Some ridiculous arguments - sex with robots? Really? Poor methodology and despite her insistence otherwise much of this is old wine in new bottles. ( )

I found 'Alone Together' hugely thought-provoking. The methods used are anthropological and grounded in the ideas of psychoanalysis, which made for an interesting change. The specific points within each theme are introduced and explained through case studies. Such an approach differs from the kind of social science I am used to, which I found powerful as Turkle’s methods displayed no cross-contamination from economics. Most quantitative and some qualitative work regurgitates the assumptions of economics in a manner I find hugely frustrating. On the other hand, it is difficult to generalise from a small sample, or indeed generalise very far at all when you’re dealing with matters of psychology. Nonetheless, it is important to study how rapid changes in technology impact upon people. Turkle’s book is fascinating as a starting point. As I read it I could not help but evaluate the roles of the internet and mobile phones in my life and contemplate how I could establish different boundaries with them.

The book begins with children and their interaction with robotic toys. I am of the generation that first experienced such things; I had an off-brand tamagotchi as a tweenager but never wanted a furby. Those weird chattery things have always freaked me out. Turkle expounds on how very young children interact with these toys, at an age when they are still finding out how to categorise objects. To me it seems odd to contemplate that children try to understand whether a furby is alive like an animal, whether it has feelings, whether it can die. That was strange, but the section about elderly people interacting with robotic baby dolls and Paro the robot seal was heart-breaking. In particular, the insight that the elderly people studied got much more from interactions with the researchers than the robots. The robots were better company than no-one, but not a substitute for real people. Turkle also confronts the social assumption that robots are needed to look after the elderly because young people cannot, for some reason.

The latter part of the book covers changes of communication patterns amongst (presumably American) teenagers and working age people. I found this eye-opening; how can anyone send hundreds of texts a day?! It takes a fairly negative approach to the always-connected ethic of smartphones, which I certainly agree with. I don’t have a smartphone because I don’t like them. It seems a little baffling to me that so many people keep them despite finding the attendant anxiety and obsessive behaviour upsetting. Then again, smartphones didn’t exist when I was teenager, although mobile phones did. Growing up with the assumption of constant connection by social networking and texting must be intensely stressful. Despite it being based in specific cases, I found Turkle’s argument for the negative side effects of recently-adopted technologies convincing. It certainly made a pleasant change from the constant barrage of phone advertising. Why should it be strange to not want a smartphone? Constant connection to the internet is neither necessary nor desirable for every single person.

That said, I wonder to what extent I was convinced by the book because it espoused views that I already held. I am somewhat wary of psychoanalytical theory, as my efforts to gain a basic understanding of it have left me dubious. I would have also liked the book to contain more evidence on the actual uptake of technologies and how it breaks down demographically, even if only for America. How does internet/smartphone use vary along gender, wealth, and age lines? A few numbers here and there would have been nice. Moreover, the massive American bias of the whole thing is not actually mentioned. Although similar trends can be observed in other rich developed nations, most likely, the cultural and demographic contexts will definitely differ. Which will change the impacts of technology, in no doubt very interesting ways.

The book also raises, without delving into, the huge and difficult question of capitalism and authenticity. In the twenty-first century of multinational company-controlled neoliberal capitalism, what is authentic experience? Are texts and emails less authentic forms of communication than letters and face-to-face conversations? If going out to a concert, film, or meal is punctuated by texting, tweeting, and posting photos online, do these attempts to capture the authenticity of the moment diminish it? I was at the cinema a few days ago and noticed at the edge of my vision a blue glow - someone was checking their phone in the middle of an exciting action film. Just the awareness that someone was doing that distracted me from the film. When considering these massive, abstract questions about everyday material experience, it is always tempting to resort to anecdote, so I can sympathise with Turkle.

That said, it is not the case that people are freely adopting fancy new phones, tablets, etc in a neutral environment. These are extremely profitable products, pushed relentlessly upon us by massive companies using sophisticated marketing techniques. As well as the unintended effects, it is worth considering the history behind this rapid technological upheaval and this is definitely something I’d like to read more about. As for authenticity, I once read a book that tried to define it ([b:Authenticity: Brands, Fakes, Spin And The Lust For Real Life|1667416|Authenticity Brands, Fakes, Spin And The Lust For Real Life|David Boyle|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1186591176s/1667416.jpg|1662303]), without making much headway. It is one of those things that can scarcely be put into words, yet you know it when you feel it. The main difficulty is that everyone surely experiences it differently. Then, when different people label an experience authentic or otherwise, the disagreement often takes an exclusionary tone of snobbery or trendiness. It is also a snake that eats its own tail, as authenticity seems only available at incredibly high cost or for no money at all. What was once seen as new, original, and innovative is rapidly co-opted for profit and becomes mainstream, thus somehow its authenticity is degraded. Authenticity has itself become a commodity, likely by changing what the words means to people. Which is practically impossible to pin down, making this tangent rather futile. (Although it did remind me to think further about whether irony and authenticity are mutually exclusive.)

On a more pragmatic note, Turkle concludes with a set of personal anecdotes from which I inferred the need to find your comfort level with technology and re-negotiate a compact with it. She could perhaps have made this clearer, although doing so would not necessarily fit with the ethos of the book. Anthropological case study-based methods do not lend themselves to generalisable policy proscriptions. During and after reading this book, though, I contemplated how I use my laptop, my phone, and social media and decided to make some tweaks. I was also reminded of the very frustrating inconsistency of my concentration levels. When reading a book, I can easily concentrate without interruption for three or four hours, basically until I get too hungry. I can’t work for anywhere near that long on an internet-connected computer without being distracted. My PhD work is all being done on a laptop, which is a total procrastination machine. If I can read a book for so long, why is my concentration so pathetically poor with the internet just a click away? I would love to disconnect the wireless but cannot when so many of my research materials are online. It’s maddening. I love the internet, but do not feel adequately in control of my use of it. This worries me. I imagine I’m not the only one. ( )

Though I agree with Turkle's basic thesis, the tone is repetitive, tedious, and, at points, ham-fisted. This book probably could have been greatly condensed, and I think that the first half of the book, the bit concerning robots, could very nearly be a separate work entirely. As I said, I think her ideas are important, and I think we should explore the potential damage that we are doing through our commitment to constant connectivity, but I also think that this could have been a more enjoyable (and concise) book. ( )

It's good. But I could've done without the first part on robots. The second part on texting, social media, and other aspects of how technology creeps into our life is better. And I think she could've expanded on the final chapter, which includes some great discussions on solutions.

I'd highly recommend watching her half hour long interview with Bill Moyers if you're looking for the basic points of the book:

https://vimeo.com/77192952 ( )

2.5 stars. This is a very dry book; it rambles a lot and is repetitive. I am reading it for a book club, and I think it will initiate a good discussion in spite of its faults. This book was written in 2011, so it suffers from being outdated. Is it worth a read? Not particularly. ( )