Third Draft:
Finley Morrison
Professor Jesse Miller
English 110
8 February 2024
Technology and Empathy: Where has Conversation Gone?
For millions of years, humans have used technology as a way to improve their lives. Whether the technology we speak of refers to fire or the wheel, or the smartphone we keep in our pockets if not in our hand, technology is something we rely on to make our lives easier. Coupled with technology, conversation is considered to be an integral part of being a human. Sherry Turkle, an author and professor with degrees in sociology and psychology from Harvard who currently works at MIT, invites us to challenge our perspective on technology and it’s relation to conversation in her paper “The Empathy Diaries.” Turkle shepherds us to the idea that technology is leading us and our future generations to be apathetic. That, to keep ourselves human, we need to raise awareness to the importance of conversation and how technology deafens that significant part of our lives. This notion is one that I strongly believe in and, ironically enough, empathize with.
Sherry Turkle introduced her perspective with the notion that with the establishment of technology in our lives, especially into aspects of our life that do not include searching for information, damage to our ability to be empathetic has occurred. Turkle shows us this with the statement that “Now, we have arrived at another moment of recognition. This time, technology is implicated in an assault on empathy. We have learned that even a silent phone inhibits conversations that matter. The very sight of a phone on a landscape leaves us feeling less connected to each other, less invested in each other” (Turkle 344). Essentially, what Turkle is alluding to is the noticeable difference in people’s ability to disconnect with technology instead of other people. The message that Turkle is trying to convey comes across clearly to me, as her statement is one that is very bold and passionate. It conveys an intense yet compelling message that Turkle is clearly passionate about. The idea that technology not only makes us less empathetic but that it is an active assault on it is a very intriguing thought.
With the amount of connections and stories that are posted online, people sharing their deepest and most vulnerable states, one may think that the internet could be a half decent gateway to opening the eyes of many to be empathetic. It’s easier than ever to know what’s happening on the other side of the globe in an instant. Considering all the death, famine, poverty, inequality, and overall tragedies, the time to learn and reflect on others situations could be no sooner; however, that is not always the case. While I do think that, for many, technology (especially the internet) has allowed for many to work on empathy for other human beings aside from themselves, I also strongly believe that the amount/frequency and ease of access to this information has numbed many, leading people down an apathetic route. Intentional or unintentional, people seem to have a tendency to sort of begin to brush these horrors off to a corner of their mind that is not the forefront. This can lead to these scenarios almost feeling fictional, as if they don’t exist or that they aren’t nearly as bad as they seem.
An objection to limiting technology, when raised, is often something along the lines of whether or not it’s our job to initiate these conversations? To “force” not just children, but people, to disconnect and be present in social environments? Turkle argues that it is, as it’s a necessity for a healthy presence, but that people must want to change: “The classroom is a social space where students can see how thinking happens…Only a few years ago, most professors told me that they didn’t want to be their student’s ‘nannies,’ that this ‘policing’ job was not for them…a more satisfying conversation will require work” (Turkle 350-351). In her own words, she recalls that teachers and employers nowadays are more willing to put their foot down and have the phone’s turned off: “A new manager, in his mid-thirties, admits that he shies away from face-to-face conversation but is inspired by a weekly ‘all hands’ meeting in his company that is reserved for ‘just talk’” (Turkle 351).
I have been in both environments: a teacher who has said “if you don’t want to learn, I can’t make you. It’s not my job to make you put your phone down;” versus one who has told me that “we humans need connection. If you’re looking at your phone, you’re not looking at me, you aren’t listening to me, you aren’t learning from me. It’s my duty to make sure that you leave this classroom with more knowledge than you had before you entered.” The reinforcement of connection is something that has stuck with me to this day. I think that disconnecting around others is a skill that we have lost long ago, and that we need role models who can encourage not just others, but themselves to bring it back. We teach children from a very young age that they should not only respect us but look up to us, actively striving to be like us when they group up. If we can’t put the phones down for a conversation at the dinner table, what message does that send to our kids?
There’s a way to guide people to using technology in a more healthy and constructive way. To do so, the average individual needs to be comfortable by simply being. As Turkle suggests: “…this virtuous circle is an ideal type, but taking that into account, it works. Solitude reinforces a secure sense of self, and with that, the capacity for empathy. Then, conversation with others provides rich material for self-reflection. Just as alone we prepare to talk together, together we learn how to engage in a more productive solitude” (Turkle 348). Turkle goes on to claim that in order to properly engage in conversation, we should be working towards sitting with our own thoughts: “We struggle to pay attention to each other, and what suffers is our ability to know ourselves” (Turkle 348). To coexist is to be able to exist on your own. Her message equates to one that desires something that feels like an idea from Abraham Maslow and his idea of self fulfillment with the “Hierarchy of Needs.” Maslow’s hierarchy is a pyramid of “requirements” that one needs to fulfill in order for one to be satisfied with their lives. At the bottom is the physiological needs, followed by safety, then love and acceptance from others, followed by one’s own self esteem and lastly that of self acceptance.
I feel as though the hierarchy of needs overlaps with this text; however the way I see it and, based on her words, the way I believe Turkle sees it, this pyramid model doesn’t exactly work as great as it seems. Our need for connection and love for yourself should be just as, if not slightly more, important than our connection towards others. Empathy is defined as “the ability to sense other people’s emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling.” One reason I think people struggle with this is because we are more connected to our phones and technology in general than to each other. In doing so, we can empathize more with the screen than other human beings. With that being said, technology can be a great way to strengthen empathy. Whether we’re playing video games, engaging in literature, or reading news stories, we can literally insert ourselves into their shoes and pretend we’re them. In this sense, we can strengthen our ability to empathize with others, fictional or not. If we use technology in this way, we can take our knowledge and apply it to our relationships in real life with one another.
