What a wonderful talk by Sherry Turkle, yesterday evening—not to mention the informed and animated introduction by Douglas Rushkoff.
Because there was not time to put the question to her, I will put it to you. Is the “device” (social media), the cause or the effect? Or, to put it another way, why at this point in time are social media so seductive? Or, again, would the curtailing of the use of social media solve the problem of being alone together? Is it simply a rational decision to put the device down?
My question was prompted by the anecdote about the harried woman who asked a panel whether it was acceptable to tell the personnel at Trader Joe’s that she did not want to chit-chat so that she could conduct her e-mailing/texting/phone calls. Most of us of course, would wonder what Dear Abby (or daughter of Dear. Abby) was thinking when she counseled that of course the woman had the prerogative of telling the salaried employee to be quiet so that she could attend to her electronic contacts.
What I had thought significant was that the harried woman mentioned Trader Joe’s specifically, not simply the grocery store. Trader Joe’s is a terrific place to shop, with its unusual variety of goods and its Southwest Airlines edginess. And though
I don’t want to be an apologist for Dear Abby, for I don’t think she was thinking along these lines, I know that I have never been to any Trader Joe’s in any city when the cashier has not been extraordinarily gregarious. The predictability has made me think that this was not coincidence: that either the workers were coached/required to be interactive or else highly selective hiring
criteria were set in place. After a while I began to sense a bit of phoniness in the interaction: there was not a concern or interest for me as a person; rather, the interpersonal interaction seemed to be a strategic marketing ploy, the simulation of human interaction that was less sincere or meaningful that an electronic connection might be. It was not the same as dealing with the independent corner grocer who might be talkative one day but taciturn or even rude another—that is, more real. This sense of the commodification of the customer for economic gain might be simply the imagination of a curmudgeon. But if the customer suspects that the human need for personal interaction is being exploited for profit, one could better understand a retreat into an electronic world. Is this manipulation of the human drive for personal interaction a marketing ploy in contemporary America? What other forces are operating here?
In other words, is the “device” a symptom of more complex social issues? Does the mindset produce the result, or does the “result” produce the mindset? Probably both? Other than education/persuasion or perhaps regulation, what changes in society are needed
to prompt people to give their fingers a rest and to engage in interpersonal conversation that is enriching intellectually, psychologically, and/or emotionally? Would the elimination of social media solve the problem or simply redirect it?
Again, in my opinion, the Turkle talk was insightful, on target. It is encouraging to hear people like her and Rushkoff claim the irreducibility of human consciousness to digitization, as Walter Ong as long argued.
Thomas Zlatic
Blog de Octavio Islas 