And with technology they can be pretty funny:

(grabbed from The Huffington Post who got it from Reddit)

 Turkle continues:

We have learned the habit of cleaning them up with technology. And the move from conversation to connection is part of this. But it’s a process in which we shortchange ourselves. Worse, it seems that over time we stop caring, we forget that there is a difference.

We are tempted to think that our little “sips” of online connection add up to a big gulp of real conversation. But they don’t. E-mail, Twitter, Facebook, all of these have their places — in politics, commerce, romance and friendship. But no matter how valuable, they do not substitute for conversation. 

The key element of Turkle’s critique is that with technology we have substituted: conversation with connection, presence with updates, patience with urgency, drinking with sipping, bodies with bots, reflection with “what’s on your mind”. She acknowledges there is a place for social media in many aspects of human life, but she argues that it’s actually usurping human life.

A core dimension of relational health is Directness.Assessing the relational impact of any human artefact requires looking at the its impact on Directness between people or entities. Directness has encounter at one end of the spectrum, in which there is face to face contact with honesty and transparency and, at the other end, no contact. Greater levels of directness provide any relationship better opportunity to grow in depth, understanding, shared goals and mutual respect.

Technology’s impact is ambiguous. From the perspective of Directness, you can see how technology can establish and maintain a level of relationship between people or entities that might otherwise be impossible: a hand-written letter, albeit old technology, contributes to the relationships of loved ones, Presidents and Kings; Skype enables my nephew and I to see each other and talk even though we’re 12,000 miles away from each other and will unlikely be in each other’s presence for years. But if the ability to Skype stops me planning to fly to see my nephew, if a letter merely gives me information when what I want is a hug from my wife, then technology is potentially diminishing the relationship. A technology, in and of itself, can’t be said to be good or bad for us.

Zeynep Tufekci, in her commentary on Turkle’s article in The Atlantic, sees more in the research data to be optimistic about, particularly where technology seems to enable connection and sharing where there wasn’t any before. And I think she’s right to see “Social Media’s Small, Positive Role in Human Relationships”. But I think she does what Turkle criticizes, assumes that connection is enough, is okay with some ‘qualitative loss’ in the quality of human relationships (“but not as much as television!” so her argument goes), and hopes that social media will be “a counterweight to the ongoing devaluation of human lives” and overcome divisions brought about by the “vagaries of capitalism”  despite some uses of social media unavoidably being a factor in the devaluation and division itself.

Thinking Relationally about Technology: As I said almost every human artefact, every technology, can be used for good or ill. It’s usually the exercise of wisdom, an awareness of shared purposes, and an ethic rooted in love that helps us lean more towards the good. Thinking relationally means thinking specifically, about this relationship about the quality of this ‘connection’ (singular) –  husband/wife, manager/report, uncle/nephew, client/vendor etc., not the mere ability to form connections. Thinking relationally also means looking at how technology is used in specific relationships to build directness, over time, with mutual understanding and respect, towards shared goals.

Does this help you look at technology and your relationships differently? Let me know what is helpful and what questions you have!

In a future post I’ll review Turkle’s book Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other

Yes, that’s a microwave. We may consider the decision to buy a microwave financially (can I afford it?), or spatially (is there room in the kitchen?), or environmentally (how does this affect my carbon footprint?) – but what about relationally? Having a microwave could either enhance or lower relational wellbeing in the household. Reducing the time spent on preparing food could either permit more time for talking together over the meal, or else lead to family members eating at different times and not talking together at all. Looking at the decision through a relational lens will bring these dimension into perspective.

The point is not that there’s an immediate right answer to a decision or that a piece of household technology is either good or bad. The imperative is that we give thoughtful consideration to the impact a device, or more importantly, the use of a device  , has on our significant relationships. Thinking about is the first step to taking action about it. In future posts we’ll look at actions and strategies.

How might thinking relationally about some of your common household devices influence how you use them?

Take the numbers of people incarcerated, the level of trust in government or in CEOs, the number of children not living with both parents, the decline in social capital. In almost every aspect of life in the US, relationships between individuals, and within and between organizations, communities and institutions, are breaking.

People still care deeply about relationships, however. We long for other people and organizations we can trust and who trust us – and that is a sure sign of hope.

That hope finds grounding as we learn to think relationally, the first step towards building a more relational world. We must think relationally if we’re to have a positive impact on our personal practices, public policies and institutional structures.

Over the coming weeks we’ll describe three key elements to Relational Thinking:

1. learning to look at the entirety of life through a relational lens,
2. changing the goals of our lives, and all of our relationships (public and private), and
3. developing an analytical framework appropriate to relationships.

In the meantime, there are two talks at an event I’ve arranged this Thursday March 1st. The first at noon is on “Relational Thinking”, by Michael Schluter, who has pioneered not just Relational Thinking but relational practice, for 30+ years. The second, at 1pm, is from Jonathan Rushworth, from their report “Tranforming Capitalism from Within: A Relational Approach to the Purpose, Performance and Assessment of Companies”.

If you’re in Boston on Thursday please come along! Tweet me at @sifowler if you think you might come. Details below.

Taking Relationships Seriously

Lunchtime brown-bag presentations and Q&A with Michael Schluter and Jonathan Rushworth

Thursday March 1^st

Park Street Church, Boston (entrance on Park Street)

12:00-12:45 An Introduction to Relational Thinking

12:45-1pm Coffee & Mingle!

