Do you check your phone at the dinner table? Engage in “phubbing”? Check your phone immediately when you hear the ring of a notification? Technology consumes the lives of the vast majority of people and is becoming evident that its presence is hurting the nature of face-to-face conversation.  “The Empathy Diaries” written by Sherry Turkle, PhD in sociology from Harvard University, explores this recent crisis coined as the “flight from conversation” (344). Through a well-crafted essay, Turkle argues that there is a degradation of genuine conversation in the recent generation that is caused from an increase focus of technological conversation. This lack of in-person conversation has obvious, tangible, negatives effects on youth and their ability to self-reflect and feel empathy towards others. The exigence of this piece stems from Turkle being asked by a middle school dean to meet with faculty regarding concerns of students’ abilities to form friendships, the exigence of this piece. I agree with Turkle’s argument that there is clear flight from conversation that is having detrimental effects on children’s abilities to develop necessary social skills, however it seems as though Turkle’s inherent bias undermines the connective power that a technological conversation can have. In addition, when it comes to her ultimate call to action, the help of older generations is crucial as 21^st century readers would be unable “reclaim conversation” due to a lack of realization to the presence of the problem.

                  Especially to the current generation, in-person interactions are viewed as awkward and uncomfortable, yet Turkle explains that it is the unpredictable nature of an in-person conversation that allows one to develop crucial social skills, such as empathy. Phones have become an outlet to avoid interactions. When sitting in a waiting room, walking past someone on the sidewalk, or waiting for a class to start, it has become one’s initial reaction to glance at their phone aimlessly, in hopes of avoiding eye contact or awkward small talk. When elaborating on this idea of phones being a way to hide from others, Turkle writes:

 It all adds up to a flight from conversation—at least from conversation that is open-ended and spontaneous, conversation in which we play with ideas, in which we allow ourselves to be fully present and vulnerable. Yet, these are the conversations where empathy and intimacy flourish and social action gains strength (344).

As Turkle alludes, conversations via technology are easy: you have time to craft every response, you can choose your level of engagement, and they avoid any effort required in real conversation such as eye-contact, reading body language, and generating quick responses. One of Turkle’s teenage interviewees put it best: “‘On computers, if things are unpredictable, it’s in a predictable way’” (346). However, there is a clear danger with being accustomed to this type of communication, we become unable to take part in the in-person counterpart. As Turkle highlighted, if we don’t constantly engage in real conversation and lack ample practice, we become undeveloped in the skills they provide like empathy and intimacy, which results in an inability to foster genuine connections with others.

                   Turkle does appreciate the benefits technological communication can have, especially in situations of distance, however her generational bias seems to undermine the connection that can be produced from an over-the-phone conversation. When describing text threads she shared with her daughter who lives across the country from her, Turkle writes:

All of a sudden, with no warning, on my phone, in my hand, there will be a reference to a book or a food or a Halloween costume that reminds me of our intimacy and infuses my day with her presence. This is pleasurable and to be cherished. The problem comes if these “reminders” of intimacy lead us away from intimacy itself (349).

Through the singling out and enunciation of “reminders” in reference to the texts and phone calls she receives from her daughter, Turkle draws a clear contradiction between technological conversation and true intimacy; that the two cannot exist semantically with one another. Yet, I feel that it crucial to examine how Turkle’s age may produce bias on this front. Sherry Turkle, age 76, is a part of the “Baby Boomer” generation; she grew up in a time in which the technological conversation we use at ease today was at its very primordial stages and didn’t hold a fraction of the value it holds today. However, from a Gen Z perspective, with technology being a fundamental part of my everyday routine and a staple way to communicate, I view technological conversations as holding more power and connection than Turkle likes to admit.

                  I agree that a conversation over the phone lacks several aspects unique to in person communication, but I disagree in the sense that technological conversations are completely void of intimacy and connection. I acknowledge that I may hold my own personal generational bias and naivety, yet when speaking over the phone there is the capacity for idea being shared, memories made, and laughs had. These aren’t merely reminders. There is intimacy and connection in these conversations. Is it the same as that of a face-to-face conversation? Not necessary. Yet does it exist and should be acknowledged? Yes. The conversations themselves also hold intimacy and this idea seems to be controversial due to generational bias and the polarizing views of technology that can exist within these groups.