, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 11–21 | Cite as

Authentic virtual others? The promise of post-modern technologies

  • Taylor DotsonEmail author
Original Article


While modern technological development has promised the liberation of humanity from the constraints of the natural world: disease, toil, hunger and so on, post-modern technological developments promise a new kind of liberation: the freeing of humanity from the limitations and burdens found in the social world of people. Emerging technologies such as virtual humans and sociable robots exemplify this post-modern promise. This paper aims to explore the potential unintended consequence of such technologies and question the character of the “liberation” they promise. While virtual “other” technologies are being developed under the guise of solving social problems and providing therapeutics, the full effect of their deployment will be much more profound. Developers of virtual others do not aim to create fully intelligent social actors but merely to evoke a sense of social presence. It is notable, however, how easily social presence and attachment are evoked in human beings. The difficulty does not lie in the suspension of disbelief but rather in fighting the unconscious and pre-rational urge to anthropomorphize and imagine objects as social others. As imperfect but highly seductive simulations, virtual others are instances of post-modern hyperreality. Embracing them, I argue, carries the risk of an undesirable shift in the collective conception of authentic sociality. Rather than succumbing to technological somnambulism and naively believing that virtual others can be held at the rational distance necessary to prevent any unwanted reshaping of human social interaction, one should be cautious and critical of what the post-modern promise of technology holds in store for those who pursue it.


Virtual others Social robotics Hyperreality Authenticity Technological somnambulism 



I wish to acknowledge Edward Woodhouse, Albert Borgmann and another anonymous reviewer for providing helpful comments, emendations and critiques in the process of preparing this manuscript.


  1. Ackerman JM, Nocera CC, Bargh JA (2010) Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgements and decisions. Science 328(5986):1712–1715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariely D (2008) Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. HaperCollins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Bainbridge WA, Hart J, Kim ES, Scassellati B (2008) The effect of presence on human-robot interaction. International symposium on robot and human interactive communication. IEEE, Munich, Germany, pp 701–706Google Scholar
  4. Baudrillard J (1995) Simulacra and simulation. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry W (2010) What matters? Economics for a renewed commonwealth. Counterpoint, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  6. Biocca F (1997) The cyborg’s dilemma: Progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Humanizing the Information Age. 3. Second International Conference on Cognitive Technology, Aizu-Wakamatsu City, Japan, pp. 12–26Google Scholar
  7. Biocca F, Harms C, Burgoon JK (2003) Towards a more robust theory and measure of social presence: review and suggested criteria. Presence 12(5):456–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borgmann A (1984) Technology and the character of contemporary life. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgmann A (1992) Crossing the postmodern divide. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Breazeal C (2005) Socially intelligent robots. Interactions 12(2):19–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breazeal C, Gray J, Berlin M (2009) An embodied cognition approach to mindreading skills for socially intelligent robots. Int J Robot Res 28(5):656–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caporeal L (1986) Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: two faces of the human machine. Comp Hum Behav 2:215–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheshire T (2011) How Cynthia Breazeal is teaching robots how to be human. Wired magazine. Accessed 19 Aug 2011
  14. Coeckelbergh M (2009) Personal robots, appearance, and human good: a methodological reflection on roboethics. Int J Soc Rob 1(3):217–221Google Scholar
  15. Duffy BR (2003) Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robot Auto Syst 42:177–190CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Eco U (1986) Travels in hyperreality. Harcourt, Orlando, FLGoogle Scholar
  17. Galbraith PW (2009) Moe: exploring virtual potential in post-millennial Japan. Electron J Contemp Jpn Stud. Accessed 10 May 2011
  18. Gaudagno RE, Blascovich J, Bailenson JN, McCall C (2007) Virtual humans and persuasion: the effects of agency and behavioral realism. Media Psychol 10:1–22Google Scholar
  19. Hahn PH, Severson RL, Ruckert JH (2009) Technological nature—and the problem when good enough becomes good. In: Drenthen M, Keulartz J, Proctor J (eds) New visions of nature: complexity and authenticity. Springer, New York, pp 21–39Google Scholar
  20. Heerink M, Krose B, Evers V, Wielinga B (2010) Relating conversational expressiveness to social presence and acceptance of an assistive social robot. Virtual Reality 14:77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heider F, Simmel M (1944) An experimental study of apparent behavior. Am J Psychol 57(2):243–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jung Y, Lee KM (2004) Effects of physical embodiment on social presence of social robots. Presence 2004: the seventh international workshop on presence, pp 80–87Google Scholar
  23. Katayama L (2009) Love in 2-D. The New York Times. Accessed 10 May 2011
  24. Lee KM (2004) Presence, explicated. Commun Theor 14(1):27–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leite I, Martinho C, Pereira A, Paiva A (2009) As time goes by; Long-term evaluation of social presence in robotic companions. International symposium on Robot and Human interactive communication. IEEE, Toyama, Japan, pp 669–674Google Scholar
  26. Levy D (2008) Love + sex with robots: the evolution of human-robot relations. Harper Perennial, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Mori M (1970) The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4):33–35Google Scholar
  28. Nowak KL, Biocca F (2003) The effect of the agency and anthropomorphism on users’ sense of telepresence, copresence, and social presence in virtual environments. Presence 12(5):481–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Oldernburg R (1999) The great good place. Da Capo Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. Pollan M (2006) The omnivore’s dilemma. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Putnam RD (2000) Bowling alone. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Reeves B, Nass C (1996) The media equation: how people treat computers, television and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Samani HA, Cheok AD (2010) Towards a formulation of love in human—robot interaction. International symposium on Robot and Human interactive communication. IEEE, Viareggio, Italy, pp 94–99Google Scholar
  34. Steuer J (1992) Defining virtual reality: dimensions determining telepresence. J Commun 42(4):73–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thaler R, Sunstein C (2008) Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  36. Turkle S (1997) Life on the screen. Touchstone, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Turkle S (2005) The second self. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  38. Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Weizenbaum J (1976) Computer power and human reason. W.H. Freeman and Company, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  40. Winner L (2004) Technologies as forms of life. In: Kaplan DM (ed) Readings in the philosophy of technology. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp 103–114Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Science and Technology Studies DepartmentRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteTroyUSA

Personalised recommendations