I believe that there are new, hidden tensions that are actually happening between people and institutions -- institutions that are the institutions that people inhabit in their daily life: schools, hospitals, workplaces, factories, offices, etc. And something that I see happening is something that I would like to call a sort of "democratization of intimacy." And what do I mean by that? I mean that what people are doing is, in fact, they are sort of, with their communication channels, they are breaking an imposed isolation that these institutions are imposing on them. How are they doing this? They're doing it in a very simple way, by calling their mom from work, by IMing from their office to their friends, by texting under the desk. The pictures that you're seeing behind me are people that I visited in the last few months. And I asked them to come along with the person they communicate with most. And somebody brought a boyfriend, somebody a father. One young woman brought her grandfather. For 20 years, I've been looking at how people use channels such as email, the mobile phone, texting, etc. What we're actually going to see is that, fundamentally, people are communicating on a regular basis with five, six, seven of their most intimate sphere. Now, lets take some data. Facebook. Recently some sociologists from Facebook -- Facebook is the channel that you would expect is the most enlargening of all channels. And an average user, said Cameron Marlow, from Facebook, has about 120 friends. But he actually talks to, has two-way exchanges with, about four to six people on a regular base, depending on his gender. Academic research on instant messaging also shows 100 people on buddy lists, but fundamentally people chat with two, three, four -- anyway, less than five. My own research on cellphones and voice calls shows that 80 percent of the calls are actually made to four people. 80 percent. And when you go to Skype, it's down to two people. A lot of sociologists actually are quite disappointed. I mean, I've been a bit disappointed sometimes when I saw this data and all this deployment, just for five people. And some sociologists actually feel that it's a closure, it's a cocooning, that we're disengaging from the public. And I would actually, I would like to show you that if we actually look at who is doing it, and from where they're doing it, actually there is an incredible social transformation. There are three stories that I think are quite good examples. The first gentleman, he's a baker. And so he starts working every morning at four o'clock in the morning. And around eight o'clock he sort of sneaks away from his oven, cleans his hands from the flour and calls his wife. He just wants to wish her a good day, because that's the start of her day. And I've heard this story a number of times. A young factory worker who works night shifts, who manages to sneak away from the factory floor, where there is CCTV by the way, and find a corner, where at 11 o'clock at night he can call his girlfriend and just say goodnight. Or a mother who, at four o'clock, suddenly manages to find a corner in the toilet to check that her children are safely home. Then there is another couple, there is a Brazilian couple. They've lived in Italy for a number of years. They Skype with their families a few times a week. But once a fortnight, they actually put the computer on their dining table, pull out the webcam and actually have dinner with their family in Sao Paulo. And they have a big event of it. And I heard this story