Disconnecting from Technology

The focus of the past few weeks has been on the Internet, social media, changing technologies, and the effects that they have on society. The question of whether or not these changes have a positive or negative effect on society has been challenged in many of our readings for the past few weeks. Sherry Turkle argues that we have loss our sense of “community” and because of the new technology our relationships with people are changing. She argues that we are now apart of relationships without “responsibility” and that we are less likely to interact with each other face-to-face. This weeks reading by Jurgenson begins to contradict Turkle’s argument. In Jurgenson’s argument he states that there may not be such a thing as “offline” but also that that may not be a negative element to the new technology. I believe Jurgenson’s argument is stronger than Turkle’s. In this reflection I will show how Jurgenson’s argument is more prevalent to society today and how he contradicts Turkle’s idea of a lost relationship and community.

In his article “The IRL fetish” Jurgenson explains how there really is not a concept of being “offline”. He explains that almost everything we do can be considered a part of being online or connected to the Internet in some way. It doesn’t necessarily mean we are connected to the Internet by being on our phones, laptops, or texting someone. In his article Jurgenson states that everything we do outside of being physically online predicts the actions we will take when we are eventually connected back to the Internet. The PBS video we watched this week seems to agree with Jurgenson’s argument. In the video he states that simply seeing a picture and thinking about that picture as possibly being a good idea for a gif is considered being online.

Jurgenson continues to contradict Turkle’s argument when he states that the things we do offline shape what we do when we are online, therefore we cannot be considered offline. Turkle argues that we are not experiencing the world around us because we constantly have our heads buried in our technology. Jurgenson counters this point by stating that what we do outside of technology, whether its camping, shopping, being with family or friends, or going to the beach, determines what we put online. He states that those memories we make lead to what pictures we post, what we blog about, tweets we eventually tweet, and statuses we create on Facebook. Jurgenson states that we use the Internet because it is an “audience for all”. We want to tell our friends, whether they are Facebook friends or real friends, who we are and what we were doing. Jurgenson explains this as a way for us to keep our relationships where Turkle believes it ruins relationships.

In her argument, Turkle stresses the point that we do not value the idea of face-to-face communication and relationships because of this new emphasis on technology. Jurgenson disagrees with Turkle yet again. In his argument he states that because we have a certain dependence on technology our time away from that technology is valued more now than it was ever before. In Jurgenson’s article he gives many examples of how time spent offline is now taken advantage of and valued more than it was before. It is seen as a break and a time to relax. Jurgenson also brings attention to the fact that we are more likely to congratulate ourselves for staying offline and connecting to each other in face-to-face communication. He uses the example of the group of friends who go out to dinner and the rule is that whoever takes out their mobile device first has to pay the bill. Because people are constantly surrounded by technology they want a break and to be “offline” and away from their normal responsibilities. Turkle uses the idea of technology as a way for people to be constantly connected and explains that they enjoy this idea of being always online. In Jurgenson’s article he states that this isn’t the point. Our society is changing just as rapidly as the technology around us. In order to be a member of this society it is almost crucial to have whatever the latest version of technology is out there. He states, “digital distraction makes us appreciate solitude”. Yes we have a dependence on technology, but as Jurgenson states this dependence is not necessarily wanted and being able to break free from that dependence is celebrated. In his article Jurgenson writes, “never has being disconnected-even if for just a moment- felt so profound”.

Another strong point that Jurgenson makes is that today there is a new obsession with the old. Yes most members of society have the latest versions of technology but Jurgenson explains that now some people have become obsessed with vintage items. People are searching for the vinyl tracks, vintage clothing, and analog. We are progressing with technology but at the same time there is a pull towards being offline and “disconnecting” ourselves.

Many of Jurgenson’s points in his argument contradict Turkle’s main argument. There has no truly been a loss of responsibility to have relationships. Many of our relationships are not completely face-to-face but they aren’t completely online either. We have a dependence on technology because technology is all around us and is changing so quickly. Instead of technology hurting our relationships with other people Jurgenson believes it is strengthening them. As Jurgenson states, we are appreciative of the time we spend away from technology and time spent offline that we celebrate and use this time more wisely. I believe that Jurgenson posed a stronger argument than Turkle because his points were more relevant to society. He did not completely disagree with her argument but he poses a less pessimistic view of Turkle’s points. Being disconnected from the Internet is more of a luxury now than it was before. Doing things like relaxing or communicating outside of the online world is more appreciated than it was before. Jurgenson believes we want to break free from being online and enjoy our time more when we can.