In an age of rapid change due to technological advancement humans will be presented with technology which can closely mimic human behaviour and hence it is important to explore how malleable the definition of ‘authenticity of relationships’ can be. Asking and trying to find the answers to the question of authenticity of a relationship between a human being and a computational object has become imperative due to the recent developments in technology which presents us humans with different partners(now artificial) to choose from. Moreover, the definition of an authentic relationship sometimes can be defined by how society interprets it. A classic written in the 19th century lends perspective of how an authentic relationship can be defined by a society.

Anna Karenina written by Leo Tolstoy centres on Anna Karenina and her husband Karenin, a high ranking government officer. Anna despises her husband due to the lack of emotion and passion in their marriage, thus seeking adulterous comfort in the dashing military officer Alexei Vronsky. What is captivating is Karenin’s reaction when he learns that he has been cuckolded. Karenin chooses to avoid the social stigma of divorce in nineteenth-century Russian society and still accepts Anna as long as she only continues to appear to be a good wife. Karenin effectively chooses to stay in the conventionally defined inauthentic relationship to preserve his image as a strong leader in society.

Vronsky’s and Anna’s relationship symbolises the passionate and physical side of love which quickly fades with the passage of time. Whereas, Levin and Kitty’s(another couple in the novel) love symbolises the deep intellectual connection between individuals which outlasts passion. Bringing in themes of adultery and lust versus true love, the analysis of Anna Karenina contributes to an important discussion of the authenticity of love and relationships which is relevant today as society begins to discover a new form of a relationship, the one between a human and a computer.

In “Authenticity in the Age of Digital Companions”, Sherry Turkle(Professor of the Social Studies of Science and Technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology) introduces the discussion of authenticity of human-computer relationships. Turkle begins her essay by questioning whether the emotion of love can even be expressed by non-sentient beings. She investigates whether value should be assigned to relational authenticity as a measure of differentiating between a true and a false relationship.

Presenting the text titled “Eliza and the Crisis of Authenticity”, Turkle introduces Joseph Weizenbaum’s computer program, Eliza. “It was one of the first programs that presented itself as a relational artifact, a computational object explicitly designed to engage a user in a relationship”(Turkle, 201). Turkle indicates that even though the program was quite simple, it was successful in evoking strong emotions from its users. This circumstance is quite unique from what society would define as a relationship and makes a person reflect on their own relationships with inanimate objects, such as toys, in the past. Turkle tries to question the reason behind such a strong emotional response from Eliza’s users. According to Turkle, “Relational artefacts have become evocative objects, objects that clarify our relationships with the world and ourselves”(Turkle, 202). Turkle introduces various other relational artifacts throughout her text. One particular example especially catches her keen interest in exploring the emotion expressed by humans to computational media- the Tamagotchi. The Tamagotchi, according to Turkle, “demonstrated a fundamental truth about a new human-machine psychology”(Turkle, 206). The truth Turkle talks about is nurturance, and how kids all over the world reacted with the obsession over their toy which demanded to be cleaned, fed and even entertained. This truth bothers Turkle about the illusion of a relationship that can occur between a human and another computational object. It is an illusion as according to Turkle, humans play both sides of the relationship.

Worried, Turkle reveals her concern for humans losing their abilities to form true relationships and favouring robots whose emotions have no true value, “Someday, if relational artifacts can give the impression of aliveness and not disappoint, they may have a ‘comparative advantage’ over people as self-objects and open up new possibilities for narcissistic experience”(Turkle, 210). Turkle believes that a situation of human-computer relationship can lead to humans becoming narcissistic versions of themselves, which further leads to the deterioration of human emotions. Turkle believes that relational artifacts play into our vulnerabilities such as need of attachment and this causes us to fall prey to the ‘promise’ of a relationship which in reality does not exist. Throughout her text, Turkle repeatedly questions whether robots deserve our attention and if the love we elicit for them makes us unsympathetic to other humans around us, according to her our attention deficit leads to an empathetic deficit. Turkle exhorts her readers to understand that there is no “real” in the relationship between humans and relational artifacts, “With robots, people are acting out ‘both halves’ of complex relationships, projecting the robot’s side as well as their own”(Turkle, 204).  As Turkle’s arguments are based on her limited academic studies conducted over short periods of time, it seems implausible that she has come to the correct conclusion. She has hastily concluded what she thinks are the true psychological benchmarks of a relationship. Turkle even questions if it is beneficial to maintain a relationship with computational objects.

As I read through Turkle’s text an uneasy recurrence of some terms such as ‘authentic’, ‘real’ and ‘psychological benchmarks’ seem to creep up. However, Turkle has neither given a concrete definition of these terms and nor is it possible for her to give a definition, as she would generalise a complex human emotion of attachment in doing so. In her text, Turkle has spun her argument around her inadequate understanding of human emotion. Making several claims based on her biased, short term academic studies of relationships between humans and computational objects, Turkle tries to convey the unfounded message of the deterioration of the humankind where relationships between humans and computational objects start to occur. Turkle’s discussion elicits curiosity and raises the question whether the relationships between humans and computational relational artifacts can ever be considered authentic?

Human emotions are certainly not a defined standard. What is considered to be authentic changes with time and varies between cultures across the world. To generalise what makes a human relationship ‘authentic’ is a lapse in judgement and an attitude of narrow sightedness toward the benefits of human relationships with related artifacts. Turkle’s thoughts are confined by her time and how society defines relationships. Considering Turkle’s flawed argument and generalisation of terms which can change over time, a study of the American public to the introduction of telephones can prove to be a valuable insight to how public opinion can change.