the first time a couple of years ago from a very modest family of immigrants from Kosovo in Switzerland. They had set up a big screen in their living room, and every morning they had breakfast with their grandmother. But Danny Miller, who is a very good anthropologist who is working on Filipina migrant women who leave their children back in the Philippines, was telling me about how much parenting is going on through Skype, and how much these mothers are engaged with their children through Skype. And then there is the third couple. They are two friends. They chat to each other every day, a few times a day actually. And finally, finally, they've managed to put instant messaging on their computers at work. And now, obviously, they have it open. Whenever they have a moment they chat to each other. And this is exactly what we've been seeing with teenagers and kids doing it in school, under the table, and texting under the table to their friends. So, none of these cases are unique. I mean, I could tell you hundreds of them. But what is really exceptional is the setting. So, think of the three settings I've talked to you about: factory, migration, office. But it could be in a school, it could be an administration, it could be a hospital. Three settings that, if we just step back 15 years, if you just think back 15 years, when you clocked in, when you clocked in to an office, when you clocked in to a factory, there was no contact for the whole duration of the time, there was no contact with your private sphere. If you were lucky there was a public phone hanging in the corridor or somewhere. If you were in management, oh, that was a different story. Maybe you had a direct line. If you were not, you maybe had to go through an operator. But basically, when you walked into those buildings, the private sphere was left behind you. And this has become such a norm of our professional lives, such a norm and such an expectation. And it had nothing to do with technical capability. The phones were there. But the expectation was once you moved in there your commitment was fully to the task at hand, fully to the people around you. That was where the focus had to be. And this has become such a cultural norm that we actually school our children for them to be capable to do this cleavage. If you think nursery, kindergarten, first years of school are just dedicated to take away the children, to make them used to staying long hours away from their family. And then the school enacts perfectly well. It mimics perfectly all the rituals that we will find in offices: rituals of entry, rituals of exit, the schedules, the uniforms in this country, things that identify you, team-building activities, team building that will allow you to basically be with a random group of kids, or a random group of people that you will have to be with for a number of time. And of course, the major thing: learn to pay attention, to concentrate and focus your attention. This only started about 150 years ago. It only started with the birth of modern bureaucracy, and of industrial revolution. When people basically had to go somewhere else to work and carry out the work. And when with modern bureaucracy there was a very rational approach, where there was a clear distinction between the private sphere and the public sphere. So, until then, basically people were living on top of their trades. They were living on top of the land they were laboring. They were living on top of the workshops where they were working. And if you think, it's permeated