Human Sexuality is Complicated

Adventures in Tryon Creek

We're Losing Things Thoreau Thought Essential to Discovering an Identity: A Rhetorical Analysis

            A heated debate between two disparate parties of our developed world persists; the digital natives and the digital immigrants cannot seem to cooperate, even as time ticks on and our technology continues to advance.  Harsh criticisms volley back and forth – seldom rooted in fact – on both an individual and group level.  The digital immigrants, who tend to belong to the older generation, fault the natives’ youth and inexperience for their refusal to recognize the intangible losses their technological conveniences impose upon human interaction and dialogue.  Because the immigrants appear to be a “dying race,” the younger generations tend to disregard their unique perspectives on the cultural impact of our rapidly evolving digital world.  Rarely a written piece on the subject will remain unbiased and offer valid critique of the opposing argument, but Sherry Turkle’s comprehensive interview “We’re Losing Things Thoreau Thought Essential to Discovering an Identity” did just that, as well as encouraging compromise between the natives and immigrants. 

As a psychologist and director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self, Professor Turkle is well-versed on the topic.  According to her “About” page on the MIT website, she is the author of several books on human-technology interaction – including her most recent work Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other.   She holds a joint doctorate in sociology and personality psychology.  Her 2009 interview contributed to the small but notable database of the Digital Nation, a PBS project investigating the effects of our new, digital world on the human psyche.  Turkle discusses a wide range of issues in her interview, the highlights of which are outlined on the sidebar of the Digital Nation page as the following: Turkle’s termed “PowerPoint education,” the effect of our digital world on families, the problems of the virtual world, and the alterations her lecture styles have undergone due to her students’ digital distractions.

Rather than heavily criticizing the widespread use of modern technology, Turkle utilizes her expertise on its psychological consequences to provide solid evidence for her position.  She relies on logical appeals throughout her interview.  Although she is highly qualified to impart her knowledge onto her audience, Turkle hardly references her credibility.  Instead, she explains her stance in a very linear way.  She begins by expressing her opinion or stating an observation and then builds off of that.  She moves fluidly from a central idea to more specific concepts.  Her case is especially effective because of its presentation, but it lacks the simplicity to attract the general population.  The argument is presented by an intellectual, for intellectuals – and because of this, there are little to no emotional appeals as well.  While Turkle’s opinion is clear and she aims to convince her audience of the drawbacks of such complex technology, her main goal is to incite the critical thinking skills of her target audience.

Although Turkle doesn’t boast her expertise, most of her argument relies on her own knowledge of the subject.  Much of the evidence for her claims come from her own study and observation.  At one point in the interview, Turkle is asked about her fieldwork, to which she responds, “My first work was on the one-to-one [relationship] of person with computers. And then from 1995 on, I've looked at the computer as the gateway to relationships with other people. Since 1995 I've been studying adolescents and adults in connectivity culture, which is how I think of it -- studying gaming, virtual worlds and what began just with text-based virtual worlds, and now it's moved on to things like Second Life, where you actually build worlds.”  It’s clear from this statement that the entire argument is based on the assumption that Turkle is an authority on the subject.  Therefore, the whole case is founded on her credibility.  Fortunately, her logic is sound and it’s easy to accept her as an authority.

Because Turkle’s argument is so intellectually constructed, most of the adult population would find it difficult to follow.  This was a poor decision on Turkle’s part.  Her audience becomes limited to an academic audience – although this may have been her intention.  The subject matter of her interview pertains to any technology user, but only a small number of consumers can actually understand it.  If Turkle had wanted a larger audience, she should have simplified both her vocabulary and her concepts.

While the interview is subjective by nature, Turkle manages to appear open-minded and positive about our digital future.  Instead of condemning our new technologies, she suggests a compromise between the digital natives and digital immigrants.  Her argument is thorough and all-inclusive, which makes it convincing to those that understand it.  However, Turkle does not anticipate her interview to incite major reform – rather, she hopes to spark further debate.  Digital natives and digital immigrants may never reach a consensus, but Turkle’s interview encourages her audience to explore both points of view.