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，隱藏的緊張關系 發生在人們與制度之間， 在人們日常生活中 的制度如： 學校、醫院、工作場所、 工廠、辦公室等等。 我看到的這些關系 是被我稱之為的 一種“民主化的親密關系。” 這是什么意思呢？ 事實上，我指的是人們正在做的 就是在他們所處的溝通渠道中， 他們試圖打破一種強加的孤立， 一種由于這些制度對他們所強加的孤立。 人們怎樣才能做到這點？他們正用 非常簡單的方法來做到，例如工作時給媽媽打電話， 從辦公室給朋友們發即時通訊， 在桌子下發短信。 你看到我身后的這些照片 是我過去幾個月采訪的人們。 我請求他們帶來他們聯系最多，最親密的人。 有人帶來她的男朋友，有人帶來父親。 一位年輕女人帶來她的爺爺。 20年來，我一直在研究人們如何使用 如電子郵件、移動電話和短信等的通信渠道。 從根本上，我們實際上要看到的是， 人們與他們最親密領域里的 五，六，七個人定期交流聯系。 現在例如一些有關Facebook的數據。 最近一些社會學家從Facebook， Facebook是人們所期望的 所有社交網絡中最龐大的一個。 一位Facebook的普通用戶， 卡梅倫馬洛Cameron Marlow說， 他大約有120個朋友。 但是根據他的性別，他實際上 只與大約4至6人 定期雙向交流。 在即時通訊學術研究 也顯示好友名單上的100個人， 但基本上人們只和二個，三個，四個人相互交流， 無論如何，不會超過5個人。 而由我做的關于手機和語音呼叫研究中 表明百分之八十的來電 實際上是和4個人對話。百分之八十。 當你上Skype，就只和兩個人聊天。 很多的社會學家的確對此很失望。 我的意思是，當我看到這數據和這一切只是和5個人交流 我也感到失望。 而一些社會學家實際上認為， 這就是一個封閉的區間，這就是一個繭， 以致于我們正與公眾脫離開。 而我實際上，我想展示給你們的是， 如果我們實際看看誰在通信， 他們在哪里交流著， 這事實上是一個令人難以置信的社會轉變。 這有三個故事，我認為它們是相當不錯的例子。 第一位紳士，他是一位面包師。 他每天在早上四點開始工作。 大概早上8點左右他就偷偷離開他的烤箱， 清洗他和面團的雙手， 并打電話給他的妻子。 因為這是她新的一天，他只是想祝福她有美好的一天。 而且我聽說過這種故事很多次。 一位年輕的夜班工人 從工廠車間要偷偷離開一下， 順便說一下，那有閉路電視， 他找到一個拐角，在夜里11點鐘， 他給女友電話只是問聲晚安。 或者一位母親，在4點鐘， 突然在廁所的角落里打電話 查問她的孩子們是否安全地回家。 接下來另一個例子，他們是一對巴西夫婦。 他們在意大利生活多年。 他們與家人一個星期有幾次Skype聊天。 但是，每兩周一次，他們真的把電腦放在他們的餐桌上， 設置好攝像頭，竟然就 與他們在圣保羅的家庭一起晚餐。他們有了一個家宴大活動。 我第一次聽說這種故事是幾年前 從一個非常溫馨的在瑞士居住的 科索沃移民家庭。 他們在自己的客廳有一個大屏幕。 每天清晨，通過屏幕，他們與他們的祖母共進早餐。 丹尼米勒Danny Miller是一位很好的人類學家， 他研究菲律賓籍移民婦女， 這些婦女離開她們在菲律賓的孩子們， 他曾告訴我有父母教育子女是 通過Skype來交流的， 還有很多這些菲律賓母親們通過Skype來了解她們的孩子們。 然后還有第三個例子。他們是兩個朋友。 每天他們互相聊天，甚至一天好幾次。 最終他們工作時試著在電腦上 使用即時消息聯系。 現在，顯然地，他們公開交流。 每當他們有空閑，他們就互相交談。 這也正是我們所看到的 在學校, 在課桌下，青少年和孩子們正這樣做， 并給他們的朋友們發短信。 所以，這些例子枚不勝舉。 