MyOOPS開放式課程
請加入會員以使用更多個人化功能
來自全球頂尖大學的開放式課程,現在由世界各國的數千名義工志工為您翻譯成中文。請免費享用!
課程來源:TED
     
Stefana Broadbent談互聯網如何讓人更親近
Stefana Broadbent: How the Internet enables intimacy
講者:Stefana Broadbent
20097月演講,200911月在TED上線
 
翻譯:陳盈
簡體編輯:洪曉慧
簡繁轉換:劉契良
後制:陳盈
字幕影片後制:謝旻均
 
 
關於演講:
我們擔心IM、簡訊、Facebook正在破壞人類的親密感,但Stefana Broadbent的研究顯示通訊技術如何能培養更深入的關係,讓愛跨越距離和工作場所規則等障礙。
 
關於Stefana Broadbent
Stefana Broadbent觀察我們聊天(以及使用IM和簡訊)。她是新一類的人種學者,研究我們日常社交的方式,以及在數位時代中關係的作用和變異。
 
為什麼聽她演講:
Stefana Broadbent是認知科學家,多年來觀察人們在家和在複雜工作環境(例如:航空交通管制塔)下使用科技的情況。她觀察我們使用嶄新工具的方式,以及每種工具使用上的演進(例如:你可能只會打電話給老媽、但卻能發簡訊給配偶;只能IM你的同事,但卻能和朋友使用Twitter),這在我們對關係的思考上很有意義。
 她利用傳統和革新人種學實踐的研究最近運用在瑞士電信公司(Swisscom)的職場中,她也是倫敦大學學院新數位人類學系研究員。她有一些讓人驚訝的發現。例如,你知道我們很多人現在透過文字和朋友交流的頻率高於語言嗎?甚至連最硬底的行動工作者(攜帶手提電腦奔波在外者)都寧願坐在自己的書桌旁「埋頭苦幹」?
「她不僅提供很多資料來向你展示最新的趨勢,還進一步把它們和一個更高級的問題聯繫起來(例如認知心理學)」。
Pasta & Vinegar部落格
 
Stefana Broadbent的網上英文資料:
 
[TED科技娛樂設計]
已有中譯字幕的TED影片目錄(繁體)(簡體)。請注意繁簡目錄是不一樣的。
 
Stefana Broadbent談互聯網如何讓人更親近
我相信有一些隱藏的新張力,確實存在於人和機構組織之間。機構組織就是人們進行日常生活的地方,學校、醫院、工作場所、工廠、辦公室等。我看到有些事正在發生,我想把這稱為「親密感民主化」。
 
這是什麼意思?我的意思是,人們在做的事,實際上,就是通過溝通管道打破原有的孤立,而這種孤立是這些機構組織所賦予的。他們是怎樣做的?他們的做法很簡單,幹活的時候打電話給老媽,在辦公室IM朋友,在桌子底下發簡訊。
 
大家看到我身後的圖片,是我在最近幾個月訪問的人。我讓他們帶上溝通最頻繁的人,有人帶男朋友,有人帶父親,一位年輕女士帶了她的祖父。
 
20年來,我一直觀察人們如何利用電子郵件、手機、簡訊等管道,我們將看到的是,根本上人們的溝通很有規律,一直在跟他們最親密的五個、六個或者七個人溝通。我們來看點數據,Facebook。最近研究Facebook的一些社會學家—Facebook是一個管道,可以讓你最大程度地拓展所有溝通管道。一個普通用戶,舉例像Cameron Marlow,他在Facebook上有大概120個朋友。但他實際上有聊天雙向且經常交流的大概是四到六個人,視其性別而定。
 
學術上對即時訊息的研究還顯示,儘管好友名單上有100人,但人們一般只會跟兩個、三個、四個人聊天—總之少於五個。我自己對手機和聲音呼叫的研究顯,80%的呼叫都是只針對四個人,80%。當你用Skype的時候,會減至兩個人。
 
