Rhetorical Analysis On Is Facebook Making Us Lonely

Even though Sherry Turkle and Stephen Marche share the same claim of technology causing loneliness, Marche uses statistics of the dropping number of confidants to explain his point in a superior manner compared to Turkle’s worrisome evidence of technology destroying conversation. Sherry Turkle, Director of the MIT Initiative on Technology and Self, gave a speech in 2012 titled “Connected, but Alone?” She spoke about how social media is deterring people from having conversations face to face. With the absence of in person conversations, people are losing the intimacy of the interaction. Similarly, Stephen March wrote an article in 2012 titled “Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?” Along with shocking examples of social media’s influence on society,

he also includes statistics on the decreasing number of confidants people allow in their lives.
Throughout Sherry Turkle’s speech she uses fear as a main approach to convincing her audience.

At the very beginning of her article, Sherry Turkle, express betrayal as she reflects on her past views of technology in regards to her current opinion. This creates an atmosphere that emphasizes the issue, she claims to be rampant. Turkle also provides many examples of children sitting next to each other texting, thereby painting technology as an enemy that is consuming children. She then transitions into her main point of technology causing people to cease intimate interaction with the “goldilocks effect.” (5:51-5:52) Since she is explaining to her audience how technology is rendering conversation obsolete, this is also concerning to her audience. Turkle’s next point is introduced with the quote “I’d rather text than talk.” (9:01-9:03) Not only is this an unusual opinion, but it is also demonstrating an addiction to artificial conversation. This thus shocks the audience and conveys her main method of convincing her audience of her point. Throughout her speech, Turkle employs fear and shock to influence and sway her audience into her

favor.
Turkle’s next major point is introduced with the idea that people want “the illusion of companionship without the demands of friendship.” (12:28-12:31) This implies that friendship is seen as a problem. Since friendship is a crucial part of life, it is worrisome to imagine a world without companionship. This also implies that people fear solitude, which is confirmed by Turkles next claim, “It’s as though we are using them (other people) as spare parts to support our fragile sense of self.” (15:05-15:11) This is metaphor for people surrounding themselves with others to avoid isolation. Not only is expressing that everyone has delicate psyche a bold claim, but is also an alarming claim that causes her audience to reflect on their own sense of self. Even though this method is very effective for engaging the audience and encouraging action, Turkle uses this to convince her audience that she is correct in her statement. Once again, she is striking fear into the audience by demonstrating an epidemic that is rampant.
The key issue with Turkle’s argument is that she ignores introverts. Introverts are people who, are drained by conversation and often seek solitude for rejuvenation and analysis of the conversations they had. Introverts also often prefer meaningful face to face conversation over the short exchange of the trivial fragments Turkle describes with the words “I’d rather text than talk.” (9:01-9:03) Another fact about introverts is that they do not mind self-reflection. They often take the time to know themselves and are rarely lonely. Therefore, her method of arguing that technology is causing loneliness is flawed.
In the article “Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?” Stephen Marche, uses many methods to engage and interest his audience.

Marche’s headline, first paragraph, and writing style all are purposed to hook the reader. His headliner is, “Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?” This question not only engages the audience, but it also causes the reader to seek the answer to the question. He follows this question with a story of a minor celebrity found dead and mummified in her house. It is then brought to the reader’s attention that the lady’s last social experience was with her fans. This is one of the many hooks that Marche utilizes. Marche also uses statistics to convince his audience by demonstrating that he has support to his argument. Surveys say that the number of personal confidants people had dropped from 1985 to 2004 by .86. March continues to write, “Similarly, in 1985, only 10 percent of Americans said they had no one with whom to discuss important matters, and 15 percent said they had only one such good friend. By 2004, 25 percent had nobody to talk to, and 20 percent had only one confidant.” This evidence establishes for the reader that loneliness is an issue that has been worsening year by year. Marche includes these statistics to notify his readers that the rising rates of loneliness are not merely his opinion. His audience is thereby reassured with the inclusion of data on the