我意思是，我可以告訴你們數百個類似的例子。 但真正特別的是設定背景。 那么想想這3個我所談到的背景： 工廠，移民，辦公室。 但這也可能在學校，在政府， 也可能在醫院發生。 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， 當你打卡上班， 打卡到辦公室上班， 在工廠打卡上班， 在整個工作期間沒有任何聯系， 與你的私人領域沒有任何聯系。 你要是很幸運，在走廊處或某處可以用一個公共電話。 你要是管理層，哦，那就是另一回事。 你可能會有直線電話。 如果你沒有直線電話，或許你必須通過一個操作員打電話。 但基本上，當你進入這些建筑物后， 你就沒有了私人領域。 這已成為我們職業生涯規范， 類似這樣的規范，這樣的期望。 它與技術能力沒有任何關系。 手機就在那里。但是，一旦你進入到工作領域，所期望的是， 你的義務就是全身心地完成手頭的任務， 全身心服務于你身邊的人們。 這就是要關注的事情。 這已成為一種文化規范， 它使得我們竟教育孩子們進行這種分離，不親密的轉變。 如果你想想托兒所，幼兒園，開學第一年 僅僅一味地帶走孩子們， 讓他們習慣遠離他們自己的家庭很長的時間。 然后學校扮演了非常完美的角色， 完全模仿所有在辦公室要發生的的規范儀式， 進入的儀式，退出的儀式， 時間表，在這個國家的制服， 確定你身份的東西，團隊建設活動， 團隊建設主要使你可以 與任何孩子們，或者隨機的一群人 相處一段時間。 當然，主要的事情： 學會集中注意力， 要集中精力，集中你的注意力。 這大概于150年前開始。 它（這種分離）隨著當代官僚 和工業革命的誕生而開始。 當人們基本上要去別的地方工作 并開展工作。 隨著當代官僚，就有一個非常合理的方法， 那里有一個私人領域 和公共領域之間的明確區分。 所以，到那時，基本上人們生活在他們各自行業。 他們生活在他們耕耘的土地上。 他們生活在他們工作的車間。 如果你想想看，它（這種分離）就貫穿我們的整個文化， 甚至我們的城市。 如果你想想中世紀的城市，中世紀城市的市鎮， 居住在那里的各行各業都有名字。 現在我們有廣闊的住宅郊區 它很好地與生產區域 和商業領域分別開。 實際上，在這150年間， 有一個非常明確的階級制度也出現了。 因此，工作職責越低 和執行越低級工作的人，他越被剝奪 他的私人領域空間。 人們一整天或者在任何情況下 使用著這驚人的可以用來 親密聯系的可能性交流。 然而他們大規模地聯系。 皮尤研究所，定期提供的良好數據表明， 例如，在美國， 我認為這個數據是保守的 - 百分之五十的人在工作中通過電子郵件， 實際上是從他的辦公室發私人電子郵件。 我的確認為這數據是保守的。 就我自己的研究，我認為私人電郵的高峰 實際上是早上的11點，不管什么國家。 百分之七十五的人們承認 在工作時用移動電話進行私人聊天。 百分之百地使用短信。 關鍵是這種私人領域的再興起 在所有機構并不是十分成功。 我經常吃驚，美國陸軍 社會學家討論著 例如伊拉克的軍人們 與他們的家人們每天聯系的影響。 但是許多機構實際上正在阻止這樣的聯系。 每一天，每一日， 我看到的新聞使我害怕， 例如 針對于得克薩斯州的孩子們的15美元罰款， 就因為在學校他們每次拿出和使用他們的移動電話。 如果紐約的公共汽車司機被看到手拿有移動電話， 他就被立即解雇。 公司禁止即時通訊和Facebook。 除了安全保護問題， 一直有社交控制的輿論， 事實上要發生的是 這些制度正決定著 到底誰有權自行決定該關注的事情， 去決定，是否它們應該，或者不應該，被孤立。 在某種意義上，它們實際中在試圖阻止 這種更有可能的親密性運動。

更多 英語演講小短文、英文演講稿、英語演講稿 相關文章和資料，請繼續關注 英語作文大全