Conversation in the Digital Age
Originally written while an undergraduate student at the University of California, Santa Cruz
The rapid development and manifestation of digital media technologies in modern society have fundamentally affected social practices. From social media platforms to the rapid digitalization of knowledge, disruptive technologies introduce behavioral changes, the consequences of which are under academic scrutiny. Sherry Turkle, a famous MIT psychologist and sociologist studying human relationships with technology(1) believes that the practice of conversation concerning “talk” is endangered by the technologically influenced socio-informatic structures of the digital age. Turkle employs philosopher Henry Thoreau’s symbolic guiding principle of three chairs representing divisions of societal institutions of self, relationships, and society(2) in an adapted format to chronicle the effects of technology on subsets within each context. Within each institution, Turkle develops the argument that a specification of conversation as a practice of communication, community, and connectivity is lost by the prevalence of new technologically deterministic behaviors. Specifically, in the context of one chair for self, Turkle uses targeted examples to define that emotionally reliant principles of solitude, empathy, and self-reflection are at risk. Thereby Turkle reasons for postmodernist conversation as a cognitive separation from technology and related problem-solving capabilities. While there are merits to Turkle’s findings and representation of technology-induced socio-behavioral change, her rhetoric employs inconsistent discourse theory and relies heavily on a definition of conversation that is irrespective of the evolution of human connectivity in response to changing contexts.
The concepts of conversation, discourse, and connectivity are inextricably linked throughout the history of technological and social change. In both instances, an alteration of characteristic components of established institutions precipitates a paradigm shift in the perceived status quo. Regarding social change, interactions and relationships transform meaning within macro-systems over time.(3) The etymology of the term conversation exemplifies this process. Based on the Latin roots of together and turn,(4) and gaining a variety of context-dependent verbal, and existential(5) meanings of discourse and connectivity, Turkle employs conversation as a conceptual signifier of “talk” and parallel emotional connection that is open-ended, spontaneous, incongruous, and most importantly immediate and intimate.(6) By broadly defining conversation by context-dependent terms, Turkle’s call for reclamation infers the loss of a condition of the past and becomes a powerful argumentative device. By exploring various “chairs,” Turkle explores contexts of connectivity, exhibiting anecdotal evidence, naturalistic observation, and original research methods as proving perceived change. Notably, Turkle’s exploration of the first chair of self is bounded by the definitions of solitude and self-reflection with respect to emotional conditions. Using methods such as psychoanalytic therapy, while renouncing psychoanalysis,(7) Turkle promotes a focus on perceived meaning above scientific methodology. Additionally, meaning is abstract in the sense of subjective significance(8) disambiguated by context-specific intention and extension(9) exemplified by Turkle’s chairs and scopes of conversation. Interestingly, the first chair precipitates further chairs with the claim that “reclaiming conversation begins with reclaiming our capacity for solitude”(10) and that solitude rewards the self-reflection for conversation with oneself, which is essential for conversation with others.(11) These arguments expand the meaning of conversation beyond talk and into the space of contextual communication cognizance. When conversation becomes equitable to meaningful connectivity, the disunity among mediums of communication is embraced, and the perception of change is magnified.