our whole culture, even our cities. If you think of medieval cities, medieval cities the boroughs all have the names of the guilds and professions that lived there. Now we have sprawling residential suburbias that are well distinct from production areas and commercial areas. And actually, over these 150 years, there has been a very clear class system that also has emerged. So the lower the status of the job and of the person carrying out, the more removed he would be from his personal sphere. People have taken this amazing possibility of actually being in contact all through the day or in all types of situations. And they are doing it massively. The Pew Institute, which produces good data on a regular basis on, for instance, in the States, says that -- and I think that this number is conservative -- 50 percent of anybody with email access at work is actually doing private email from his office. I really think that the number is conservative. In my own research, we saw that the peak for private email is actually 11 o'clock in the morning, whatever the country. 75 percent of people admit doing private conversations from work on their mobile phones. 100 percent are using text. The point is that this re-appropriation of the personal sphere is not terribly successful with all institutions. I'm always surprised the U.S. Army sociologists are discussing of the impact for instance, of soldiers in Iraq having daily contact with their families. But there are many institutions that are actually blocking this access. And every day, every single day, I read news that makes me cringe, like a $15 fine to kids in Texas, for using, every time they take out their mobile phone in school. Immediate dismissal to bus drivers in New York, if seen with a mobile phone in a hand. Companies blocking access to IM or to Facebook. Behind issues of security and safety, which have always been the arguments for social control, in fact what is going on is that these institutions are trying to decide who, in fact, has a right to self determine their attention, to decide, whether they should, or not, be isolated. And they are actually trying to block, in a certain sense, this movement of a greater possibility of intimacy.

我相信，有新的，隱藏的緊張關(guān)系 發(fā)生在人們與制度之間， 在人們?nèi)粘Ｉ钪?的制度如： 學(xué)校、醫(yī)院、工作場(chǎng)所、 工廠(chǎng)、辦公室等等。 我看到的這些關(guān)系 是被我稱(chēng)之為的 一種“民主化的親密關(guān)系。” 這是什么意思呢？ 事實(shí)上，我指的是人們正在做的 就是在他們所處的溝通渠道中， 他們?cè)噲D打破一種強(qiáng)加的孤立， 一種由于這些制度對(duì)他們所強(qiáng)加的孤立。 人們?cè)鯓硬拍茏龅竭@點(diǎn)？他們正用 非常簡(jiǎn)單的方法來(lái)做到，例如工作時(shí)給媽媽打電話(huà)， 從辦公室給朋友們發(fā)即時(shí)通訊， 在桌子下發(fā)短信。 你看到我身后的這些照片 是我過(guò)去幾個(gè)月采訪(fǎng)的人們。 我請(qǐng)求他們帶來(lái)他們聯(lián)系最多，最親密的人。 有人帶來(lái)她的男朋友，有人帶來(lái)父親。 一位年輕女人帶來(lái)她的爺爺。 20年來(lái)，我一直在研究人們?nèi)绾问褂?如電子郵件、移動(dòng)電話(huà)和短信等的通信渠道。 從根本上，我們實(shí)際上要看到的是， 人們與他們最親密領(lǐng)域里的 五，六，七個(gè)人定期交流聯(lián)系。 現(xiàn)在例如一些有關(guān)Facebook的數(shù)據(jù)。 最近一些社會(huì)學(xué)家從Facebook， Facebook是人們所期望的 所有社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)中最龐大的一個(gè)。 一位Facebook的普通用戶(hù)， 卡梅倫馬洛Cameron Marlow說(shuō)， 他大約有120個(gè)朋友。 但是根據(jù)他的性別，他實(shí)際上 只與大約4至6人 定期雙向交流。 在即時(shí)通訊學(xué)術(shù)研究 也顯示好友名單上的100個(gè)人， 但基本上人們只和二個(gè)，三個(gè)，四個(gè)人相互交流， 無(wú)論如何，不會(huì)超過(guò)5個(gè)人。 而由我做的關(guān)于手機(jī)和語(yǔ)音呼叫研究中 表明百分之八十的來(lái)電 實(shí)際上是和4個(gè)人對(duì)話(huà)。百分之八十。 當(dāng)你上Skype，就只和兩個(gè)人聊天。 很多的社會(huì)學(xué)家的確對(duì)此很失望。 我的意思是，當(dāng)我看到這數(shù)據(jù)和這一切只是和5個(gè)人交流 我也感到失望。 而一些社會(huì)學(xué)家實(shí)際上認(rèn)為， 這就是一個(gè)封閉的區(qū)間，這就是一個(gè)繭， 以致于我們正與公眾脫離開(kāi)。 而我實(shí)際上，我想展示給你們的是， 如果我們實(shí)際看看誰(shuí)在通信， 他們?cè)谀睦锝涣髦?