很多社會學家確實感到失望,當我看到這個資料,有時候我有點失望。還有全部這些使用只針對五個人,一些社會學家確實覺得這是自我封閉,作繭自縛。我們正在疏離大眾。我想讓你們看到,如果我們真的觀察在這樣做的人,從他們的實際所在地觀察,我們會發現其中有不可思議的社會轉變。
 
我覺得有三個故事是很好的例子。第一位先生是麵包師傅,他每天早上四點開始幹活,大概八點,他就會從爐旁溜開,洗淨手上的麵粉,打電話給他老婆。他只想祝她今天開心,因為這是一天的開始。我已聽過這個故事很多次,一個年輕的夜班工人,他從工廠溜出來,順便要提一下,那裏有閉路電視。他找到一個角落,在晚上11點時,打電話給女朋友,只為了說晚安。或者是一個母親,四點的時候,突然在廁所裏找到一個角落打電話,看孩子是不是安全地待在家裏。
 
還有另一對巴西夫婦,他們在義大利住了很多年,每週用Skype和家人聯繫幾次。但每兩週,他們會把電腦放在餐桌上,拿出網路攝影機,然後和他們在巴西聖保羅的家人一起吃飯,這對他們是一件隆重的事。幾年前我第一次聽到這個故事,一個很普通的家庭,住在瑞士的科索沃移民,他們在客廳裝了一個大螢幕,每天早上都和祖母一起吃早餐。
 
但Danny Miller,他是一位很優秀的人類學家,研究菲律賓女性移民。她們把孩子們留在菲律賓。他告訴我父母怎樣通過Skype照顧子女,以及這些母親通過Skype和子女聯繫的情況。
 
第三對是兩個朋友,他們每天都聊,一天聊上好幾次。最後他們成功在辦公室電腦上安裝即時通訊軟體。很明顯,現在他們經常開著通訊軟體,一有時間就聊天。
 
這就是校園青少年在桌底下幹的事,他們在桌下給朋友發簡訊,這不是個別事件,我可以說出很多例子,但所處場景很不同。想想我剛才說的三個場景:工廠、移民、辦公室,但在監管下也一樣可以,可以在醫院,我們想想十五年前這三種場景。
 
在十五年前當你走進一間辦公室,走進一座工廠,沒有和所有人產生關聯的方法,也沒有和你本身產生聯繫的方法。如果你走運的話,在某處走廊會有公共電話,如果你是管理層,那又完全不同,可能你會有直線電話。如果你不是管理層,就要通過總機了。但基本上當你走進那些建築物,都沒了私密感。
 
這成為了我們職業生活的一個規範,是規範也是期望,和技術能力無關。電話在那裏,但人們的期望是你一走進那裏,注意力就完全放在手頭的工作上,放在周遭的人身上。焦點就應該在那,這還成了一種文化規範。我們教導孩子,讓他們明白這種不同。
 
如果你認為托兒所、幼稚園、小學低年級,這都只是讓孩子習慣長時間離開家的地方,學校掩飾的很好,完美模擬了所有我們在辦公室的行為禮節,進出的行為禮節。課程表、校服都是用來識別你的身份,團隊建立活動讓你基本上,可以隨機和一組孩子或一組人一起,你將必須多次和他們一起進行活動。當然,重要的是要學會專注集中注意力。
 
這是150年前才開始的,隨著現代官僚機構以及工業革命的出現而開始。當時人們基本上都要出去幹活並開展工作。在現代官僚體制下,有種很合理的方法明確劃分私人領域和公共領域。以往人們一般都靠以物易物維生,靠自己耕作的土地維生,以自己工作的工廠維生。
 
想想就可以發現,這滲透了整個文化,甚至我們的城市。想想中世紀的城市,中世紀城市的各區都設有自己的公會和同業。現在我們的居住地向郊區延伸,這和生產區、商業區有明顯的分隔。的確,在這150年裏出現了一個很明顯的階級體系。工作地位越低,執行工作的人地位越低,就越沒有私人空間。人們互相聯繫的可能非常大。整天不停地進行,在各種情況下都可以。他們有大量的聯繫行為。Pew研究所持續地提供了很好的資料,例如在美國,我覺得這是個數字過於保守,有50%的人上班時可使用電子郵件,他們實際上在辦公室發私人郵件。我確實覺得這是個保守的數字。在我的研究中,我們發現私人郵件的高峰時段是上午11點,無論在哪個國家都是這樣,75%的人承認在工作時間用手機打私人電話,100%的人在發私人簡訊。
 