1:00-2pm A Relational Business Charter

Relational Thinking: Personal and social wellbeing depends upon the quality of relationships within families and communities, and within and between organizations. This presentation and Q&A will introduce you to Relational Thinking; an approach to society’s challenges that places relationships – not individual rights and freedoms or material wealth – at the center of our decision-making, purposes and actions.

You’ll hear how thinking relationally can lead to innovative and practical solutions to these challenges. For over 30 years Michael Schluter has taken the relational heart of “love your neighbor as yourself” and applied it to domains as diverse as conflict resolution in Sudan, Sunday trading in the UK, organizational stakeholder assessments in South Africa, the impact of work-life balance on family breakdown in Australia, philanthropic investment vehicles in the UK, and more.

Relational Business Charter: Since the financial collapse of 2008, there has been much economic and political hand-wringing about what is to be done to address systemic economic instability. The typical solutions are through regulatory or tax responses. In this presentation and Q&A, Jonathan Rushworth will argue that these problems can be addressed if companies put relationships with stakeholders at the heart of their operations. The presentation summarizes their recent report: “Transforming Capitalism from Within: a Relational Approach to the Purpose, Performance, and Assessment of Companies.”

I welcome you to join either or both of these presentations and encourage you to come at 11:45 or 12:45 to mingle with each other and meet Jonathan and Michael.

Please RSVP to me, Simon Fowler (simon.fowler@virgin.net). I encourage you to pass the invitation to others you think may be interested and ask also that they RSVP to me. If you are unable to attend but are interested to know more about Relational Thinking please also contact me!

Jonathan Rushworth was a partner with a major City of London law firm for 26 years, specializing in company and finance law. He retired from practice in 2007 and is Chairman of Relationships Global.

Dr Michael Schluter CBE is an economist, author, and social entrepreneur. He worked as an economist with the World Bank and a Research Fellow for the International Food Policy Research Institute. He founded the Jubilee Centre, Relationships Foundation and Concordis International. He is now Chief Executive of Relationships Global.

1. Family networks – for the love, support and welfare of the individual.
Stable family life benefits adults and children in terms of both emotional and practical support. Families have a wide range of care and welfare responsibilities, particularly for children, partners and elderly relatives. The extended family has a vital role in supporting marriage and the nuclear family, and as a mediating institution between individuals and the state.

2. Personal and family rootedness – to build strong communities.
Rootedness involves developing a sense of belonging and practical involvement – in cities, towns and neighborhoods. Rootedness is important for personal wellbeing, access to support networks, and for the ability to participate fully in community life.

3. A shared national culture – to foster inclusion and cohesion.
A shared culture which can embrace diversity and includes respect for liberty of conscience is needed to support both cohesion and inclusion.

4. Justice and reconciliation – as the basis for achieving peace and social harmony.
This applies to personal, corporate, regional, ethnic and international relationships. Building peace requires encouraging reconciliation, restoring relationships and addressing the many factors that contribute to their breakdown.

5. The wide spread of political power and economic assets – to promote accountability and community development.
Distant decision making and financial dependence can inhibit both responsiveness to local needs and responsibility for addressing them. The desire for greater local responsibility can be in tension with the concern for ensuring quality and equity at a wider level. Where decisions or controls need to be located at higher levels, this should be done in ways that support local capacity and responsibility.

6. The use of money and other resources, and the structuring of financial systems – to foster healthy commercial, social and international relations.
Finance shapes relationships in many ways, for example through the impact of debt, capital flows, investment and spending patterns. Ownership involves responsibilities, and resources should be used in ways that strengthen relationships rather than undermining them.

7. Influencing organizations to think relationally – to uphold a social environment in which relationships thrive.
Relationships can be fostered or undermined by government, and by public and private sector organizations’ policies and actions. The strategy, structure, culture and working practices of an organization should be conducive to the flourishing of relationships, both within that organization and in wider society.

8. Fulfilling duties – particularly to those who are disadvantaged either relationally or materially.
Rights must be balanced by duties and obligations. People are responsible both for their own relationships and for the impact of their actions on others. Relational deprivation is as serious as material deprivation, and there is a particular duty to care for those who lack supportive relationships.

1. To promote a society that values the importance of relationships in all aspects of life and recognizes the important role of relationships in quality of life, both private and public.

2. To develop an awareness of and to promote the advancement of relationships in families, communities and organizations.

3. To undertake research on topics associated with relational wellbeing and use those research results to develop a framework to help influence the building of strong relational institutions, individuals, families, organizations and communities.

4. To promote, through education and training, the framework for organizations, families and communities to think relationally and to develop business practices, adopt family activities and endorse social institutions that enhance and create stronger social networks.

5. To promote better provision of public services through effective relational practices, working within the constructs of businesses and public and social institutions.

The rWorld is a non-profit organization with an ambitious objective, to put relationships at the heart of American life!

Our unique contribution is to provide a robust framework of thinking and acting relationally that is grounded in principle, in research and in 20 years of application in contexts ranging from urban finance, health care, conflict resolution, to work and family policy and more. Every human endeavor impacts, and is impacted by, relationships. The rWorld seeks to show exactly how, and what to do about it.

Over the coming days we’ll be introducing you to our goals and our values. We welcome your questions, thoughts and suggestions! Follow us on twitter, follow us on LinkedIn, or like our facebook page! Better still, if you’re in Boston, MA or Manchester, NH, come and see us in person!

Dale Kuehne, Simon Fowler and the rWorld team.