In “Time and Distance overcome”, Eula Biss showcases the history of public’s dissatisfaction to the introduction of the telephone, which teaches us that all technologies which bring a dramatic change are initially met with public dissatisfaction. Even, Alexander Graham Bell was challenged by his investors upon the financial feasibility of the telephone, “Bell’s financial backers asked him not to work on his new invention anymore because it seemed too dubious an investment”(Biss, 83). Importance of open-mindedness and the acceptance of technologies is what Sherry Turkle’s argument lacks when it seeks to generalise the definition of the authenticity of relationships in human society which is forever in flux. Biss’s representation can teach us that everything which is status quo changes over time, especially under the influence of technological change.

Biss also highlights how the technology of was first available only to the wealthy and then over time became available to the masses, “Boston banker paid for a private line between his office and his home so that he could let his family know exactly when he would be home for dinner”(Biss, 84). Biss gives further examples of how the public protested against telephone lines being spread throughout the United States, “Wherever telephone companies were erecting poles, homeowners were sawing them down, or defending their sidewalk with rifles”(Biss, 84). Even the judiciary bodies were on the public’s side of labelling telephone lines as a nuisance, “One judge granted a group of homeowners an injunction to prevent the telephone company from erecting any new poles”(Biss, 84). Even after huge public dissatisfaction, telephone lines became a mainstay of American society, “And by the turn of the century, there were more telephones than bathtubs in America”(Biss, 85). Turkle’s argument of the psychological benchmarks which seek to define what an authentic relationship is is considerably weakened.

What can be learnt from Biss’s text is that new technology when introduced can be met with public discontent, in the case of relational artifacts and humans, their relationship might be considered to be immoral or inauthentic. However, with time, society adjusts and develops new expectations from technology. Turkle believes that human relationships match certain psychological benchmarks that the relationships of humans and computational objects don’t. However, in reality, as computational objects are programmable, they can even be better partners in terms of forming deep relationships at an intellectual level. Life is not perfect and computational objects are perfection, like a bespoke suit with seams countered to specific body shape.

Biss adds valuable understanding to the critical point of acceptance that Turkle misses out on. Still, Turkle agrees that the difference between a human and an android in the future will be purely philosophical, this leads to her further questioning if relationships between humans and relational artifacts are valuable to human experience, “What is the value of interactions that contain no understanding of us and that contribute nothing to a shared store of human meaning?”(Turkle, 214). She fears that people will give up on human relationships too easily, as the relationships with computational objects are easy to maintain, “Going back to the young woman who was ready to turn in her boyfriend for a ‘sophisticated Japanese robot,’ is there a chance that human relationships will seem too hard?”(Turkle, 214). Turkle’s argument is shortsighted and does not take into consideration the positive impact human-computer relationships can have on those relationships which exist just between humans. What is inconsistent in the discussion of human-computer relationships is that even if they(the relationships) become the norm, how will the positively influence our daily lives?

In, “Are we destined to fall in love with Androids”, “Sam Brinson” highlights an important point about-about the development of human-computer relationships, “As these relationships grow in complexity and cohesion, and of course when things become more affordable, it is going to become easier for us to grow more attached and drawn to these robots”(Brinson, 3). Brinson brings much-needed clarity in understanding the future possibilities of human-computer relationships. Brinson’s argument highlights that people can have better and more fulfilling relationships with relational artifacts and that unlike people, computational objects do not come with biases, they treat everyone equally. Having a deep relationship with such an artifact could potentially improve the sensitivity of an individual which would further benefit the other relationships the person is in. Such computational objects could also help teach social skills to autistic individuals, as the robots can be developed with highly efficient algorithms.

Brinson helps us understand that authenticity is defined differently for each relationship. Moreover, a relationship can be rewarding and can add to the human experience in a positive way. Relationships with computational objects can and will enrich human lives by developing each individual’s ability to reciprocate to human emotions better. In Japan, one of the most technologically advanced countries on earth, computational relational artifacts are being adopted in a wide range of applications.

In “The Family Dog”, a documentary produced by the New York Times, an account of the lives of the Sakurai family and their ‘dog’ Aibo is presented in a unique and an unbiased manner. Aibo is a robotic pet dog manufactured by Sony, however to the Sakurai family it like a real dog. Ms Sakurai relates the experience of welcoming Aibo to the family with having a real baby. Similar to the Japanese religion of Shintoism promotes its central principles of Kami(the belief that everything the universe has a spirit) which lends a unique perspective, which unlike Turkle’s, considers the future possibilities of the companionship of humans with robots to be real and authentic. To Mrs. Sakurai her Aibo is real even though it does not possess a physiological state which is organic. As long as it has a soul, It is alive in every definition to those who believe in the existence of its soul. The companionship of the Aibo family to the Sakurai family presents a turning point in history. Where the acceptance of human-computer relationships will become the norm and psychological benchmarks will be redefined.

I personally believe that in the near future relationships between humans and computational objects is going to integrate itself into society. Looking back to Bell’s invention of the telephone and how it played down the foundation of the smartphones which are used today, the foundations of robotics are being strengthened in the 21st Century. It can be predicted with confidence that society will surely take its time to adjust to human-computer relationships, but in the end everyone will come to accept that the relationships in discussion are as authentic as human maintaining a relationship with a human.

After personal contemplation about the possibility of a future in which human-computer relationships exist, It is easy for me to say that Brinson’s explanation of android behaviour certainly captivates attention. A relationship which enriches life and eliminates loneliness is certainly more authentic than the one between Anna and her husband’s in which false relationship is sustained because of societal pressure. In the end, an individual’s happiness is what sustains mental health, and if a relational artifact can help achieve it why isn’t it even more authentic than a relationship between just humans? Society, in its due time, may come to accept and recognize the existence of such relationships.