Dooley 1

Alex Dooley
ENGW 103
Dr. Susan Dunn-Hensley
Paper IV
2 May 2012
Modern Technological Advances and Human Interaction
The force of globalization has authored numerous changes in the way humans
communicate, and the landscape of our methods of interaction as humans has been dramatically
altered in both recent and distantly past years. As a result of the development and
implementation of new technology, particularly electronic devices and the networks that have
arisen to support them, humans are now capable of accessing virtually any piece of information
or communicating with another at literally a second's notice.
Civilization as a whole has gripped tightly to these advances, making them an integral
part of our culture. It is difficult to imagine a world without the internet, cellular phone
technology, and social media. The influence of modern technology on the way that humans
interact with one another is vast. Our technological devices are certainly an integral part of how
we communicate with other people, and our use of these devices is often necessary for us to be
able to communicate effectively with others at all.
Many social commentators are concerned with the potential implications carried by this
hasty adaptation of modern technology in our communication. The fact that we rely so heavily
on the use of technological devices to communicate with other people is troubling to several, and
raises some doubt as to whether or not the quality of our interaction has been maintained. This

Dooley 2
concern leads others to wonder if technology really provides any sort of freedom for its users, or
if it actually traps them in a subservient state to the technology itself, lending their autonomy to
the devices they are dependent on. Scholar Herbert Marcuse is one of the voices speaking out
with this opinion, and argues such in his 1941 essay Some Social Implications of Modern
Technology.
Besides the interest over whether or not autonomy is compromised by the technological
devices utilized by humans, others are concerned with the actual mechanics of communicating
and the way our communication with others is affected by having instant access to anyone, in
any place, provided both parties have some form of synchronously operating communication
device. In her book Alone Together, Sherry Turkle expounds upon the now-common social
occurrence of humans gathering together in a common area, such as a train station or outdoor
park, but not conversing with one another, rather choosing to remain tethered to their devices and
access the portal their devices provide to the people on the other side of the connection (155).
The amount of time people spend communicating with each other while not physically together,
and the ease with which this is possible, has created, for many, an actual dependence on solitude
itself to feel capable of effectively and efficiently having a conversation (Turkle 155).
This dependence on technological devices and new media to allow us to perform the art
of communicating with others is a disconcerting aspect of modern culture, and the fact that our
devices are so closely tied to our communication makes it easy to devalue the substance of what
the actual conversation is. Additionally, the emphasis on brevity so prevalent in modern
technological methods of communicating particularly in mediums such as text messaging has
been a detriment to the grammar and style of both the speech and writing styles of those who

Dooley 3
make common, habitual use of them. This is particularly true for younger, school-age children,
most of whom have grown up with these technologies. In recent years, teachers have observed
students turning in an increasingly greater number of school assignments with the shorthand textmessage vernacular commonly used in chat rooms and other forms of new media interspersed
with grammatically correct, academically accepted english (Lee).
The cheapening of our interactions as humans because of modern technology has not
been accepted without challenge by all societies, however. Perhaps one of the most widelyrecognized groups of people in the United States going against this cultural shift toward the
globalization of communication through technological development is the Amish. The Amish,
though widely variant in sects and orders, follow the same basic seven tenets, known as the
Schleitheim Articles, set forth by a group of Anabaptists known as the Swiss Brethren in 1527.
These rules for living include a call for believers to unite in separation from evil and wickedness
in the world, and to remain disassociated with those who take part in them (Hostetler 28-29). As
a result of intense persecution at the hands of the German and French royalty, the Amish began
to migrate to the United States in large numbers at the beginning of the 18th century (Hostetler
52).
The call for the Amish people to separate from worldly culture, as outlined in the
Schleitheim Articles, has played a drastic role in determining the the course of Amish adaptation
to modern conveniences and culture. Because of the significance of maintaining pure, holy lives
to the Amish, they choose to separate from modern culture in many noticeable ways. Amish
people, children and adults alike, maintain a distinctly uniform code of dress (Hostetler 77).
There is no uniformly agreed upon dress code among all Amish settlements, rather the

Dooley 4
acceptable state of dress varies by community (Hostetler 85). There is no intermingling of
outsiders and Amish in either marriage or business partnerships, although the Amish are
permitted to do business with non-Amish people (Hostetler 77).
One very noticeable difference between Amish culture and that of the general populace,
of course, is the forbidding of the use of electricity in Amish homes. In 1919, Amish bishop
Benjamin Beiler played a key role in having a ban on 110-volt electricity written into his
community's Ordnung, the governing document of each Amish enclave (Kraybill 153). This
policy would become the accepted practice of other Amish communities, eventually making its
way into the official Ordnung of many other settlements. The practice of having homes in an
Amish community connected so directly to the outside world goes directly against the Amish
ideology and philosophy of separatism from the world expressed in the Schleitheim Articles,
hence the banishment.
Community, being so important to the Amish, is their primary reason for forbidding
electricity. Electricity itself is not the issue to the Amish people, but rather the various
applications of the broad use of electricity. The massive number of electrical appliances that
would inevitably be introduced to Amish communities if electricity were permitted, such as
television, computers, and other modern conveniences, would interrupt the intimate schedule of
fellowship and actual, real-life interpersonal communication enjoyed by their people (Kraybill
153). Because of the initial abolishment of electricity in 1920, Amish community leaders did not
have to worry about considering all the electrical appliances invented in the 20th century on a
case-by-case basis. This played an integral role in removing the potential for community
disruption through electronic devices and solidified the preservation of Amish culture as it had