問題是這種私人空間的重新形成並不是所有的機構都有成效。一直讓我覺得驚訝的是美軍,例如:社會學家正討論駐伊美軍每天和家人聯繫所產生的影響。但實際上很多機構隔斷這樣的聯繫。
 
每天我會讀到一些讓人生畏的新聞,例如在德州,對兒童處以15美元的懲罰,只要他們在學校使用一次手機。在紐約,如果執勤公車司機被看到手裏拿著手機就會馬上被開除。出於安全考慮,公司阻止IM的使用,不許上Facebook。這一直是關於社會控制的爭論。實際上這些機構試圖決定誰有權來決定他們的關注點,即決定他們是否該被隔離。在一定程度上,他們的確在阻止能造成更親密可能性的這些行動。
(掌聲)

以下為系統擷取之英文原文

About this talk

We worry that IM, texting, Facebook are spoiling human intimacy, but Stefana Broadbent's research shows how communication tech is capable of cultivating deeper relationships, bringing love across barriers like distance and workplace rules.

About Stefana Broadbent

Stefana Broadbent watches us while we talk (and IM, and text). She is one of a new class of ethnographers who study the way our social habits and relationships function and mutate in the… Full bio and more links

Transcript

I believe that there are new, hidden tensions that are actually happening between people and institutions -- institutions that are the institutions that people inhabit in their daily life: schools, hospitals, workplaces, factories, offices, etc. And something that I see happening is something that I would like to call a sort of "democratization of intimacy."

And what do I mean by that? I mean that what people are doing is, in fact, they are sort of, with their communication channels, they are breaking an imposed isolation that these institutions are imposing on them. How are they doing this? They're doing it in a very simple way, by calling their mom from work, by IMing from their office to their friends, by texting under the desk.

The pictures that you're seeing behind me are people that I visited in the last few months. And I asked them to come along with the person they communicate with most. And somebody brought a boyfriend, somebody a father. One young woman brought her grandfather.

For 20 years, I've been looking at how people use channels such as email, the mobile phone, texting, etc. What we're actually going to see is that, fundamentally, people are communicating on a regular basis with five, six, seven, of their most intimate sphere. Now, lets take some data. Facebook. Recently some sociologists from Facebook -- Facebook is the channel that you would expect is the most enlargening of all channels. And an average user, said Cameron Marlow, from Facebook, has about 120 friends. But he actually talks to, has two-way exchanges with about four to six people on a regular base, depending on his gender.

Academic research on instant messaging also shows 100 people on buddy lists, but fundamentally people chat with two, three, four -- anyway, less than five. My own research on cellphones and voice calls show that 80 percent of the calls are actually made to four people. 80 percent. And when you go to Skype, it's down to two people.

A lot of sociologists actually are quite dissapointed. I mean, I've been a bit disappointed sometimes when I saw this data and all this deployment, just for five people. And some sociologists actually feel that it's a closure, it's a cocooning, that we're disengaging from the public. And I would actually, I would like to show you that if we actually look at who is doing it, and from where they're doing it, actually there is an incredible social transformation.

There are three stories that I think are quite good examples. The first gentleman, he's a baker. And so he starts working every morning at four o'clock in the morning. And around eight o'clock he sort of sneaks away from his oven, cleans his hands from the flower, and calls his wife. He just wants to wish her a good day, because that's the start of her day. And I've heard this story a number of times. A young factory worker who works night shifts, who manages to sneak away from the factory floor, where there is CCTV by the way, and find a corner, where at 11 o'clock at night he can call his girlfriend and just say goodnight. Or a mother who, at four o'clock, suddenly manages to find a corner in the toilet to check that her children are safely home.