When conversation as an ideology of communicating meaning is fractured among different social institutions yet instigated by the actions of individuals, the measurable impact is represented more by context than digital technology. Notably, Thoreau’s observational framework of three chairs was joined by the notion of obscurity around society in that “we often parted without being aware that we had come very near to one another,”(12) asserting how the movements of people were accompanied by inscrutability(13) in intent and temporality. The depth and breadth of Thoreau’s own body of work communicate the existentialist capacity of the human condition. Similarly, Erving Goffman’s famous research in the “Presentation of Self in Everyday Life” asserted a dramaturgical perspective wherein people act on a social stage to project a self-image to the benefit of themselves and audiences.(14) Where each individual is the actor and audience on reflexive social stages,(15) digital media technologies have dramatically increased the capacity for creating and sustaining a near-infinite array of social stages. By enabling an unparalleled coexistence in society(16) the pursuit of existential security in the digital age, defined by media philosopher and phenomenologist Amanda Lagerkvist, is characterized by a pursuit of “any sense of cohesion, meaning direction, purpose, ethics, grounding, continuity, and community.”(17) Interestingly, the components of existential security in the digital age are reminiscent of the specifications defined in Turkle’s definition of conversation. Though, digital mediums provide a different reflexive social stage since the scope of actors and audiences are integrated globally, temporally, and across a variety of technical mediums, each with their contexts of use. Therefore, Turkle and Thoreau’s three chairs are only partially representative of the modern digital media ecology, which has become an extension of the individual and societal pursuit of existential security. Instead, the division between self and social relationships is better characterized by Sartre’s phenomenological ontology of in-itself (en-soi), the for-itself (pour-soi), roughly the nonconscious and consciousness respectively, and a third, the for-others (pour-autrui).(18) By dividing the intent of self, unknown self, and others, Satre’s structure has capacity for the nonconscious individual and societal processes that Turkle’s limited empirical data and largely interpretive approach is not able to represent. Therefore, the pursuit of meaning with digital technologies is concentrated on the individual's existential pursuit, alluded to by Turkle’s explorations of solitude and self-reflection. Though, the reflexive nature of individuals’ actions using digital mediums has magnified the capability for a variety of social stages to be present. Thereby users of digital mediums seek to escape from one social stage for another wherein each further defines the individual's perception of self, transcending Turkle’s specified chairs since each chair factors into an individual's actions and perception of self, regardless of a certain technology.
As Turkle constructs her argument that digital media technologies have changed the paradigm of meaningful connectivity, she exhibits various claims that support the idea of technologically induced risk for society. Building on the presumption of a desired state being lost, Turkle exhibits assertive anecdotal evidence from individuals as supportive claims. Though the process of change as a variation of state based on substitution(19) is more complex than the unequivocal shift that Turkle defines. Notably, “changes in patterns of thoughts, behaviors, and social relationships among individuals underlie changes in organizations, communities, and their social structure and formal and informal institutions.”(20) Though this reflects Turkle’s assertion that the first chair underlies action in subsequent social theatres, digital media’s ability to transcend and converge various social and psychological contexts upsets Turkle's underlying methodology of dividing contexts and exploring individuals’ actions and perceptions in each. Therefore, Turkle’s construction of the technological influence on self is insufficient without comprehensive information on the socio-cultural environment in which individuals exhibit observable behaviors. For example, Turkle’s anecdote of a child playing a digital multiplayer game instead of interacting in a park(21) is used with the quasi-moral distinction of the child’s choice to play a game over interacting with the real world, and the by Turkle defined superior benefits of one experience over another. While arguing for a comprehensive change in perspective on the integration of digital media technologies in certain contexts, Turkle’s evidence is limited by socio-contextual scope and thereby approaches a new paradigm of meaningful connection with principles of a prior technological and, therefore, perceptual paradigm.
Beyond Turkle’s arguments for technologically induced behavioral change, “Reclaiming Conversation” as a complete work presents rhetoric that is more robust in the public theatre than under scientific scrutiny. Proceeding with Turkle’s subjective definition of talk and conversation, the expansion of her argument, moving across the symbolic chairs’ characterizing social stages, follows a theory of technological determinism, where “ the development of technological artifacts and systems determines broad social changes.”(22) Yet after providing a diverse range of anecdotal and semi-allegorical experiential evidence, Turkle simultaneously asserts that one must “Disconnect to Connect”(23) and that looking to technology to repair the empathy gap seems an ironic rejoinder to a problem we perhaps didn’t need to have in the first place.”(24) This paradoxical rhetoric uses theory from technological determinism to argue for social determinism, which follows the belief that people are shaped by social factors(25) and, therefore, according to Turkle, have the agency for change but are similarly at the mercy of technology. The conjunction of contradictory theories continues with Turkle's discourse analysis.(26) Notably, Turkle’s logic is reminiscent of post-structuralism, where “the importance of knowledge systems and their power in limiting the breadth of human thought and actions are explored on a formal level among the assumptions that underlie our actions opposed to structural and systemic causality.”(27) Simultaneously, Turkle is a proponent of critical realist discourse where constructivist and realist positions argue that social practices are embedded in given power structures, therefore defining that “while meaning is made in interaction, non-discursive elements also impact on that meaning.”(28) Essentially, Turkle’s dichotomy of approaches to discourse analysis asserts how digital media technologies are challenging our existing knowledge systems and transcend specific institutions because of the recursive impact of context and the paradoxical nature of discourse describing and constituting an observable phenomenon.
