Skip to main content

Social media, interpersonal relations and the objective attitude

Ethics and Information Technology volume 22, pages 269–279 (2020)Cite this article

“The Machine is much, but it is not everything. I see something like you in this plate, but I do not see you. I hear something like you through this telephone, but I do not hear you. That is why I want you to come. Pay me a visit, so that we can meet face to face, and talk about the hopes that are in my mind.” (E. M. Forster, The Machine Stops)

Abstract

How do social media affect interpersonal relationships? Adopting a Strawsonian framework, I argue that social media make us more likely to adopt the objective attitude towards persons. Technologically mediated communication tends to inhibit interpersonal emotions and other reactive attitudes. This is due to a relative lack of the social cues that typically enable us to read minds and react to them. Adopting the objective attitude can be harmful for two reasons. First, it tends to undermine the basis of interpersonal relationships. In particular, I argue that friendship is a relationship between persons that requires the participant stance. Second, it is a morally risky attitude that makes us more likely to treat persons in problematic, thing-like ways. Some philosophers have rightly urged that social media are compatible with virtuous, Aristotelian friendship. Notwithstanding, I argue that the harms associated with the objective attitude are more pressing than they might appear if we restrict our focus to relatively virtuous people with the social competence to flourish in morally risky online environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Cocking’s and Matthews’ paper was written prior to the rise of social media and focuses on text-based communication through email and chat rooms. McFall, another sceptic about the possibility of authentic virtual friendships, extends his analysis to Skype (2012). Fröding and Peterson (2012) also argue that social media make a certain form of highly valuable friendship impossible due to the limited and distorted nature of the available information concerning the other’s character. Their target is a faithfully Aristotelian model of virtue friendship principally involving shared engagement in theoria, i.e., active study or contemplation.

  2. Munn’s argument seems to be supported by the empirical literature (Barnett and Coulson 2010). Søraker (2012) also emphasizes the relative advantages of virtual worlds for friendship formation.

  3. For example, Kaliarnta (2016) objects that the dominant Aristotelian framework fails to allow for the variety of forms that valuable virtual friendships can take. Moreover, we might note that the question “are virtual friends possible?” invites a conceptual analysis of friendship in order to reveal criteria of authenticity. This feature of the debate might be challenged too. Given the classical theory of concepts, it makes sense to start by identifying necessary conditions for friendship and then ask whether purely virtual friendships meet those conditions. However, for a wide range of concepts, there are empirical (and distinctively philosophical) reasons to reject the classical theory in favour of a prototype theory (Laurence and Margolis 1999). In fact, a prototypical account of the concept < friendship > would align well with aspects of Aristotle’s own discussion: “Hence we must presumably say that … there are more species of friendship than one. On this view, the friendship of good people insofar as they are good is friendship primarily and fully, but the other friendships [of pleasure and utility] are friendships by similarity.” (NE 1157a30-32). Perhaps virtual friendships can be similar enough to the prototype that they still count “by similarity”.

  4. We find expressions of commitment to this value throughout the Western canon: “Of the things which wisdom provides for the blessedness of one’s whole life, by far the greatest is the possession of friendship.” (Epicurus, Principal Doctrines, XXVII). “Presumably it is also absurd to make the blessed [eudaimōn] person solitary. For no one would choose to have all [other] goods and yet be alone, since a human being is a political [animal], tending by nature to live together with others” (NE 1169b17-20). “Let all the powers and elements of nature conspire to obey and serve one man: Let the sun rise and set at his command: The sea and rivers roll as he pleases, and the earth furnish spontaneously whatever may be useful or agreeable to him: He will still be miserable, till you give him some one person at least, with whom he may share his happiness, and whose esteem and friendship he may enjoy.” (Hume, Treatise, Bk. II, Pt. 2, Sect. V, p. 363). See further Jeske (2019, Ch. 4) on the question of “what good are friends?”.

  5. I set aside questions concerning the possibility of non-reciprocal friendship between persons and, say, social robots or non-human animals that are not persons.

  6. Or, perhaps better, mere objects or things, so as not to exclude the possibility that some objects are not mere objects, but also possess non-instrumental value. I have in mind objects such as ecosystems and artworks. We might also wonder whether the categories of persons and things are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive. In particular, there is reason to think that non-human animals may constitute a third distinct and morally significant category. See Kasperbauer (2017) for more on the ideas of animals as a dehumanized contrast class.

  7. See, e.g., Luo (2011). Among other differences, we attribute mental states to persons, treat persons as subjects not objects, speak to them not just about them, and name them. We continue to be fascinated by fuzzy, penumbral cases such as ghosts, fairies, animals, vehicles, cartoon animals and creatures, shamanic transformations, vampires, zombies, marionettes, children’s transitional objects, social robots, corpses, computers and smartphones.

  8. Conscious experience and agency are widely thought to be sources of moral standing. This is reflected in consequentialist and deontological ethics. It is also reflected in folk morality (Sytsma and Machery 2012).

  9. Wolf also reads Strawson’s distinction in this way. She describes the participant attitudes as “attitudes one has towards individuals only in so far as one regards these individuals as persons” (1981). Again, Flanagan describes them as “attitudes through which we express our common humanity, recognizing them as persons, and according them the positive and negative reactions that come from seeing and treating them as persons.” (2017).

  10. Some psychopaths exemplify this phenomenon. Their condition is partly a matter of an inability to inhabit the participant stance. This is also true of people with autism. See Kennett (2017) for more on psychopathy and autism within a Strawsonian framework.

  11. Psychologists refer to it as “dehumanization” (Haslam 2006; Haslam and Loughnan 2014). Malamuth et al. (2013) mention dehumanization in the context of online aggression. Depersonalization avoids any commitment to the relevance of species membership.

  12. See Shabo (2012) and Mason (2014) for more recent, detailed defences of this claim.

  13. I do not claim that this is the only explanation. Plausibly, two further reasons are the commercial nature of most social media and its addictive quality.

  14. There is evidence that excessive internet use is associated with an impaired ability to interpret facial expressions and an impaired ability to respond differently to faces and objects (Engelberg and Sjöberg 2004; He et al. 2011). We should note, as ever, that association is not necessarily causation. For instance, it may be relevant that excessive internet use is also associated with autistic traits (Finkenauer et al. 2012). It seems likely that individuals with autistic traits are attracted by online environments that lack hard-to-interpret social cues.

  15. This problem is partly mitigated by nonverbals such as emojis, images, filters and Snapchat stickers, which go some way towards conveying information normally available in-person (Elder 2018).

  16. Decreased self-awareness online can also lead to deindividuation. In turn, this disinhibits us and makes us less likely to adhere to social and moral norms (Kiesler et al. 1984; Malamuth et al. 2013).

  17. While Strawson did not mention empathy among the reactive attitudes, it seems reasonable to include it. See further Kennett (2017).

  18. A recent set of studies conclude that text-based communication can lead to dehumanization and that, by contrast, voice can have a humanizing effect (Schroeder et al. 2017).

  19. Personality traits that are known to affect online behaviour include sensation seeking, locus of control extroversion, openness, neuroticism, need for closure, need for cognition and attachment (see (Amichai-Hamburger and Vinitzky 2010; Amichai-Hamburger and Hayat 2013). Notice also that the extent to which we find the objective attitude desirable depends on our personality and our situation. For example, the more we are tired, stressed, uncertain or vulnerable, the more desirable it may seem. In fact, there is the possibility of a vicious circle. If social media make us more tired, stressed, uncertain and vulnerable, then social media make us more likely to desire their objectifying affordances.

References

  • Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Hayat, Z. (2013). Internet and personality. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social net: Understanding our online behavior (2nd ed., pp. 1–20). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amichai-Hamburger, Y., & Vinitzky, G. (2010). Social network use and personality. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1289–1295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amichai-Hamburger, Y., Wainapel, G., & Fox, S. (2002). " On the Internet no one knows I'm an introvert": Extroversion, neuroticism, and Internet interaction. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(2), 125–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J., & Coulson, M. (2010). Virtually real: A psychological perspective on massively multiplayer online games. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron-Cohen, S. (2011). The science of evil: On empathy and the origins of cruelty. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, M., Nettle, D., & Roberts, G. (2006). Cues of being watched enhance cooperation in a real-world setting. Biology Letters, 2(3), 412–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonetti, L., Campbell, M. A., & Gilmore, L. (2010). The relationship of loneliness and social anxiety with children's and adolescents' online communication. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(3), 279–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggle, A. (2008). Real friends: How the Internet can foster friendship. Ethics and Information Technology, 10(1), 71–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocking, D., & Matthews, S. (2000). Unreal friends. Ethics and Information Technology, 2(4), 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocking, D., van den Hoven, J., & Timmermans, J. (2012). Introduction: One thousand friends. Ethics and Information technology, 14(3), 179–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desjarlais, M., & Willoughby, T. (2010). A longitudinal study of the relation between adolescent boys and girls’ computer use with friends and friendship quality: Support for the social compensation or the rich-get-richer hypothesis? Computers in Human Behavior, 26(5), 896–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elder, A. (2014). Excellent online friendships: An Aristotelian defense of social media. Ethics and Information Technology, 16(4), 287–297.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elder, A. M. (2018). Friendship, robots, and social media: False friends and second selves. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelberg, E., & Sjöberg, L. (2004). Internet use, social skills, and adjustment. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(1), 41–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkenauer, C., Pollmann, M. M., Begeer, S., & Kerkhof, P. (2012). Examining the link between autistic traits and compulsive internet use in a non-clinical sample. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(10), 2252–2256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, O. (2017). The geography of morals: Varieties of moral possibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fröding, B., & Peterson, M. (2012). Why virtual friendship is no genuine friendship. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(3), 201–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 399–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, J.-B., Liu, C.-J., Guo, Y.-Y., & Zhao, L. (2011). Deficits in early-stage face perception in excessive internet users. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 303–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeske, D. (2019). Friendship and social media: A philosophical exploration. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, B. (2013). How lonely people use and perceive Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2463–2470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joinson, A. N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(2), 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaliarnta, S. (2016). Using Aristotle’s theory of friendship to classify online friendships: A critical counterview. Ethics and Information Technology, 18(2), 65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasperbauer, T. (2017). Subhuman: The moral psychology of human attitudes to animals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennett, J. (2017). Empathy and psychopathology. In H. Maibom (Ed.), The routledge handbook of philosophy of empathy (pp. 364–376). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39(10), 1123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konrath, S. H., O'Brien, E. H., & Hsing, C. (2011). Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(2), 180–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, J., Epley, N., Parker, J., & Ng, Z.-W. (2005). Egocentrism over e-mail: Can we communicate as well as we think? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurence, S., & Margolis, E. (1999). Concepts and cognitive science. In Concepts: Core readings (pp. 3–81). Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press

