Critical Analysis Of The Article “Saving The Self In The Age Of The Selfie”

In this day and age, it’s impossible to go anywhere without seeing some sort of device glued to someone’s ears or palms. Due to this common phenomenon, many people are conversing about the effects of this excessive use and constant surrounding of technology. While some argue that it makes everyday life more convenient, others argue that it actually has worse effects such as a loss of identity and disconnection between the world and people around us. James McWilliams argues that people are unable to socialize, be in connection with themselves, and unable to handle isolation in his 2016 publication in the American Scholar titled “Saving the Self in the Age of the Selfie. ” Through his personal observations and testimonies of others, he hopes to shed light on this issue to his audience and to encourage people to be more conscious of the personal and social problems surrounding the excessive usage of devices while also offering solutions on how to reverse or fix the effects themselves. McWilliams selectively picks his evidence and utilizes many rhetorical strategies that help support his argument and make his piece more effectively persuasive towards his audience who consists of people that are online for many hours out of the day, specifically regular educated readers who are likely college graduates.

McWilliams use of testimonies is one display of the way he chooses his evidence to add credibility to his argument. He includes a testimony from a man named Paul Miller who is relatable to those who have noticed a shift in social behaviors caused by technology because the context of his anecdote involves multiple social situations that can be experienced by anyone on a daily basis. He also uses Miller as an example because he did what McWilliams was recommending to his audience. Miller cut out his use of the internet and noticed the types of things McWilliams claimed would be the result of such an action. For instance, when discussing his experiences, Miller says that he “found a more patient and reflective self, one more willing to linger over complexities that he once clicked away from”. When Miller was able to disconnect with the internet, he was able to reconnect with the world around him. McWilliams chose to include this anecdote because it was evidence of an ‘everyday guy’ disconnecting from the digital world that has consumed him and he was able to be a more aware person, which is what McWilliams is trying to encourage.

Additionally, he utilizes the testimony of a college student. While his audience might not be entirely composed of college students who can relate, he knows that many of his readers went to college themselves. When he claims that technology is responsible for the additional stress experienced by college students and those who tend to use phones more regularly throughout the day, he chooses to include a conversation he had with a college student named Erica, who his audience of college graduates would be able to connect to. For example, during his conversation with Erica, they were sitting one on one, and she instinctively reached for her phone, but she realized how rude this action was mid-conversation and grimaced, to which McWilliams deduced that “Erica’s admonishment. . . represents the opportunity to recover a sense of identity in a digital culture because it confirms our awareness not only that we’re ceding ourselves to false digital promises, but also that we’re not at all happy about the behavior that results”. When Erica was more aware of her actions of reaching for her phone, she was able to recognize that it was inappropriate in the social setting that she was in. McWilliams includes this piece of evidence to relate to college graduates in hopes of making them more aware of their own actions, to prove that it is something that affects educated people of all ages so that they can regain that social awareness that he claims technology takes from us.

Another type of evidence that McWilliams uses in attempt to add credibility to his argument is his inclusion of evidence derived from research and statistics. For instance, McWilliams uses research from The Chronicle of Higher Education as a tool to exhibit that “college students- almost all of whom are wired to the hilt- are among the most anxious adults in human history”. He uses the results from their research to imply that this spike in anxiety among college students can be attributed to the increase in time spent online by this demographic. By connecting his own claim to solid, undeniable research, he is able to add credibility to his own claims because he is supported by reputable and scientific information and research.

In addition to his use of evidence, he also strengthens his argument by using certain rhetorical strategies. For instance, McWilliams frames the issue of being ‘wired’ by intensifying the necessity of immediacy of attention to the amount of time we spend on our devices. He discusses the prediction that the physical, digital, and biological worlds will collapse into one and reacts negatively by saying “for anyone concerned with the fate of human autonomy in the digital age, this prediction, even if overstated, is sobering”. McWilliams feels so threatened but this evolution of technology that he even goes as far as to say that people who are concerned with the fate of humanity should be concerned with the issue of expanding technology. With their whole lives ahead of them, college students have the most to fear about the future. By framing the issue in a way that demands urgency and using pathos in a way that instills fear of the consequences, McWilliams strategically guides the reader into his corner when it comes to technology.

McWilliams also uses ethos, the appeal to credibility, as a rhetorical strategy. When McWilliams uses terms like ‘us’ and ‘we’ when talking about the actions that people need to take to reverse the effects of technology, he is establishing ethos with his audience by proving that he is just like everyone else and that he experiences all of the things that he was talking about. By making himself seem more credible, he is able to persuade his audience easier because they can tell that he relates to them and is not just fighting the world for using technology. Another way that he establishes ethos is by using the words of other professionals that are in the conversation as well. For example, McWilliams includes the words and works of Sherry Turkle to prove that she too has spent time in this field and is worthy of commenting, “As Sherry Turkle, whose Reclaiming Conversations is subtitled The Power of Talk in the Digital Age, writes, real talk is something we invest in to receive a ‘payoff in self-knowledge, empathy, and the experience of social change’”. Using the words of an expert, Sherry Turkle in this case, in this conversation adds to his ethos because it shows that he has done his own fair share of research, and is not just spewing his unsupportive opinions because he has a personal agenda against technology.

By selectively picking his evidence and using the right rhetorical strategies, I found McWilliams to be persuasive, despite a few minor things. He appealed to me as a reader because I felt connected to the anecdotes he used, the hypothetical and real situations he presented, and the works of others that he referenced. All of his claims about the issue of technology itself were warranted and relatable because I myself cannot count how many times I was distracted by my phone while writing a simple 4-6 page paper. The only critique that I would offer that drove away the persuasive aspect for me was the lack of counter arguments and the slight logical fallacy of a false dilemma. Although I felt that his article was all around not very pushy with his claims and his evidence was appropriate, if one were to have an argument against some of his ideas, he offers no counter arguments or rebuttals. If this were included, it would have showed that he spent more time considering the topic, and more time considering a opposition in his audience. Additionally, the solution he offers felt very much like a false dilemma. He offers no recommendation of a healthy amount of device usage but rather implies that everyone everywhere is way over using technology and everyone just needs to read a book. While it is easy to agree that I myself use my phone too much, there are people out there who do not rely on them as much as he implies. If there was more information on a healthy amount of usage and where on the spectrum we should lie instead of a plugged in or unplugged viewpoint, I believe that the argument would have been stronger. Although I saw these faults in his argument, I still related to his evidence and ultimately found myself in his corner pertaining to his argument. I was motivated to delete many social media apps from my phone, but not the accounts entirely because I still have that fear of being completely out of the loop. This was my solution to being a little less wired but not completely off the grid. Being able to relate to a lot of the issues that McWilliams, Turkle, and Carr have presented have definitely made me more aware of my time spent online and the people around me that have their noses in their phones. While I agree that it is extremely difficult to undo some of the connections that we have made via our devices, it is possible to meet halfway without giving up all of the luxuries and conveniences presented to us.

With all things in consideration, McWilliams does a great job presenting his argument, despite the small holes. It still works to be persuasive in my case, and I assume, many others. I never realized the importance of awareness with my use of technology until these intellectuals offered their ideas. With more aware of the world around them, it is possible to improve the interactions and reduce the stress levels of society as a whole. The more people who become aware, the more people who are going to be able to improve society, one app deletion at a time.