, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 37–45 | Cite as

E. M. Forster’s ‘The Machine Stops’: humans, technology and dialogue

  • Ana Cristina ZimmermannEmail author
  • W. John Morgan
Original Article


The article explores E.M. Forster’s story The Machine Stops (1909) as an example of dystopian literature and its possible associations with the use of technology and with today’s cyber culture. Dystopian societies are often characterized by dehumanization and Forster’s novel raises questions about how we live in time and space; and how we establish relationships with the Other and with the world through technology. We suggest that the fear of technology depicted in dystopian literature indicates a fear that machines are mimicking the roles that humans already play in relational encounters. Our relationship with machines frequently suggests a classical “I-it” situation. However, a genuine dialogue is where there is no master and where communication and understanding are achieved through the encounter and through openness to difference and to change. The article examines the ways machines and automata are imagined and become part of lived human existence, in the light of Martin Buber’s philosophy of dialogue and Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of perception and otherness. The problem seems to be how everyday technological interfaces can change the way we first perceive the world and the possibility that with certain types of mediation there is a loss of connection with the Other. It is argued that understanding dialogical conditions could help turn the relationship with technology into something more humane. Literature such as Forster’s is considered as an example of such a dialogical condition, suggesting ways of dealing with human dilemmas by exploring the field of possibilities.


