Rhetorical Analysis Of The Flight From Conversation By Sherry Turkle

Author and Professor of the Social Studies Studies of Science and Technology at MIT, Sherry Turkle, in her essay “The Flight from Conversation”, published in the New York Times on April 22, 2012, addresses the topic of technology use in society and argues that constant use of technology is degrading the quality of human connections. Through her use of the rhetorical appeals of ethos, logos, and pathos, Turkle presents a sound argument to effectively persuade her audience to reduce their use of technology in order to revert to forming and experiencing real connections between one another. Turkle establishes her credibility throughout the essay to gain her audience’s trust, which creates a platform from which Turkle can persuade her audience
Turkle’s use of personal experiences and testimonies not only serve as ethical and logical appeals, but also as emotional appeals. For example, Turkle explains that a high school sophomore once confided in her that “he wishes he could talk to an artificial intelligence program instead of his dad about dating...” (138). This immediately evokes sympathy from the audience because it touches on family relationships and the vulnerability of teenagers, both of which are extremely sensitive subjects This appeal to emotion reinforces Turkle’s claim that technology is beginning to replace relationships and encourages the audience to lean towards her views. Yet another compelling appeal to emotion is Turkle’s recount of “one of her most haunting experiences”. She elaborates that she witnessed an elderly woman talk to a robotic baby seal about the loss of her child and the woman appeared to be comforted by the machine (138). She appeals to the audience’s sense of compassion for the elderly, as well as sympathy and sadness for the loss of a child. By manifesting these emotions, Turkle sets up the perfect catalyst for her claim that machines are replacing relationships between people. Likewise, Turkle elicits guilt from her audience by criticizing that “we have little motivation to say something truly self-reflective” (137) and “we flee from solitude, our ability to be
Turkle does not cite her testimonies thoroughly enough to be considered valid. For example, rather than naming the senior partner Turkle uses for a testimony, she simply leaves the person anonymous (137). This causes the reader to question whether her sources are credible enough to be consider evidence. Turkle also claims that “researchers around the world are busy inventing sociable robots” (138). However, this can not be considered sufficient evidence because Turkle does not cite the researchers and could be exaggerating to emphasize her point. In addition to possibly unsound evidence, Turkle does not include any statistics in her argument. She relies rather on personal testimonies and appeals to emotion, which harms her logical appeal and could lead to her argument being discredited. Furthermore, Turkle does not offer a counterargument to the her claim. This may portray her as one-sided and deface her persona as a fair-minded, sincere author. Overall, the lack of these rhetorical appeals do not make her essay ineffective, however, Turkle could have included them to make her argument more