這事實(shí)上是一個(gè)令人難以置信的社會(huì)轉(zhuǎn)變。 這有三個(gè)故事，我認(rèn)為它們是相當(dāng)不錯(cuò)的例子。 第一位紳士，他是一位面包師。 他每天在早上四點(diǎn)開(kāi)始工作。 大概早上8點(diǎn)左右他就偷偷離開(kāi)他的烤箱， 清洗他和面團(tuán)的雙手， 并打電話(huà)給他的妻子。 因?yàn)檫@是她新的一天，他只是想祝福她有美好的一天。 而且我聽(tīng)說(shuō)過(guò)這種故事很多次。 一位年輕的夜班工人 從工廠(chǎng)車(chē)間要偷偷離開(kāi)一下， 順便說(shuō)一下，那有閉路電視， 他找到一個(gè)拐角，在夜里11點(diǎn)鐘， 他給女友電話(huà)只是問(wèn)聲晚安。 或者一位母親，在4點(diǎn)鐘， 突然在廁所的角落里打電話(huà) 查問(wèn)她的孩子們是否安全地回家。 接下來(lái)另一個(gè)例子，他們是一對(duì)巴西夫婦。 他們?cè)谝獯罄疃嗄辍?他們與家人一個(gè)星期有幾次Skype聊天。 但是，每?jī)芍芤淮危麄冋娴陌央娔X放在他們的餐桌上， 設(shè)置好攝像頭，竟然就 與他們?cè)谑ケＡ_的家庭一起晚餐。他們有了一個(gè)家宴大活動(dòng)。 我第一次聽(tīng)說(shuō)這種故事是幾年前 從一個(gè)非常溫馨的在瑞士居住的 科索沃移民家庭。 他們?cè)谧约旱目蛷d有一個(gè)大屏幕。 每天清晨，通過(guò)屏幕，他們與他們的祖母共進(jìn)早餐。 丹尼米勒Danny Miller是一位很好的人類(lèi)學(xué)家， 他研究菲律賓籍移民婦女， 這些婦女離開(kāi)她們?cè)诜坡少e的孩子們， 他曾告訴我有父母教育子女是 通過(guò)Skype來(lái)交流的， 還有很多這些菲律賓母親們通過(guò)Skype來(lái)了解她們的孩子們。 然后還有第三個(gè)例子。他們是兩個(gè)朋友。 每天他們互相聊天，甚至一天好幾次。 最終他們工作時(shí)試著在電腦上 使用即時(shí)消息聯(lián)系。 現(xiàn)在，顯然地，他們公開(kāi)交流。 每當(dāng)他們有空閑，他們就互相交談。 這也正是我們所看到的 在學(xué)校, 在課桌下，青少年和孩子們正這樣做， 并給他們的朋友們發(fā)短信。 所以，這些例子枚不勝舉。 我意思是，我可以告訴你們數(shù)百個(gè)類(lèi)似的例子。 但真正特別的是設(shè)定背景。 那么想想這3個(gè)我所談到的背景： 工廠(chǎng)，移民，辦公室。 但這也可能在學(xué)校，在政府， 也可能在醫(yī)院發(fā)生。 這3種背景下，如果我們只追隨到15年前， 如果你僅回想15年前， 當(dāng)你打卡上班， 打卡到辦公室上班， 在工廠(chǎng)打卡上班， 在整個(gè)工作期間沒(méi)有任何聯(lián)系， 與你的私人領(lǐng)域沒(méi)有任何聯(lián)系。 你要是很幸運(yùn)，在走廊處或某處可以用一個(gè)公共電話(huà)。 你要是管理層，哦，那就是另一回事。 你可能會(huì)有直線(xiàn)電話(huà)。 如果你沒(méi)有直線(xiàn)電話(huà)，或許你必須通過(guò)一個(gè)操作員打電話(huà)。 但基本上，當(dāng)你進(jìn)入這些建筑物后， 你就沒(méi)有了私人領(lǐng)域。 這已成為我們職業(yè)生涯規(guī)范， 類(lèi)似這樣的規(guī)范，這樣的期望。 它與技術(shù)能力沒(méi)有任何關(guān)系。 手機(jī)就在那里。但是，一旦你進(jìn)入到工作領(lǐng)域，所期望的是， 你的義務(wù)就是全身心地完成手頭的任務(wù)， 全身心服務(wù)于你身邊的人們。 這就是要關(guān)注的事情。 這已成為一種文化規(guī)范， 它使得我們竟教育孩子們進(jìn)行這種分離，不親密的轉(zhuǎn)變。 如果你想想托兒所，幼兒園，開(kāi)學(xué)第一年 僅僅一味地帶走孩子們， 讓他們習(xí)慣遠(yuǎn)離他們自己的家庭很長(zhǎng)的時(shí)間。 然后學(xué)校扮演了非常完美的角色， 完全模仿所有在辦公室要發(fā)生的的規(guī)范儀式， 進(jìn)入的儀式，退出的儀式， 時(shí)間表，在這個(gè)國(guó)家的制服， 確定你身份的東西，團(tuán)隊(duì)建設(shè)活動(dòng)， 團(tuán)隊(duì)建設(shè)主要使你可以 與任何孩子們，或者隨機(jī)的一群人 相處一段時(shí)間。 當(dāng)然，主要的事情： 學(xué)會(huì)集中注意力， 要集中精力，集中你的注意力。 這大概于150年前開(kāi)始。 它（這種分離）隨著當(dāng)代官僚 和工業(yè)革命的誕生而開(kāi)始。 當(dāng)人們基本上要去別的地方工作 并開(kāi)展工作。 隨著當(dāng)代官僚，就有一個(gè)非常合理的方法， 那里有一個(gè)私人領(lǐng)域 和公共領(lǐng)域之間的明確區(qū)分。 所以，到那時(shí)，基本上人們生活在他們各自行業(yè)。 他們生活在他們耕耘的土地上。 他們生活在他們工作的車(chē)間。 如果你想想看，它（這種分離）就貫穿我們的整個(gè)文化， 甚至我們的城市。 如果你想想中世紀(jì)的城市，中世紀(jì)城市的市鎮(zhèn)， 居住在那里的各行各業(yè)都有名字。 現(xiàn)在我們有廣闊的住宅郊區(qū) 它很好地與生產(chǎn)區(qū)域 和商業(yè)領(lǐng)域分別開(kāi)。 實(shí)際上，在這150年間， 有一個(gè)非常明確的階級(jí)制度也出現(xiàn)了。 因此，工作職責(zé)越低 和執(zhí)行越低級(jí)工作的人，他越被剝奪 他的私人領(lǐng)域空間。 人們一整天或者在任何情況下 使用著這驚人的可以用來(lái) 親密聯(lián)系的可能性交流。 然而他們大規(guī)模地聯(lián)系。 皮尤研究所，定期提供的良好數(shù)據(jù)表明， 例如，在美國(guó)， 我認(rèn)為這個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)是保守的 - 百分之五十的人在工作中通過(guò)電子郵件， 實(shí)際上是從他的辦公室發(fā)私人電子郵件。 我的確認(rèn)為這數(shù)據(jù)是保守的。 就我自己的研究，我認(rèn)為私人電郵的高峰 實(shí)際上是早上的11點(diǎn)，不管什么國(guó)家。 百分之七十五的人們承認(rèn) 在工作時(shí)用移動(dòng)電話(huà)進(jìn)行私人聊天。 百分之百地使用短信。 關(guān)鍵是這種私人領(lǐng)域的再興起 在所有機(jī)構(gòu)并不是十分成功。 我經(jīng)常吃驚，美國(guó)陸軍 社會(huì)學(xué)家討論著 例如伊拉克的軍人們 與他們的家人們每天聯(lián)系的影響。 但是許多機(jī)構(gòu)實(shí)際上正在阻止這樣的聯(lián)系。 每一天，每一日， 我看到的新聞使我害怕， 例如 針對(duì)于得克薩斯州的孩子們的15美元罰款， 就因?yàn)樵趯W(xué)校他們每次拿出和使用他們的移動(dòng)電話(huà)。 如果紐約的公共汽車(chē)司機(jī)被看到手拿有移動(dòng)電話(huà)， 他就被立即解雇。 公司禁止即時(shí)通訊和Facebook。 除了安全保護(hù)問(wèn)題， 一直有社交控制的輿論， 事實(shí)上要發(fā)生的是 這些制度正決定著 到底誰(shuí)有權(quán)自行決定該關(guān)注的事情， 去決定，是否它們應(yīng)該，或者不應(yīng)該，被孤立。 在某種意義上，它們實(shí)際中在試圖阻止 這種更有可能的親密性運(yùn)動(dòng)。

更多 英語(yǔ)演講小短文、英文演講稿、英語(yǔ)演講稿 相關(guān)文章和資料，請(qǐng)繼續(xù)關(guān)注 英語(yǔ)作文大全