“Machines impose their own rhythm, their rules, on the people who work with them, to the point where it is no longer clear who or what is being used. We work to the rhythms of machines – physical machines or the bureaucratic machinery of corporate structures” (Turkle 159).
Reading this quote it is not too difficult to ask: Do we use a computer or does a computer use us? In the simplest sense, the answer is simple: off course, we are the beings, we are in control – we use computers to accomplish tasks, as tools; however, let us reconsider this.
In chapter five of The Second Self, Turkle establishes the computer as a machine and as a tool – determined by the user and the manner of their usage. Taking this quote one step further, analyzing our society, isn’t the need for stronger, better and more efficient computers growing. Turkle points out that from the beginning “prominent literature and popular accounts of home computer use emphasized … how computers could teach French or help with financial planning and taxes” (Turkle 157), what she considers the ‘utilitarian rhetoric’. I think it is interesting to note that our physical infrastructure along with social manners have dramatically changed to make the rise of computers – the machine from the past for the future – occur. In this sense, I do not think that it is too difficult to ascertain that we can be looked upon as being used by computers – for their continued improvement and our greater dependence on them.
Changes in culture have dramatically re-shaped work distribution between man and machine with the computerization of society. Social mechanisms from dating, to establishing solidarity and independence have all dramatically changed – from what they were not too far in the past. New social mechanisms have been added to our collective culture, as email and web chatting replace letter writing and telegrams. Rituals which did not require computers now begin and end with computers and computerized technology. Not only has our pre-existing culture changed, Turkle writes: new groups which “share a unity of place, lifestyle, and passion … have [their] own rituals, language, myths, even its own literature” (Turkle 181) have emerged built on computers. With the advent of computers, it seems that a silent movement started which takes ‘work’ from human beings and instead gives it to the computers with the simple advantage that with these machines humans can do more. As a byproduct of this movement our dependence on computers is continually increasing.
If the ultimate biological purpose of an organism is too reproduce then computers are extremely successful their and are thriving in their expanding niche. But how can view a computer as an organism? Generically there are (among many) six characteristics of life: cells, organization, energy use, homeostasis, growth and reproduction – in one way or another a computer comes really closely to fulfilling these prerequisites. If generic hardware components be considered cells, homeostasis by the use of sensors and fans, growth through downloads and uploads, and reproduction through computer managed computer manufacturing facilities – computers come really close to living especially as research continues into using Deoxyribonucleic Acid instead of traditional silicon chips for information storage. Doesn’t a simple prokaryotic bacterium with plasmid DNA, a simple phospholipids membranes and polysaccharide coatings seem less complex than the world’s largest supercomputer? It is easy to say that it is humans which have caused the rise in computers – but I ask you, is it that different to consider that perhaps it is due to the computers that human beings are becoming more and more depended on them and because of computers that mechanisms and forces continue to push humans to develop the next more advanced computer.
I would also like to say that I do not how much I agree with the central argument of this post – but I do believe it is an interesting concept and one which certainly will become more interesting with time.
Jaskaran Saggu
I love that you have applied the criteria we generally use to establish "life" (homeostasis, reproduction, etc.) to computers, and indeed, when you look at computers in a certain way, they do seem to have evolved a clever, symbiotic relationship with humans. I know most of you will rebel at the thought of assigning your desktop computer the same level of agency as a person, but there are theoretical advantages to thinking of "objects" and nonhumans in this way (see Bruno Latour and what's called actor-network-theory).
ReplyDeleteBefore you pat yourself on the back for never having let the machine get the better of you, think about the countless large and small ways we accommodate ourselves to our technology... have you ever picked a phone number because it represented an easy-to-remember character string or pattern on a dialing keypad? Are you more skilled at texting with your thumbs than you are at writing cursive? I'm sure you all can think of more ways.
I agree with the general message from chapter 5 that in different ways a lot of people are developing special attachments to their computers. I also think that a feedback process is occurring in which our culture pressures us to sit at our computer and use it in a way that could lead us to develop a connection with the machine. This can go side by side with the biological comparison between humans and computers. Biology has an important part to play in human and (metaphorically) computer development, but there is also the ever present influence of social forces on human evolution.
ReplyDeleteOn the first day of class Alenda asked the class what types of technologies we used, but she didn't ask if we used e-mail. That technology is essentially required for people to use today and it's assumed that everyone uses it. Similarly, when someone asks if you have a Myspace or a Facebook account and the answer is "No," I think many people feel that they really should go and sign up as soon as they get home. I think both of these examples highlight how computer technologies have embedded themselves in our culture. As a result, I would argue, people will naturally develop a certain connection with their computer. Instead of socializing through the telephone or letters, we’re conversing through email and Facebook. As social animals, these interactions are important to us and the medium we use will become important to us as well.
- Rolando Vasquez