Then there is another couple, there is a Brazilian couple. They've lived in Italy for a number of years. They Skype with their families a few times a week. But once a fortnight, they actually put the computer on their dining table, pull out the webcam and actually have dinner with their family in Sao Paulo. And they have a big event of it. And I heard this story the first time a couple of years ago from a very modest family of immigrants from Kosovo in Switzerland. They had set up a big screen in their living room. And every morning they had breakfast with their grandmother.

But Danny Miller, who is a very good antropologist who is working on Filipina migrant women who leave their children back in the Philippines, was telling me about how much parenting is going on through Skype, and how much these mothers are engaged with their children through Skype.

And then there is the third couple. They are two friends. They chat to each other every day, a few times a day actually. And finally finally they've managed to put instant messaging on their computers at work. And now, obviously, they have it open. Whenever they have a moment they chat to each other.

And this has become such a norm of our professional lives, such a norm and such an expectation. And it had nothing to do with technical capability. The phones were there. But the expectation was once you moved in there your commitment was fully to the task at hand, fully to the people around you. That was where the focus had to be. And this has become such a cultural norm that we actually school our children for them to be capable to do this cleavage.

If you think nursery, kindergarten, first years of school are just dedicated to take away the children, to make them used to staying long hours away from their family. And then the school enacts perfectly well, mimics perfectly all the rituals that we will start in offices, rituals of entry, rituals of exit, the schedules, the uniforms in this country, things that identify you, team-building activities, team building that will allow you to basically be with a random group of kids, or a random group of people that you will have to be with for a number of time. And of course, the major thing: learn to pay attention, to concentrate and focus your attention.

This only started about 150 years ago. It only started with the birth of modern bureaucracy, and of industrial revolution. When people basically had to go somewhere else to work and carry out the work. And when with modern bureaucracy there was a very rational approach, where there was a clear distinction between the private sphere and the public sphere. So, until then, basically people were living on top of their trades. They were living on top of the land they were laboring. They were living on top of the workshops where they were working.

And if you think, it's permeated our whole culture, even our cities. If you think of medieval cities, medieval cities the boroughs all have the names of the guilds and professions that lived there. Now we have sprawling residential suburbias that are well distinct from production areas and commercial areas. And actually, over these 150 years, there has been a very clear class system that also has emerged. So the lower the status of the job and of the person carrying out, the more removed he would be from his personal sphere.

People have taken this amazing possibility of actually being in contact all through the day or in all types of situations. And they are doing it massively. The Pew Institute, which produces good data on a regular basis on, for instance, in the States, says that -- and I think that this number is conservative -- 50 percent of anybody with email access at work, is actually doing private email from his office. I really think that the number is conservative. In my own research, we saw that the peak for private email is actually 11 o'clock in the morning, whatever the country. 75 percent of people admit doing private conversations from work on their mobile phones. 100 percent are using text.

The point is that this reappropriation of the personal sphere is not terribly successful with all institutions. I'm always surprised the U.S. Army sociologist are discussing of the impact for instance, of soldiers in Iraq having daily contact with their families. But there are many institutions that are actually blocking this access.

And every day, every single day, I read news that makes me cringe, like a 15-dollar fine to kids in Texas, for using, every time they take out their mobile phone in school. Immediate dismissal to bus drivers in New York, if seen with a mobile phone in a hand. Companies blocking access to IM or to Facebook. Behind issues of security and safety, which have always been the arguments for social control, in fact what is going on is that these institutions are trying to decide who, in fact, has a right to self determine their attention, to decide, whether they should, or not, be isolated. And they are actually trying to block, in a certain sense, this movement of a greater possibility of intimacy. (Applause)

 


留下您對本課程的評論
標題:
您目前為非會員,留言名稱將顯示「匿名非會員」
只能進行20字留言

留言內容:

驗證碼請輸入6 + 8 =

標籤

現有標籤:1
新增標籤:


有關本課程的討論

课程讨论
下载不了,请帮忙修复一下

Anonymous, 2010-09-28 14:20:20
課程討論
影片載點似乎有問題,麻煩了
Anonymous, 2010-04-19 10:00:19

Creative Commons授權條款 本站一切著作係採用 Creative Commons 授權條款授權。
協助推廣單位: