Sei sulla pagina 1di 5

Rhetorical Analysis: Diagnosing the Digital Revolution: Why Its so hard to tell if its really changing us

I read an essay Diagnosing the digital revolution: Why its so hard to tell if its really changing us from our textbook. It was published in Slate in February 2011. In this article, writer Alison Gopnick, a professor of psychology and affiliate professor of philosophy at the University of California at Berkeley, is a widely recognized researcher and scholar in the field of childrens learning and development. In this article Gopnick is talking about Sherry Turkles new book, Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Sherry Turkle, is the Abby Rockefeller Mauz Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In Alone Together, MIT technology and society professor Sherry Turkle explores the power of our new tools and toys to dramatically alter our social lives. Turkle quotes children and adults who hesitate to use the phone because it seems awkward and intrusive; it is much easier, they say, to dash off a text or email. At the same time, Turkle points out, because of this very convenience, people expect quick responses. She describes the anxiety of teenagers when they do not get an immediate reply to their text messages. One girl talks about needing her cell phone

for "emergencies"; it turns out that what she means by "emergency" is having a feeling without being able to share it. (Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic, 2011. Print.) She states that technology and our use of it, or lack there of, does not change who we are as a person. Gopnick states, Were adolescent girls delighted by the rich and meaningful conversations they had with their mothers? Is the teenager who comes home from school and IMs her friends while she updates her Facebook page really much worse off than the one who came home and watched Gilligans Island reruns? Just because other generations did not have the technology my generation has now does not mean they did not substitute it with something else, such as their favorite television shows or favorite games. This just goes to show our personal technology and how attached we are to it does not change who we are. Now dont get me wrong being too attached to our personal technology is not a good thing either. We always want to try our best to stay focused on no matter what it is we are doing. Alison Gopnick refutes Turkles view on this subject matter. She states that people think and behave as they always have, just with different forms of communication. I agree with Gopnik, we have not changed our thinking patterns, rather the methods we use to do so. We can create our own community through the utilization of digital media. We use Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, and Blogspot to enter into a communion of people who share the same interest.

By reading and understanding her arguements, the reader is capable of engaging in deep thoughts that ask what makes something a correlation effect or a causal effect. By evaluating whether something can be causation or correlation, Gopnick leads into her question of why it is so hard to tell whether or not technology is really effecting us. Gopniks intriguing article presses its reader to question technology and what is considered to be its effects. Many people, for example, blame technology for the various negativity that occur in our would today. She uses the instance where a girl skyping with her grandmother, who lives a while away, guiltily emails a friend. Many may say that this demonstrates cons within technology. They might say that the girls attention is divided when it should whole heartedly be given to her grandmother; after all, no on knows how much longer the grandmother has to live. However, in all actuality, the oppositions argument is quite flawed. Alison Gopnik breaks down their argument and refutes it peace in two basic parts. Gopnik first begins with the fact that there was never a time when teenagers ever gave their grandparents their complete and undivided attention. The fact of the matter is that whether or not its technology behind the grandchilds unfocused attention or any other reason, the grandchild would still find a way to only pay partial attention to their grandparents. Gopnicks article then points out that the even if the grandmother was given the undivided attention that the opposing side claims is so crucial for the betterment of the grandchild, it is important to note the means by which the undivided attention would be given would be Skype. Skype is none other than a means of technology.

Our thought process has not changed due to digital media. The Internet has not provoked our thought process to adapt a varied method of retaining information or relaying it. Adaptive learning is cause, we learn what our brain has not been exposed to yet. Im sure that Alison Gopnick would not agree with what Im suggesting, but who better suggest it than an individual of this technological age. We created this community through designing the kind that reflects us as a new culture. Just as the great industrialists of the 18th century found sufficiency in the use of metals, we of the 20th century find solice in the digital world. We cannot be classified as living in an outward community simply because we utilize the technology of our time. To do this, would be of equal damage to fault the Romans for using chariots as a means of transportation. It almost seems reasonable for generations prior to ours to label us as having disconnect to reality. Regardless of which period of time they live in, what they hold dear, is what they know. We live in various communities, non separated or determined by reality, but understood by we the people of the digital generation. Gopnick illustrates both sides, the arguements for both pros and cons of technology, and ends up questioning whether technology causes any of the present day situations that people blame on technology. The point she makes is that it is hard to tell whether something is causation or correlation. Technology is not a cause to the negativity that the opposing side presents in their argument. It is just a matter of correlation. In the end, even if it was a matter of cause and effect, the pros of technology outweigh what is claimed to be its cons, so it makes sense to make use of it by reaping the best qualities that it provides.

Work Site

Ramage, John D., and John C. Bean. "Diagnosing the Digital Revolution: Why It's so Hard to Tell If It's Really Changing Us, Alison Gopnick." Writing Arguments. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999. N. pag. Print. Gopnick, Alison. "Alison Gopnik Homepage." Alison Gopnik Homepage. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013. Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic, 2011. Print. "Sherry Turkle." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 Nov. 2013. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.

Potrebbero piacerti anche