Turkle Do Not Believe Everything

¶ … Turkle

Do Not Believe Everything We Read

Things would be so easy if there was a solution to every problem. If for every reason there was some sort of affliction, there could be a logically traceable cause that could be easily remedied in as easy a fashion as possible. Many people would agree with this statement, and many more actually believe that technology is a cure-all for just about any ailment or affliction in contemporary society. This concept can be readily demonstrated in both Sherry Turkle's essay "Alone Together," as well as in Lauren Slater's essay entitled "Who Hold's The Clicker." In the former essay, the author explores a number of situations in which people are reliant upon technology to the exclusion of conventional emotions and ways of fulfilling them. Many of the examples of this tendency in people involve robots. In the latter essay, the author details situations in which people rely on the artificial insertion of chips in their brain to regulate emotional and physical responses. The "need" and result of this procedure is largely demonstrated by a man named Mario. The underlying motif that can be found in both of these respective works is that if there is a problem, the easy solution is to turn, somehow, to a technological application and press a button so that (fairly) instantly, the situation could go away. But what the people depicted in these works fail to realize is that life does not work that way. Nothing exists that can be assured of, or guaranteed, in any of our lifetimes. Therefore when people are offered technological innovations to provide a much needed sense of security and comfort, they are in fact merely alienating and isolating themselves from the full complexity of human nature -- while simultaneously making themselves into something less than human.

Several problems can be found in the underlying concept of Slater's text, in which she rather impartially advocates surgical implants into people's brains for a cure of a variety of problems from mental illness to a lack of creativity. Yet what will actually occur if people begin to take up such a procedure in massive quantities is that they will merely transfer the power and will of their own lives from one human -- themselves -- to another -- conceivably the doctor who is performing and regulating the transplants. And similar to the way that human nature was at fault in the original patient and something went wrong that required some sort of solution, the same thing will inevitably happen (at some point or another) with the doctors holding the power. The following quotation is indicative of this fact. "By the late 1960's, implants appealed to those in the medical and the law enforcement communities who believed that urban riots were born not out of poverty or oppression but of "violent tendencies" that could be monitored or altered" (236). The transfer of the burden of the human flaw from a person who feels subjugated by it to a technological innovation that is supposed to "correct" it can be found in Turkle's work as well, as the following quotation makes readily apparent. "Anne… confided that she would trade in her boyfriend "for a sophisticated Japanese robot" if the robot would produce what she called "caring behavior." She told me that she relied on a "feeling of civility in the house" (268). In both of these quotations, the people seeking the technological solutions are both at fault. Anne wants a relationship that can be manipulated and controlled by her so that it can be turned on and off at her whim to induce her feeling of "civility." Similarly, the law enforcement and medical professionals want to be able to regulate the behavior of others by magically controlling their violent tendencies. Life, however, does not occur that way. No matter how much civility we rely upon, there will always be moments of a lack of civility (typically during full moons, we might add). In Slater's quotation, the manipulating of other people's wills to subordinate their tendencies will not correct the racist and oppressive policies that were implemented in the U.S. throughout the 60's and that caused violent reactions. Similarly, Anne probably has some mannerisms or ways that are not conducive to civility with her boyfriend. By seeking technological solutions, neither of the people in these quotations is actually correcting the problems that probably lie with them (within Anne and certainly within 1960's law enforcement).

This same tendency, to produce some sort of answer that stems from a particular symptom and not the root cause of an underlying problem, has been endemic to both the United States of America in many of its social and political practices, as well as to several of its citizens who live within this county. This proclivity can be observed in Mario as well, the young man in Slater's article who has such a problem with OCD that Mario feels the need to cut open his brain and implant some sort of technological chip to help regulate it. Still, upon reading further about the young man and his history, one cannot help but sense there is more to the story, which the following quotation definitely supports. "On a Monday morning in early February 2001, as Mario woke up next to his pregnant wife, neurosurgeons at Rhode Island Hospital were suiting up for his operation" (238). Similarly, there can be found numerous instances in Turkle's text in which the story proffered by the author, or perhaps by the people who are telling her such facts, seems to be lacking vital information that can explain why someone would rather turn to a piece of technology as opposed to a living, breathing person for emotional stability, as the following quotation about a lady named Miriam suggests. "Miriam's son has recently broken off his relationship with her. He has a job and family on the West Coast, and when he visits, he and his mother quarrel -- he feels she wants more from him than he can give" (270). In both Miriam and Mario's case, there appears to be something missing from the story. Several healthy, intelligent, good looking people exist who are 36 or older who are not married, and who are not able to have (or who do not have) children, and who would go to extreme circumstances to be able to do so. Whatever OCD affliction that is bothering Mario, it is not preventing him from having a degree of fulfillment in his life with a mate and child that many people would consider the very definition of success. Also, in Miriam's case, her son is saying that she wants too much of him -- who is to say her son is not right? If Miriam would rather get a robot than relent in her ways to some degree so that her son would not feel his mother is so demanding, perhaps Miriam is too demanding and simply wants things to go her way when it suits her -- which is an allusion to control that plagued the people mentioned in the examples in the first supporting paragraph. Similarly, it seems that if Mario is able to have a successful relationship with a woman and baby, then his OCD is not that bad and the 36-year-old is dealing with it in okay circumstances. For all the reader knows, Mario could probably deal with it better if his time was not being devoted to seeking alternative therapies that do not address the root cause of his problem. In both of these cases, the reader is left feeling that these people could do more for their circumstances that they are, and that by opting out for a technical solution they are not fixing whatever is causing them difficulties in their lives. By not choosing to deal with those difficulties other than using a technological substitute, they are inherently losing out on some aspect of being human.