The Ultimate Dissatisfaction of Intellectual Intercourse in "Inbox"

EDC MOOC, Week One Discussion Question for Inbox

Our facilitator, Jermey Knoxs asks: "We loved the quirkiness of this short film, and the original way it deals with contemporary social exchanges. How do you think it might suggest utopian or dystopian ideas about the nature of communication in a mediated world? What kind of educational debates can we draw associations with here?"

For me, Inbox explores how our own personality defects prevent us from connecting with others, how technology can help us overcome those defects, how fate plays a role in connecting us with others, but how ultimately we are responsible for developing our relationships.  Both of the protagonists were introverts who created their own dystopian, disconnected, miserable existences, yet they had no idea how to change and be more social. Technology, represented surreally through two red gift bags, is the catalyst to help these young people overcome their fear to seek a mate, a companion, a friend, whatever their relationship ends up evolving into. Tech "gifts" them, hence the symbol of gift bags, with a utopian future for them to connect, be social and find love.

We die on the inside if we are not social, and both of these young people appeared despondent at the beginning because of their inability to make connections with others.

At first, we see how the young woman's use of tech was not emotionally fulfilling.  We see in her how the dystopian/isolating quality of tech fueled her anti-social behavior. She even rejects interacting with someone who sends her a Facebook instant message saying "hi", suggesting her own failure to reach out and connect. When the young woman is looking at the stuffed animal toys at a store, another young man standing in the store aisle admires her, but again, she rejects social cues by rolling her eyes. She could have smiled. She does this again when the cashier makes eye contact. In her eyes, they may have been unworthy of her time, but she could have cured her alienation through friendly, innocuous chatting with either or both of these men. Her behavior at the beginning of the film, for me, appeared standoffish and arrogant as a way for her to compensate for her social ineptitude. She had both face to face and virtual opportunities to converse with others, but she chose to isolate herself. Maybe the cashier, the guy in the aisle, or the friend on FB were just as lonely too, but she alienates herself, sabotaging any chance of making any type of connection whether virtual or real.

Both protagonists were their own worst enemies at sabotaging their chances for finding and making connections. Both characters had opportunities to either connect face to face, or online with the opposite sex, but they reject those opportunities. 

For the young male protagonist, he also allows his shyness to sabotage his chances of speaking with the pretty girl who is browsing in the store. He longingly admires the couple holding hands, but does nothing to conquer his feelings of inadequacy. His lack of confidence in walking out carrying a box of underwear motivates him to buy the red gift bag. So, tech and fate step in to save them both from their own anti social personality defects or disorders. Neither knows how to be social or flirtatious. Did tech do this to them? I think not. I think they choose to be this way, but don't want to be this way, yet don't know how to change. 

Some may argue that not being social is not a defect or disorder, but science has proven that a lack of socialization impacts our communication skills, our overall ability to function emotionally so we can thrive and be contributing members of society. We have seen cases of what is termed "feral" children because they have been denied human contact and are unable to learn social skills for functioning in the world.  Some people unfortunately are born to be more or less social. Science seeks to discover if our proclivity to be social is chemically related, but if one is less social, as in the case of these characters, will tech be the cure to save us from ourselves? Is it acceptable to be alone? Is anti-social behavior a defect or disorder? Is it ok to be alone and rely only on tech for our social interactions, even our amorous ones? A utopian view of tech in the idea of finding one's soul mate, or even just friendship is that, in the past, people were limited in the number of interactions they had in their lifetimes, and the chances of meeting like minded individuals; today, the internet opens the door for anyone to find love, or even academically stimulating soul mates as in the case of this MOOC, where many have connected intellectually.  

Temporarily, the red gift bags represent the "deus ex machina" (God/Fate from machine) that saves them both from a lifetime of boredom, loneliness, isolation, perhaps an untimely death as a result of the health effects prolonged alienation produces. What other way was this pair ever going to overcome their social phobias if tech, "God/fate from machine" did not intervene? The young man's red gift bag tears because now it is up to him to face his feelings of inadequacy. He must find ways to compensate for his deficient social skills so he can build a relationship with her that does not rely on an external agent: the tech that allows him to use only his mind to woo her. However, when he works up the courage to invite her to meet up, he must now reconcile both his physical and mental selves. The red gift bags are the catalyst, but he is the agent of change in his life at this point. He cannot become codependent on the red gift bags (the tech) to build a relationship, which is why she wonders what's taking him so long to ask her to meet him.  For this reason, the red gift bag must tear, so he can learn to be social.  The questions raised at the end, are if he will be unable to meet her expectations, and sabotage any type of future because of his lack of social skills?  Will his physical "self" threaten or elevate the ideal self he projected to attract her? 

So, while these red gift bags represent a utopian vision of how tech brings introverts together and provides them for an opportunity for communication, is it just a temporary fix, or can introverts improve their in person communication skills as a result of their digital interactions? Or do digital interactions decay our ability to communicate and socialize in person? Ultimately, both characters must resort back to interacting in their physical form, which raises the fact, that for a full fledge human relationship to develop and evolve, especially a romantic one, one must have both mind and body.  One can hide behind the inbox messages only for so long; intellectual intercourse through the inbox may have satisfied them temporarily until the human need for physical connection consumes them.  Perhaps, the sequel needs to be called "In-Person". 

What does this all mean for education? 

In terms of our educational debates surrounding how we design learning experiences, we must always remember every student will have his/her own unique set of social skills acquired through nature and nurture. Learning experiences, online or offline, must consider the needs of both introverts and extroverts and leverage web 2.0 tools to offer multimodal forms of student expression. Additionally, sometimes, as in the case of public education, the responsibility of modeling appropriately acceptable social behavior may fall in the teacher's hands. Finally, understanding how cultural gender expectations may also influence social skills is critical for educators so they can design social activities which aim to be inclusive rather than divisive or alienating. Whether education is online or offline, educators need to realize that socialization skills impact intellectual skills, and vice versa.  In the same way, the characters choose to behave in anti social ways, but didn't want to be this way, yet didn't know how to change, educators must always remember they will have students struggling with this internal dilemma. 

“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ” - Aristotle