  • Lifton, R. J. (1986). The Nazi doctors: Medical killing and the psychology of genocide. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, D., Baumeister, R. F., Yang, C.-C., & Hu, B. (2019). Digital communication media use and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 24(5), 259–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopato, M. S. (2016). Social media, love, and sartre’s look of the other: Why online communication is not fulfilling. Philosophy & Technology, 29(3), 195–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2011). Three-month-old infants attribute goals to a non-human agent. Developmental Science, 14(2), 453–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malamuth, N., Linz, D., & Weber, R. (2013). The internet and aggression: Motivation, disinhibitory, and opportunity aspects. In Y. Amichai-Hamburger (Ed.), The social net: Understanding our online behavior (2nd ed., pp. 120–142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. (2014). Reactivity and refuge. Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility, 2, 143–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • McFall, M. T. (2012). Real character-friends: Aristotelian friendship, living together, and technology. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(3), 221–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munn, N. J. (2012). The reality of friendship within immersive virtual worlds. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(1), 1–10.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Objectification and Internet Misogyny. In S. Levmore & M. C. Nussbaum (Eds.), The offensive internet: Speech, privacy, and reputation (pp. 68–90). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1367–1372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, J. (2007). The emotional construction of morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. H., & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2010). Electronic communication: Escape mechanism or relationship-building tool for shy, withdrawn children and adolescents? In K. H. Rubin & R. J. Coplan (Eds.), The development of shyness and social withdrawal (pp. 236–261). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeder, J., Kardas, M., & Epley, N. (2017). The humanizing voice: Speech reveals, and text conceals, a more thoughtful mind in the midst of disagreement. Psychological Science, 28(12), 1745–1762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shabo, S. (2012). Where love and resentment meet: Strawson's intrapersonal defense of compatibilism. Philosophical Review, 121(1), 95–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, P. (2008). The relationship between unwillingness-to-communicate and students’ Facebook use. Journal of Media Psychology, 20(2), 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. L. (2011). Less than human: Why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others. New York: St. Martin's Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Søraker, J. H. (2012). How shall I compare thee? Comparing the prudential value of actual virtual friendship. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(3), 209–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strawson, P. F. (1974). Freedom and resentment, Freedom and resentment and other essays (pp. 1–25). London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & behavior, 7(3), 321–326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sytsma, J., & Machery, E. (2012). The two sources of moral standing. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(3), 303–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkle, S. (2016). Reclaiming conversation: The power of talk in a digital age. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallor, S. (2012). Flourishing on facebook: Virtue friendship & new social media. Ethics and Information Technology, 14(3), 185–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the virtues: A philosophical guide to a future worth wanting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, S. (1981). The importance of free will. Mind, 90(359), 386–405.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

    Michael-John Turp

Authors
  1. Michael-John Turp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael-John Turp.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Turp, MJ. Social media, interpersonal relations and the objective attitude. Ethics Inf Technol 22, 269–279 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09538-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-020-09538-y

Keywords

  • Social media
  • Friendship
  • Reactive attitudes
  • P. F. Strawson
  • Objectification
  • Virtue