with technology, I have often heard the sentiment “No one is listening to me.” I believe this feeling helps explain why it is so appealing to have a Facebook page or a Twitter feed — each provides so many automatic listeners. And it helps explain why — against all reason — so many of us are willing to talk to machines that seem to care about us. Researchers around the world are busy inventing sociable robots, designed to be companions to the elderly, to children, to all of us.

8

One of the most haunting experiences during my research came when I brought one of these robots, designed in the shape of a baby seal, to an elder-care facility, and an older woman began to talk to it about the loss of her child. The robot seemed to be looking into her eyes. It seemed to be following the conversation. The woman was comforted. And so many people found this amazing. Like the sophomore who wants advice about dating from artificial intelligence and those who look forward to computer psychiatry, this enthusiasm speaks to how much we have confused conversation with connection and collectively seem to have embraced a new kind of delusion that accepts the simulation of compassion as sufficient unto the day. And why would we want to talk about love and loss with a machine that has no experience of the arc of human life? Have we so lost confidence that we will be there for one another?

9

We expect more from technology and less from one another and seem increasingly drawn to technologies that provide the illusion of companionship without the demands of relationship. Always-on/always-on-you devices provide three powerful fantasies: that we will always be heard; that we can put our attention wherever we want it to be; and that we never have to be alone. Indeed our new devices have turned being alone into a problem that can be solved.

10

When people are alone, even for a few moments, they fidget and reach for a device. Here connection works like a symptom, not a cure, and our constant, reflexive impulse to connect shapes a new way of being. Think of it as “I share, therefore I am.” We use technology to define ourselves by sharing our thoughts and feelings as we’re having them. We used to think, “I have a feeling; I want to make a call.” Now our impulse is, “I want to have a feeling; I need to send a text.” So, in order to feel more, and to feel more like ourselves, we connect. But in our rush to connect, we flee from solitude, our ability to be separate and gather ourselves. Lacking the capacity for solitude, we turn to other people but don’t experience them as they are. It is as though we use them, need them as spare parts to support our increasingly fragile selves. We think constant connection will make us feel less lonely. The opposite is true. If we are unable to be alone, we are far more likely to be lonely. If we don’t teach our children to be alone, they will know only how to be lonely.

11

I am a partisan for conversation. To make room for it, I see some first, deliberate steps. At home, we can create sacred spaces: the kitchen, the dining room. We can make our cars “device-free zones.” We can demonstrate the value of conversation to our children. And we can do the same thing at work. There we are so busy communicating that we often don’t have time to talk to one another about what really matters. Employees asked for casual Fridays; perhaps managers should introduce conversational Thursdays. Most of all, we need to remember — in between texts and e-mails and Facebook posts — to listen to one another, even to the boring bits, because it is often in unedited moments, moments in which we hesitate and stutter and go silent, that we reveal ourselves to one another.

[REFLECT]

Make connections: Evaluating social media.

361

Turkle is writing a cultural critique, which is a specialized form of evaluation focusing on contemporary culture. Her essay addresses the way technologically mediated communication has affected how we relate to one another and how we think of ourselves.

Reflect on your own observations and experiences with social media, virtual communities, and other ways of being plugged in. Your instructor may ask you to post your thoughts on a class discussion board or to discuss them with other students in class. Use these questions to get started:

[ANALYZE]

Use the basic features.

A WELL-PRESENTED SUBJECT: IDENTIFYING THE SUBJECT

To identify a film or television series, reviewers simply rely on the subject’s name, usually announced in the review’s title and opening paragraph and then repeated throughout the review, as you have seen in “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World: A Hell of a Ride” and “The Aristocrats: The Graphic Arts of Game of Thrones.” For other subjects, a key term may perform the same function as a film title. For example, Gladwell uses the key term ranking in his title and throughout “What College Rankings Really Tell Us.

ANALYZE & WRITE

Write a paragraph analyzing how Turkle presents her subject in “The Flight from Conversation”:

  1. Skim the article, highlighting the term conversation in the essay’s title and elsewhere in the evaluation.

  2. Now skim paragraphs 4 and 5. How does Turkle modify conversation to clarify what she means by this term?

  3. Analyze the way Turkle defines conversation in contrast with “mere connection.” How well does this contrast, along with the examples Turkle offers, help readers to understand her subject? How well do Turkle’s examples fit your own experience and observation?