When Turkle explores various circumstances under which observable phenomena occur in connection with digital media technologies, her analysis is a sum of parts united by conflicting definitions of conversation. Specifically, Turkle’s conversation with an emphasis on empathy is a paradigm that insufficiently represents modern connectivity and the digitalization of social stages. Notably, regardless of specific socio-technological contexts, “individuals behave in distinctive ways when they feel cut off from the flow of time, excessively attached to the past, isolated in the present, without a future, or rushing toward one.”(29) This human condition to pursue a perceived notion of connection is further represented in media surrounding pro-digitalization movements. Similarly, “self-evident’ discourses of connectivity, like modernist visions before them, offer a powerful, aspatial and ahistorical teleology.”(30) Characteristic of Turkle’s work, the evidence is plentiful and simply defines and substantiates a pursuit of a past notion of connectivity that is inspiring in the public forum. Yet digital media involves “the tools, practices, and communities that can make online life not a flight from conversation, but a flight to it.”(31) Thereby, Turkle’s approach, while comprehensive in its observational capacity, makes conclusions with minimal regard for digital media’s history and future potential for change. Behavior in connection with digital media is characterized by the technology's application to tenets of the human condition rather than exclusively techno-centric determinism.
In conclusion, Turkle’s “Reclaiming Conversation” represents a comprehensive collection of anecdotal techno-socio-behavioral analysis. While rigorous in argumentative capacity, Turkle's rhetoric employs inconsistent academic theory and is structured around subjective structures such as the definition of conversation and the division of social theatres. As a result, the comprehensive analysis is insufficient to critique the evolution of human connectivity in connection with digital media. Furthermore, as noted by the Atlantic’s Alexandra Samuel in response to Turkle, “we will not realize digital media’s opportunities for change by clinging to a nostalgia for conversation of the past, describing the emergence of digital culture in generational terms, or absolving ourselves of responsibility for creating an online world in which meaningful connection is the norm rather than the exception.”(32) Thereby Turkle’s socio-technical analysis and presentation address the audience's inherent emotional capacity for feeling discomfort in response to change and inherent strife in navigating social stages. Where digital media is a characterization of the current paradigm of evolving connectivity, the process of critique contributes to exploration that drives further change. As Turkle argues for reclaiming conversation, the paradigm of conversation is evolving in parallel with the technological change that is continuing to accelerate the continuous conundrum of the human capacity for creating new social stages and navigating those of the past and present.
References:
“Sherry Turkle.” Sherry Turkle. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. https://www.mit.edu/~sturkle/.
Heitman, Danny, Vincent J. Cannato, Laura Wolff Scanlan, Maryjean Wall, and Mark Athitakis. “Not Exactly a Hermit: Henry David Thoreau.” National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). Accessed March 19, 2020. https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2012/septemberoctober/feature/not-exactly-hermit.
Dunfey, Theo Spanos. “What Is Social Change and Why Should We Care?” Southern New Hampshire University. Global Citizens Circle, May 29, 2019. https://www.snhu.edu/about-us/newsroom/2017/11/what-is-social-change.
“Conversation (n.).” Online Etymology Dictionary. https://www.etymonline.com/word/conversation.