SECOND DRAFT:
For billions of years, humans have used technology as a way to improve their lives. Whether the technology we speak of refers to fire or the wheel, or the smartphone we keep in our pockets if not in our hand, technology is something we rely on to make our lives easier. Sherry Turkle, an author with degrees in sociology and psychology from Harvard, invites us to challenge our perspective on technology in her paper “The Empathy Diaries.” Turkle shepherds us to the idea that technology is leading us and our future generations to be apathetic. That, to keep ourselves human, we need to raise awareness to the importance of conversation and how technology deafens that significant part of our lives. This notion is one that I strongly believe in and, ironically enough, empathize with.
Sherry Turkle introduced her perspective with the notion that with the establishment of technology in our lives, especially into aspects of our life that do not include searching for information, damage to our ability to be empathetic has occurred. Turkle shows us this with the statement that “Now, we have arrived at another moment of recognition. This time, technology is implicated in an assault on empathy. We have learned that even a silent phone inhibits conversations that matter. The very sight of a phone on a landscape leaves us feeling less connected to each other, less invested in each other” (Turkle 344). Essentially, what Turkle is alluding to is the noticeable difference in people’s ability to disconnect with technology instead of other people. The message that Turkle is trying to convey comes across clearly to me, as her statement is one that is very bold and passionate. It conveys an intense yet compelling message that Turkle is clearly passionate about. The idea that technology not only makes us less empathetic but that it is an active assault on it is a very intriguing thought.
With the amount of connections and stories that are posted online, people sharing their deepest and most vulnerable states, one may think that the internet could be a half decent gateway to opening the eyes of many to be empathetic. It’s easier than ever to know what’s happening on the other side of the globe in an instant. Considering all the death, famine, poverty, inequality, and overall tragedies, the time to learn and reflect on others situations could be no sooner; however, that is not always the case. While I do think that, for many, technology (especially the internet) has allowed for many to work on empathy for other human beings aside from themselves, I also strongly believe that the amount/frequency and ease of access to this information has numbed many, leading people down an apathetic route. Intentional or unintentional, people seem to have a tendency to sort of begin to brush these horrors off to a corner of their mind that is not the forefront. This can lead to these scenarios almost feeling fictional, as if they don’t exist or that they aren’t nearly as bad as they seem.
Is it our job to initiate these conversations? To “force” not just children, but people, to disconnect and be present in work environments? Turkle argues that it is, as it’s a necessity for a healthy presence, but that people must want to change: “The classroom is a social space where students can see how thinking happens…Only a few years ago, most professors told me that they didn’t want to be their student’s ‘nannies,’ that this ‘policing’ job was not for them…a more satisfying conversation will require work” (Turkle 350-351). In her own words, she recalls that teachers and employers nowadays are more willing to put their foot down and have the phone’s turned off: “A new manager, in his mid-thirties, admits that he shies away from face-to-face conversation but is inspired by a weekly ‘all hands’ meeting in his company that is reserved for ‘just talk’” (Turkle 351). I have been in both environments: a teacher who has said “if you don’t want to learn, I can’t make you. It’s not my job to make you put your phone down;” versus one who has told me that “we humans need connection. If you’re looking at your phone, you’re not looking at me, you aren’t listening to me, you aren’t learning from me. It’s my duty to make sure that you leave this classroom with more knowledge than you had before you entered.” The reinforcement of connection is something that has stuck with me to this day. I think that disconnecting around others is a skill that we have lost long ago, and that we need role models who can encourage not just others, but themselves to bring it back. We teach children from a very young age that they should not only respect us but look up to us, actively striving to be like us when they group up. If we can’t put the phones down for a conversation at the dinner table, what message does that send to our kids?
FIRST DRAFT: Turkle shepherds us to the idea that technology is leading us and our future generations to be apathetic. That, to keep ourselves human, we need to raise awareness to the importance of conversation and how technology deafens that significant part of our lives. This notion is one that I strongly believe in and, ironically enough, empathize with.
Sherry Turkle introduced her perspective with the notion that with the introduction of technology, especially into aspects of our life that do not include searching for information, damage to our ability to be empathetic has occurred. Turkle shows us this with the statement that “Now, we have arrived at another moment of recognition. This time, technology is implicated in an assault on empathy. We have learned that even a silent phone inhibits conversations that matter. The very sight of a phone on a landscape leaves us feeling less connected to each other, less invested in each other” (Turkle 344). Essentially, what Turkle is alluding to is the noticeable difference in people’s ability to disconnect with technology instead of other people. The message that Turkle is trying to convey comes across clearly to me, as her statement is one that is very bold and passionate. It conveys an intense yet compelling message that Turkle is clearly passionate about. The idea that technology not only makes us less empathetic but that it is an active assault on it is a very intriguing thought.
With the amount of connections and stories that are posted online, people sharing their deepest and most vulnerable states, one may think that the internet could be a half decent gateway to opening the eyes of many to be empathetic. It’s easier than ever to know what’s happening on the other side of the globe in an instant. Considering all the death, famine, poverty, inequality, and overall tragedies, the time to learn and reflect on others situations could be no sooner; however, that is not always the case. While I do think that, for many, technology (especially the internet) has allowed for many to work on empathy for other human beings aside from themselves, I also strongly believe that the amount/frequency and ease of access to this information has numbed many, leading people down an apathetic route. Intentional or unintentional, people seem to have a tendency to sort of begin to brush these horrors off to a corner of their mind that is not the forefront. This can lead to these scenarios almost feeling fictional, as if they don’t exist or that they aren’t nearly as bad as they seem.