362

A WELL-SUPPORTED JUDGMENT: PROVIDING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

The support a reviewer uses depends on what is being evaluated. Film reviews typically give examples to illustrate and support their argument. Akana, for instance, narrates plot elements: “Gideon, in response to the challenge, asks Pilgrim if he is fighting for Ramona, which leads to a climactic epiphany for Pilgrim as he realizes his true motive” (par. 8); he describes important scenes and illustrates them with screen shots: “Another scene presents a bass battle between Pilgrim and one of the evil exes in the format of PlayStation’s popular Guitar Hero (see fig. 2)” (par. 4); and he quotes authorities from other reviews and interviews: “The film ends, as director Edgar Wright explained in an interview. . . .” (par. 9). In addition to these strategies, evaluations can draw on a broad array of support, including comparison and contrast, analysis of causes and effects, and anecdotal evidence.

ANALYZE & WRITE

Write a paragraph or two analyzing how Turkle supports her argument in “The Flight from Conversation”:

  1. Examine how Turkle uses comparison and contrast to discuss the differences between conversation and connection in paragraphs 3–5, for example. How are they different? What characteristics or qualities, if anything, do they share? How does Turkle use comparison and contrast to support her judgment about the lost art of conversation?

  2. Skim the essay, noting where Turkle describes the effects of the shift from conversation to online connection. Are all the effects negative or are some of them positive? Which effects seem most important to Turkle? Why? How does she use cause-effect to support her argument?

AN EFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS AND ALTERNATIVE JUDGMENTS: APPEALING TO SHARED VALUES

Values, of course, play a defining role in evaluation. What people value determines the criteria they apply when making evaluative judgments as well as how they respond to their audience’s objections and alternative judgments. To convince their audience that their judgment is sound, writers of evaluations usually appeal to values shared with most, if not all, of their readers. For example, Gladwell tries to convince his audience to accept his judgment of the U.S. News college ranking system because it does not share with most Americans the values of “accessibility and affordability” (par. 14). Similarly, in conceding the validity of criticism of Game of Thrones’s pornographic and sadistic sexuality, Nussbaum shows her audience that she shares their values.

ANALYZE & WRITE

Write a paragraph analyzing and evaluating how Turkle appeals to values she likely shares with her audience in “The Flight from Conversation”:

  1. Skim the essay, noting where Turkle refers to values. How does she let her readers know whether the values she’s referring to are ones that are commonly shared?

  2. How would you describe Turkle’s tone? For example, does she come across as concerned, condescending, respectful, rigid, nostalgic, or something else? Illustrate with a quotation. How would her tone likely have affected her original New York Times audience? How did it affect you?

363

A CLEAR, LOGICAL ORGANIZATION: CREATING COHERENCE

Repeating key terms can be a powerful tool for creating coherence — especially when the terms are introduced early to forecast the main topics and repeated in topic sentences. Another powerful tool is the use of transitions (such as although, nevertheless, since, therefore, and of course), sometimes in combination with a demonstrative pronoun (this, that, these, those) and a key term or summary to remind readers of the preceding paragraph’s main point before introducing the new paragraph’s topic:

Demonstrative pronoun

Key term(s)

There’s something missing from that list of variables, of course: it doesn’t include price. (Gladwell, par. 9)

Transition

Viewed in another light, however, these sex scenes aren’t always so gratuitous. (Nussbaum, par. 8)

ANALYZE & WRITE

Write a paragraph analyzing and evaluating how Turkle creates coherence in “The Flight from Conversation”:

  1. Track one key term through Turkle’s essay. How does the repetition of this term (or variations on it) help the reader follow Turkle’s evaluation argument?

  2. Notice that paragraph 6 introduces a new topic. What is the topic and how does it relate to what went before? What strategy does Turkle use to make the transition from paragraph 5 to paragraph 6? Is it effective? Why or why not?

[RESPOND]

Consider possible topics: Evaluating a technology-related subject.

List several technology-related subjects you could evaluate. For example, you could review a wearable technology product (like the Apple Watch or Google Glass), an app, or a new smartphone or tablet. Alternatively, you could evaluate a controversial issue related to technology such as Net neutrality (the proposal by communications companies to offer tiered service, so companies like Netflix could stream at a faster rate than average consumers), the use of body cameras by the police, or the collection of cell phone records by the National Security Agency (NSA).