That technology has revolutionized every aspect of our lives, from communication to relationships, is an almost universal knowledge. However, differences abound in our opinions of technology’s effect on the latter.
This very debate forms the center of Jonathan Franzen’s article, ‘Liking Is for Cowards. Go for What Hurts.”
Franzen claims, “Technology provides an alternative to love,” thereby effectively pitching them against each other. He is of the opinion that the (admittedly likeable) advancements in technology are the result of markets discovering and responding to “what consumers most want.” He goes on to say that the ultimate aim of technology is to replace the “real” world, indifferent to individual desires, filled with heartache and opposition, with one that is so amenable to our wishes as to be a mere “extension of the self.” This world of “techno-consumerism,” based as it is on the risk-and-commitment-free ideology of “liking,” is threatened by the very concept of “real love,” its only recourse being that of the offensive. For instance, the entire wedding industry is based on the concept of the “commodification of love.” …show more content…
My objection to the author’s argument is that he has not considered the antagonism in all its respects. Franzen’s very argument that “the world of techno-consumerism is troubled by love” and continues to be troubled, despite the fact that technology is advancing at an unimaginable rate carries the implicit premise in the argument is that love, too, has become a stronger force, deriving its strength, apparently, from this antagonism. This added dimension of Love and Technology being, at the same time, both antagonistic to each other, and progressively becoming stronger due to each other, may seem paradoxical at first glance. However, the two positions are easily