When used thoughtfully, technology can deepen emotional bonds, without replacing the power of in-person connection
Technology is often perceived as an interruption to our natural relationships. In fact, many of us believe that our bonds are only really created through face-to-face interactions, real life, conversations, and actual human touch as opposed to FaceTime calls and emoji-filled messages.
At the same time, villainizing technology when it comes to our close relationships masks the benefits that these tools can have when it comes to improving our communication, offering us more opportunities to connect, and our ability to understand each other better. While there are always risks associated with picking up our devices, they are simply tools to be leveraged to bolster our connections with the most important people in our lives.
One of the major benefits of technology comes with medium and long-distance relationships. Video calls, for example, were a major development when it comes to maintaining a connection during long-distance periods in relationships—providing much-needed visual cues which are absent in voice calls or text messages.
Video allows for emotional expression through facial gestures, body language, and the added intimacy of seeing each other in real time. More specifically, research shows that these visual cues can strengthen emotional bonds and reduce feelings of loneliness, ultimately making it easier to feel emotionally connected despite the physical distance. As such, technology enables couples to create shared experiences that help bridge the physical gap and facilitate emotional intimacy.
Seeing how someone interacts with technology offers us a way to understand our partners in a different light. Technology use, whether it’s through communication, the tone of their texts or how they manage online interactions, also reveals aspects of someone’s personality that might not come through in person. For example, the way one responds to messages or engages on social media can indicate traits like attentiveness, introversion, or extroversion.
While these virtual interactions don’t replace in-person connection, they offer valuable insights into how someone processes information, manages conflict, and expresses affection. In many cases, they give us a fuller understanding of who someone is outside of in-person interactions.
However, it’s important to remember the risks of being overly reliant on technology in relationships. While technology facilitates communication, it can also create a false sense of intimacy, leading to superficial interactions. This artificial intimacy not only deprives individuals of real connections but can also create conflict and hinder emotional intimacy.
Digital communication, such as text messaging, often lacks the depth and nuance of face-to-face encounters. Non-verbal cues and physical presence are critical for understanding each other’s emotions.
Spending too much time on digital platforms can lead to a detachment from reality, reducing the quality of in-person interactions and sometimes fostering misunderstandings or miscommunications. This “always connected” culture can lead to emotional burnout, especially if the digital interaction lacks the authenticity that true connection requires.
While technology can enhance relationships by offering more ways to communicate, connect, and understand each other, it is essential to strike a balance. The best relationships are still grounded in real, in-person experiences. Digital tools, when used thoughtfully, can be a supplement to face-to-face connection—not a replacement. The key is to use technology to foster deeper bonds but never forget that the strongest relationships are those that thrive in the physical presence of one another.
By Sarun Balaranjan and Henry Challen, Contributors
CW: Sexual violence
If you have spent any time on Mac Confessions, Youtube, or any other college-focused media, it is impossible to miss the prevailing issue surrounding consent and the way we conceptualize sexual relationships in a university setting. Whether it be a frat party, a first date, or a meal at one of McMaster University’s fine dining institutions, the question of consent remains a topic of the utmost concern. While student-to-student relationships are culturally accepted, faculty-student relationships are generally frowned upon. However, there remains a grey area when it comes to relationships between teaching assistants and students. Ask anyone, and someone will know someone who has engaged in sexual acts with their TA. As both students and adults, we need to think more critically about how consent manifests within undergraduate-TA relationships.
We could recount examples of TAs making sexual advances on their students, but that is not the purpose of this article. Instigating a campus-wide persecution of TAs is not our goal, but rather to think critically about consent and potentially change the current practices surrounding TA-student relationships. Currently, students are theoretically allowed to engage in sexual relationships with their TAs, so long as the department head is notified, a conflict of interest is declared and all marking of that students work is transferred. However, it is pertinent to note that the conflict of interest policy has not been updated since 2001. There have been immense differences in how we conceptualize consent between 2001 and 2020 and it is atrocious that the policies have not been updated since then.
Left unchecked, the current power structures produce a wide range of results for students. While many TAs are respectful of their students and their roles as educators, this is not always the case. When relationships do occur, they often place the students in the awkward position of interacting with their TAs in two very different contexts. Even if a student wants to partake in sexual relations with their TA, it is difficult to extract this sexual relationship from the power structures of their academic lives.
When relationships do occur, they often place the students in the awkward position of interacting with their TAs in two very different contexts. Even if a student wants to partake in sexual relations with their TA, it is difficult to extract this sexual relationship from the power structures of their academic lives.
This calls for a serious revision of the policies in place surrounding the training and orientation of McMaster’s teaching assistants. It is asinine that Welcome Week representatives are trained for hours regarding sexual sensitivity orientation for merely ten days of interaction with students while TAs are not held to the same standards. It is clear that TAs are placed in a position of more power than a Welcome Week rep and spend significantly larger quantities of time interacting socially with students. At the bare minimum, TAs should be subject to the same training as Welcome Week reps. There is an appalling lack of accountability being placed on TAs by university administration and the faculty that hires them.
As we as a culture think more critically about consent, it is necessary that we apply this understanding to all relationships, especially those with potential power imbalances. It is ludicrous to think that this is an issue that can be dealt with at the discretion of the TA, who simply has to sign off on some forms. This is not only insufficient, but also contributes to creating a dangerous precedent for consent within the McMaster community.
We are not calling for a ban on consensual relationships between adults. However, to create a culture of consent on campus, a deeper awareness of the nuance surrounding consent should be incorporated into the TA employment contract. In addition, there should be a more robust training process to ensure that TAs are aware of the responsibilities that come alongside their position of authority.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