subject.
Marche continues to explain that people are paying for “replace confidants” in the form of psychologists, therapists, social workers, life coaches, and counselors. Marche uses the word “replace” to emphasize for his audience that they are not the prevalent people who should be someone’s confidant. He also uses that word to subtly imply that this is wrong. A real confidant is an individual, who has a relationship with a person, willingly listens to his or her issues and provides advice for life issues. This adds to Marche’s argument that loneliness is an epidemic because society is not recognizing the incorrectness of utilizing a “replace confidant” over a real confidant. By writing this, Marche is stating that due to the loss of confidants people are becoming lonely. This also encourages his readers to ask themselves how many confidants they have and if they have a relationship or not. Marche confirms this by writing that society has “outsourced the work of everyday caring.” Here he is implying that people should care for each other and it is wrong for people to pay for services that should be offered by friends and family. The word “outsourced” is used as another hook for the readers. Since the word “outsourced” is a generally negative word to describe the action of obtaining services from an external supplier, the audience quickly recognizes the issue with seeking a “replace confidant.” Thus, the audience is edged toward Marche’s claim of loneliness being a widespread dilemma because they are convinced by statistics that seeking a “replace confidant” is incorrect.
After establishing the rampant issue of loneliness, Marche continues to explain, “Being lonely is extremely bad for your health.” Here he is notifying his readers that loneliness is not a trivial issue. Marche then hooks his audience again stating, “With money, you flee the cramped city to a house in the suburbs or, if you can afford it, a McMansion in the exurbs, inevitably spending more time in your car.” This statement causes the reader to gaze inwardly once again and realize that most of life’s luxuries contribute to the loneliness issue. Here Marche manipulates his audience’s thoughts by reassuring them. He declares, “Loneliness is at the American core, a by-product of a long-standing national appetite for independence: The Pilgrims who left Europe willingly abandoned the bonds and strictures of a society that could not accept their right to be different.” This reassures the reader that striving for independence in the form of isolation is normal.
Now that Marche has established his claim on how loneliness is a dangerous epidemic and how striving for loneliness in the form of independence is a legitimate goal, he addresses his main point of Facebook and loneliness. This argument is introduced with a hook that strikes a bold claim. Marche writes, “A considerable part of Facebook’s appeal stems from its miraculous fusion of distance with intimacy, or the illusion of distance with the illusion of intimacy.” This hooks the reader by introducing Facebook’s “illusion of intimacy.” Since Marche is clearly stating that Facebook’s appeal is a façade, the reader is inclined to continue reading for clarity and question this argument. He later provides this clarity and concludes his article with the words, “We have never been more detached from one another, or lonelier. In a world consumed by ever more novel modes of socializing, we have less and less actual society.” Marche is stating that Facebook is allowing people to socialize while aloof from each other and this is destroying society. It is at this moment that Marche’s readers understand his claim that Facebook is causing loneliness. Marche is utilizing his readers sense of logic to sway them into agreeing with his argument. If loneliness is an unhealthy epidemic and Facebook is providing artificial interaction, then Facebook is causing loneliness by replacing society’s main mode of interaction with an “illusion of intimacy.”
Sherry Turkle’s method of explaining her point is much more aggressive than Mache’s method. She uses fear to manipulate her audience into thinking as she does while Marche allows the reader to think for themselves. Marche presents facts while, Turkle presents theories. Marche employs many hooks and shocking evidence while, Turkle utilizes a tone of worry. Since Sherry Turkle is a professor and director of MIT Initiative on Technology and Self, she does not need to hook her audience. Her reputation precedes her and she may strike fear into her audience because of her known vast knowledge of the subject. On the other hand, Stephen Marche is a magazine columnist and an author. With his audience being swarmed by other information located elsewhere in the magazine, he needs to hook his readers multiple times in order to persuade them into reading and finishing his article.
Considering these two methods of arguing points, Marche’s technique proves to be superior. Since Marche allows his readers to choose to believe in his argument themselves, it leads to the reader gaining a better understanding of what he or she is believing. Even though Marche strays from his main argument for the majority of his article, he includes a sufficient amount of hooks to keeps his audience engaged while compiling evidence to support his claim. He also compels his audience to analyze his evidence themselves, then form a conclusion of whether they say yes to his question “Is Facebook Making Us Lonley?” or not and why. Turkle provides frightening examples while Marche offers facts and statistics. Turkle speaks to appeal to her audience’s emotions, while Marche appeals to his reader’s sense of logic. Even though both are communicating to two different audiences, Stephen Marche appeals to his readers in a more profound manner than Turkle does to her listeners. Sherry Turkle’s viewers will finish listening to her speech with a fear of technology destroying conversation. Contrarily, Marche’s readers will finish his article with either an opinion of their own that they can argue or a hunger for more information on the subject.
As a result, Sherry Turkle and Stephen Marche both argue the same claim, however Marche’s methods of employing hooking and utilizing logic are more substantial. Marche hooks his audience, asks a question, and provides facts and statistics to hint at his answer to that question. Turkle, on the other hand, asks a question, explains her opinion, and answers the question while providing evidence. Marche leaves his audience with the power to answer the question themselves while Turkle answers it for them. If people answer a question themselves, they establish a greater understanding of both sides of the argument than if the question were answered for them. For this reason, Marche’s method is stronger than Turkle’s.