"conversation, n.". OED Online. March 2020. Oxford University Press. https://www-oed-com.oca.ucsc.edu/view/Entry/40748?rskey=IpCJrR&result=1&isAdvanced=false
Turkle, Sherry. Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. (Penguin Books, NY, 2016), 4
ibid., 97.
"meaning, n.2". OED Online. March 2020. Oxford University Press. https://www-oed-com.oca.ucsc.edu/view/Entry/115465?rskey=HBZX4n&result=6&isAdvanced=false
Pessin, Andrew, and Sanford Goldberg. The Twin Earth Chronicles: Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam's the Meaning of Meaning: Twenty Years of Reflection on Hilary Putnam's the" Meaning of Meaning". Routledge, 2016.
Turkle, Reclaiming Conversation, 77.
ibid., 79.
Heitman, “Not Exactly a Hermit: Henry David Thoreau.”
Heitman, “Not Exactly a Hermit: Henry David Thoreau.”
Goffman, Erving. The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Harmondsworth, 1978.
Thompson, Karl. “The Presentation of the Self in Everyday Life – A Summary.” ReviseSociology, January 6, 2016. https://revisesociology.com/2016/01/12/the-presentation-of-the-self-in-everyday-life-a-summary
Ess, Charles Melvin. “Existentialism in the (Post-) Digital Era by Charles Melvin Ess.” IMMA. IMMA Magazine, March 5, 2019. https://imma.ie/magazine/existentialism-in-the-post-digital-era-charles-melvin-ess/.
Lagerkvist, Amanda. “Existential Media: Toward a Theorization of Digital Thrownness.” New Media & Society 19, no. 1 (January 2017): 102
Flynn, Thomas. “Jean-Paul Sartre.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, December 5, 2011. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sartre/#Ont.
"change, n.". OED Online. March 2020. Oxford University Press. https://www-oed-com.oca.ucsc.edu/view/Entry/30467?rskey=yWrP8E&result=1&isAdvanced=false
Stephan, Ute, Malcolm Patterson, Ciara Kelly, and Johanna Mair. “Organizations Driving Positive Social Change: A Review and an Integrative Framework of Change Processes.” Journal of Management 42, no. 5 (July 2016), 1253.
Turkle, Reclaiming Conversation, 63-64.
Kline, Ronald R. “Technological Determinism.” International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). Elsevier, March 12, 2015. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080970868850345.
Turkle, Reclaiming Conversation, 360.
Turkle, 361.
Markman, Art. “Stereotypes and Social Determinism.” Psychology Today. Sussex Publishers. Accessed June 14, 2011. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/ulterior-motives/201106/stereotypes-and-social-determinism.
Manzi, T. “Discourse Analysis.” International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home. Elsevier, May 31, 2012. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080471631006214.
Macleod T., Palmer M. (2014) Post-structuralism. In: Teo T. (eds) Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology. Springer, New York, NY
Sims-Schouten, Wendy, Sarah C.E. Riley, and Carla Willig. “Critical Realism in Discourse Analysis: A Presentation of a Systematic Method of Analysis Using Women’s Talk of Motherhood, Childcare and Female Employment as an Example.” Theory & Psychology 17, no. 1 (February 2007): 102.
Kern, Stephen. The culture of time and space, 1880-1918: with a new preface. (Harvard University Press, 2003): 3.
Friederici, Nicolas, Sanna Ojanperä, and Mark Graham. "The impact of connectivity in Africa: Grand visions and the mirage of inclusive digital development." The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 79, no. 1 (2017): 17.
Samuel, Alexandra. “Own It: Social Media Isn't Just Something Other People Do.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, April 23, 2012. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/own-it-social-media-isnt-just-something-other-people-do/256212/.
Samuel, Alexandra. “Own It: Social Media Isn’t Just Something Other People Do.” The Atlantic, 22 Apr. 2012, www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/own-it-social-media-isnt-just-something-other-people-do/256212/.