Dystopian literature Technology Dialogue Phenomenology 


  1. Andreae JV (2007) Christianopolis: an ideal of the 17th century. Cosimo, New York (trans. by F. Emil Held, 1916)Google Scholar
  2. Bauman Z (2003) Liquid love: on the frailty of human bonds. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bicudo MAV (2009) O estar-com o outro no ciberespaço. ETD—Educação Temática Digital 10(2):140–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brassac C (2006) Computers and knowledge: a dialogical approach. AI Soc 20:249–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breton D (2003) Adeus ao corpo. In: Novaes A (ed) O homem-máquina: a ciência manipula o corpo. Companhia das Letras, São Paulo, pp 123–138Google Scholar
  6. Buber M (1972) I and Thou. Charles Scribner & Sons, New York (trans. by W. Kauffman)Google Scholar
  7. Buber M (2002) Between Man and Man. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Byford S (2015) This cuddly Japanese robot bear could be the future of elderly care. The Verge, April 28. Accessed 5 June 2015
  9. Ĉapek K (2014) R.U.R. - Rossum’s Universal Robots. The University of Adelaide Press, South Australia (Play trans. by D. Wyllie)Google Scholar
  10. Chaplin C (1936) Modern Times. Film, United Artists, USA, 87 minGoogle Scholar
  11. Descartes R (1989) The passions of the soul. Hackett Publishing Company, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  12. Dostoevsky F (2004) Notes from underground. Everyman’s Library, London (trans. by R. Pevear and L. Volokhonsky, 1864)Google Scholar
  13. Douglas M (1988) Purity and danger: an analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. Ark Paperbacks, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Forster EM (1909) The machine stops. Oxford and Cambridge ReviewGoogle Scholar
  15. Forster EM (1947) The Collected Tales of E. M. Forster. Alfred A. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuentes, C. (2005) In praise of the novel. In: Fifth International Literature Festival Berlin, Sept 6. Accessed 6 Jun 2015
  17. Guilherme A, Morgan WJ (2009) Martin Buber’s philosophy of education and its implications for adult non-formal education. Int J Lifelong Educ 28(5):565–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guo T (2015) Alan Turing: artificial intelligence as human self-knowledge. Anthropol Today 31(6):3–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hillegas MR (1967) The future as nightmare: H. G. Wells and the Anti-utopians. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hogen A (2009) Cartesian bodies and movement phenomenology. Sport, Ethics and Philos 3(1): 66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hudson A (2013) ‘A robot is my friend’: can machines care for the elderly? In: BBC technology. Accessed 5 Jun 2015
  22. Kim JH (2004) Cibernética, ciborgues e ciberespaço: notas sobre as origens da cibernética e sua reinvenção cultural. Horizontes Antropológicos 10(21): 199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kubrick S (1968) 2001: a space odyssey. Film, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, UK/USA, 160 minGoogle Scholar
  24. Lang F (1926) Metropolis. Film, UFA paramount pictures, Germany, 153 minGoogle Scholar
  25. Marcel G (2007) Being and having. Read Books, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Mauss M (1992) Techniques of the body. In:  Crary J, Kwinter S (eds) Incorporations. Zone 6, New York, pp 455–477Google Scholar
  27. McGonigal J (2011) Reality is broken: why games make us better and how they can change the world. Jonathan Cape, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. McGonigal J (2015) Personal Journal. In The Wall Street Journal. Tuesday, April 28:25Google Scholar
  29. Merleau-Ponty M (1962) Phenomenology of perception. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Merleau-Ponty M (1973) The crisis of understanding. In Adventures of the dialectic. Northwestern University Press, Evanston, pp 9–26 (trans. by J. Bien)Google Scholar
  31. More T (1967) Utopia. In: Greene JJ, Dolan JP (eds) The essential Thomas More. New American Library, New York (trans. by JP Dolan)Google Scholar
  32. Morgan WJ, Guilherme A (2014) Buber and education: dialogue as conflict resolution. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  33. Murray CD, Sixsmith J (1999) The corporeal body in virtual reality. Ethos 27(3): 315–343. Accessed 24 Jan 2011
  34. Novaes A (2003) O homem-máquina: a ciência manipula o corpo. Companhia das Letras, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  35. Ortega F (2007) Corporeidade e biotecnologias: uma crítica fenomenológica da construção do corpo pelo construtivismo e pela tecnobiomedicina. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 12(2): 381–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parrinder P (ed.) (2000) Learning from other worlds: estrangement, cognition and the politics of science fiction and utopia. Liverpool University Press, LiverpoolGoogle Scholar
  37. Reuters (2015) Sci-fi TV series ‘Humans’ breathes new life into robot debate. Reaney, P Jun 26. Accessed 27 Jun 2015
  38. Richardson, K. (2010) Disabling as mimesis and alterity: making humanoid robots at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Etnofoor 22(1): 75–90Google Scholar
  39. Romdenh-Romluc K (2007) Merleau-ponty and the power to reckon with the possible. In: Baldwin T (ed) Reading merleau-ponty: on phenomenology of perception. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  40. Schrag CO (1988) The lived body as a phenomenological Datum. In: Morgan WJ, Meier L (eds) Philosophic inquiry in sport, reprinted from Metaphysical Journal (1952). Human Kinetics, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  41. Scott R (1982) Blade runner. Film, Warner Bros, USA, 116 minGoogle Scholar
  42. Seegert A (2010) Technology and the fleshly interface in Forster’s “The Machine Stops”: an ecocritical appraisal of a one hundred year old future. Journal of Ecocriticism 2(1):33–54Google Scholar
  43. Shakespeare W (2000). The Tempest. In: Vaughan VM, Vaughan AT (eds), William Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Shelley MW (1818) Frankenstein: Or, The Modern Prometheus. Lackington, Hughes, Harding, Mavor, and Jones, Wordsworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  45. Stanton A (2008) Wall-E. Film, Walt Disney, USA, 98 minGoogle Scholar
  46. Stern M (2006) Dystopian anxieties versus utopian ideals: medicine from a Frankenstein to the visible human project and body worlds. Sci cult 15(1):61–84MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Trilling L (1964) E. M. Forster. New Directions, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Tucherman I (2006) Fabricando corpos: ficção e tecnologia. Comunicação, mídia e consumo 3(7): 77–92Google Scholar
  49. Turing AM (1950) Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind, New Series 59(236): 433–460. Accessed 18 Jan 2016
  50. Turkle S (2011) Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Vallor S (2012) Flourishing on facebook: virtue friendship & new social media. Ethics Inf Technol 14:185–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vallor S (2014) Moral deskilling and upskilling in a new machine age: reflections on the ambiguous future of character. Philosophy and Technology, 1–18. Accessed 18 Jan 2016
  53. Varela F, Thompson E, Rosch E (1991) The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Vincent J (2014) Japanese ‘robot with a heart’ will care for the elderly and children. The independent, Thursday 05 June. Accessed 6 Jun 2015
  55. Waterfield R (1994) Plato: republic. Translated, with notes and an introduction. Oxford World’s Classics, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilcox FM (1956) Forbidden planet. Film, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, USA, 98 minGoogle Scholar
  57. Wilson RA, Foglia L (2015) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), in: Zalta EN (ed) Embodied cognition URL = Accessed 18 Jan 2016

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Physical Education and SportUniversity of Sao Paulo/BrazilSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  3. 3.School of Social SciencesCardiff UniversityCardiff, WalesUK
  4. 4.Wales Institute of Social & Economic Research & DataCardiff, WalesUK

Personalised recommendations