On page 43, Turkle explains that an eight year
old girl named Jessica considers her Furby and herself to not just have an
emotional similarities, but physical ones too, by saying "Jessica
thinks that people, like Furbies, have batteries.'There are hearts, lungs, and
a big battery inside.'” Is there a parental obligation for people to not let
their children believe that the toys that they are using are not actually
"real" and should be seen as entertainment, not living beings? What
do you believe are the future implications of children growing up to
believe that a Furby is more "alive" than an animal due to the fact
that a Furby can seemingly learn and speak compared to a dog who can simply
give vocal-less affection?
I believe that there is a parental obligation for people to
not let their children believe that the toys that they are using are not
actually real because it allows kids to have unreal expectations for life and
other people. It’s impossible for children at a young age to be able to
distinguish what is real and what is not, so it is very important parents and
adults to take on that responsibility so they do not grow up having all these
unrealistic thoughts about how people and things work. There is a huge
difference between having a good imagination and believing that their toys are
actually real. If you think about all these Disney movies and TV shows that
girls grow up watching and they believe that life is as it is on their TV
screen and grow with unrealistic views on relationships. This causes major
issues because relationships in real life are nothing like they are on TV. This
is the same thing as letting children grow up and believe that these toys are real
and believe that like there toys, real animals and people don’t die, and when
they do they are completely heart broken. It’s important for children to be
introduced to the fact that life does not go on forever, and these toys definitely
do not set them up for that. Future implications of children growing up
believing that the Furbies are more alive than real animals are that we as a
whole will rely more on technology and these machines to fill the void of
losing relationships with people and animals. I don’t believe that having these
kinds of toys are bad, but I do think it’s bad if we let them grow up believing
more in the machines than in human interactions. As long as the parents show
responsibility and teach their kids the difference between toys and real
animals, then I believe that the future implications won’t really matter. The
future implications only apply to those who grow up believing that things like
the Furbies are more “alive” and in turn human interaction with animals falls.
I think it is important to have that connection with animals because they allow
us to feel something for something other than ourselves and to experience loss
but to not be overcome by it.
Initially, I found your response to question three to be rather intriguing. However, I don't completely agree with your entire response. In a way we have already seen how Furbies, and other technological toys/gadgets have impacted our generation now. You had said in your response that "as a whole we will rely on technology more, and fill voids of losing a relationship." I completely agree with this statement, because as of now we can see that. Teenagers and even adults are so involved with their social media and iPhones creating their identity to what appeals to others more or themselves. In Alone Together, Tuckle even brings up how a girl whose parents are working frequently has relied on her Furby has her friend, or in your words filling the void. One would say that it was the parent's obligation to make sure that the little girl didn't attach herself to it. This leads me to the other part of your response. Children do have unrealistic expectations, but I don't believe that this will lead them to believe that that's how all people are or how all relationships work. Prior to Furbies, our parents played with stuffed animals and did the same thing. Bonded, and created a fantasy world where they had to care and nurture. The only difference I see here is that a child can't create the response. Nothing compares to the human experience. I believe that if children can grow past the stuff animal nurturing stage, or even action figures. Then what's truly the difference between a Furby and that? There are mild differences in toy. but in the end children will naturally move away from that. They will get older, more involved, or even work with more advanced technology. Children will grow naturally and know the difference between real death and real life. I don't see any concern with letting a child's mind grow and exercise through a toy like this. Children younger than five attach themselves to "blankies" or pacifiers and when they are "gone" they aren't dead. They just know that its gone. As they grow they experiment more with the idea of life and death, and I think having a Furby is a healthy way to exercise and express that. If a Furby wasn't there, the children would do it to a barbie, or an action figure. I see no harm in bonding with a Furby because they are still learning to care for something other themselves and learning the results of death and life. In reality, it is different than an alive pet or human, but if anything it still helps a child develop and exercise their mind. Imagination is a key to development and shouldn't be discourage until it seems to be affecting everyday life and activities to a child. A parent's obligation is to raise a happy, well rounded child and protect them to the best that they know how. It's important to remember that human experience is essential ,and is important. That a Furby should not replace this, but merely encourage development.
ReplyDelete