Dooley 5
been for decades.
The methods utilized by the Amish to maintain integrity in their community are certainly
extreme. In spite, and perhaps because, of their extremity, they seem to be very effective in
preserving the values of authentic, intimate community and communication between those who
are a part of the Amish tradition. However, to deny that this intentional shunning of technology
has its drawbacks is clearly inaccurate. The practice of blocking a community from a specific
kind of technological development for the sake of preserving the traditions of that group cuts the
said group off from the tide of common progress undergone by the rest of the world and
effectively eliminates any sort of influence that community may have in the particular field they
have abandoned.
While this disconnect from the world may be ideal for some the Amish, for example,
who want nothing to do with the culture around them it is not a practical way for the general
populace to deal with the problem of compromised interpersonal communication as a result of
the technology that consumes them. Complete abstinence from electricity would clearly disrupt
the daily operations of nearly every business and household in the developed world and greatly
impair the ability of billions of people to communicate with anyone not in their immediate
vicinity. This would pose a problem to governments, corporations, and civilians all over the
world. Even the Amish, who utilize energy in the form of battery-operated equipment and dieselpowered tractors and harvesters, would not be able to conduct business on their farms in the way
they have since the early part of the 20th century (Kraybill 153). The sheer impossibility of
abandoning electricity is reason enough to discard the model laid out by the Amish for
addressing the problem of how to maintain interpersonal relationships without needing to rely on

Dooley 6
electronic devices to make our friends for us.
While a complete abandonment of electricity is not feasible for the vast majority of the
population, we can still learn much from the principles espoused by the Amish in their efforts to
build and maintain a healthy community. The Amish have, in fact, found a way to avoid the
negative influence of modern technology over the way we communicate, and have definitely
proved that it is possible to function as citizens of the world without succumbing to the effects of
said technology at all, if need be, and it is important that we recognize their achievements in
spite of the shortcomings of their methods for the rest of humanity. The secret to the success of
the Amish, however, lies in their avoidance of the natural progress of the technological world.
This rejection of technology simply will not happen on a large scale, and is thus an insufficient
prescription for how to address the challenges facing modern humanity regarding the way
modern technology so heavily influences interpersonal communication.
It is important to recognize that new communication technology itself is not the
antagonist in the failing of our communication as humans. Nothing about a cellular phone,
computer, or the internet inherently plays an active role in driving a wedge between humans.
Rather, it is the irresponsibility exhibited by those who use these technologies that causes any
problems in their communication habits and abilities. While choosing to avoid the advances in
communication technology that are so easy to abuse would solve this problem, it is better to
learn to properly utilize the technology available to us without isolating ourselves from the
progress made in communication technology.
The fact that humans can so easily interact with one another through mediums such as
cellular phone call, text message, and social media definitely adds a new dynamic to the way

Dooley 7
humans communicate with one another. Our ease of access to one another and the ability to
communicate with other people from literally anywhere in the world may lead us to devalue the
time we actually spend with other people. Talking to a piece of plastic in the hand is much more
lonely than conversing with a live human being, but the convenience of doing so often causes
communicating through electronic means to be a substitute for personal interaction with others.
This does not reduce the quantity of communication experienced by humans in fact, according
to a study done by scholars Marco Yzer and Brian Southwell, many people may actually find
connectedness and experience a higher volume of interaction with others through new
communication technologies (11). Herein lies the problem, however. When humans must rely on
communication technology to connect with others, something is amiss. Rather than improving
our interactions, technology seems to be acting as a detriment because of the way we are
utilizing it, and the quality of our communication is affected as a result of our near complete
reliance on modern technology to be our medium of interaction with one another.
In order to effectively address this problem, we can not simply run from modern
technological advances, as the Amish have done. The world we live in will continue to progress
further in this area, and the isolationist ideals espoused by the Amish can not serve the general
population. Instead, we must view technology itself in a proper light. Technology has to be seen
as a means to an end. When humans obsess over their modern communication devices
themselves instead of focusing on the function the devices are meant to serve, the quality of
interaction experienced drops significantly. Communication itself must supersede the
communication devices in order to maintain the purity in our interactions as humans.
Over the last several decades, modern communication technology has radically altered

Dooley 8
the landscape of what interpersonal communication between humans looks like. In our haste to
adapt the new technologies available to us, we must be careful in the ways we utilize them.
Prioritizing the act of communicating with others over the technology with which we do so is
key in sustaining healthy relationships with others, staving off addiction to our technological
devices, and avoiding the unintended isolation that comes from overuse of technology. Modern
advances in communication technology are incredibly useful, but only when we properly utilize
them.

Dooley 9
Works Cited
Hostetler, John A. Amish Society. 3rd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1980. Print.
Kraybill, Donald B. The Secret of Amish Culture. 3rd ed. London: Johns Hopkins UP, 1991.
Print.
Lee, Jennifer. "I Think, Therefore IM." Editorial. The New York Times. The New York Times.
The New York Times, 19 Sept. 2002. Web. 29 Apr. 2012.
Marcuse, Herbert. "Some Social Implications of Modern Technology." Studies in Philosophy
and Social Sciences IX (1941): 138-63. Print.
Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each
Other. New York: Basic, 2011. Print.
Yzer, M. C., and B. G. Southwell. "New Communication Technologies, Old Questions."
American Behavioral Scientist 52.1 (2008): 8-20. EBOSCOhost. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.