We may know what music they listen to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Where they were last night.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What they think about a war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Which restaurant they prefer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whom they follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What they buy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Which photographs they like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What time they go online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even how long they spend looking at a piece of content.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Yet there may be one question we cannot answer:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
who are they?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Not what their profile says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not what they do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not what they have posted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Who they are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps one of the most striking contradictions of our age is this: never have we had so much information about other people, yet having information does not in itself mean encountering them<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is where it becomes worthwhile to go beyond Martin Buber.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not to explain the difference between I\u2013Thou and I\u2013It once again, as we explored it in the episode of Tra pagine e legami<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But to ask what happens when the world we inhabit constantly encourages us to turn people into something that can be classified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a misunderstanding we need to avoid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We cannot live without categories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A hospital needs patients.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A school has pupils.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A business has customers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A newspaper has readers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A platform has users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A social network measures followers, views and interactions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In everyday life, too, we need roles: colleague, teacher, neighbour, professional, customer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The category itself is not the problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem begins when the category claims to encompass the whole person<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is a tiny difference in language and an enormous one in relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Saying:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThey are a customer\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n is not quite the same as remembering:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis person also happens to be my customer at this moment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the first case, the role risks becoming an identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the second, it remains one function within a much larger story.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An algorithm could not function if it treated every human being as an irreducible mystery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It needs to find patterns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Recognise behaviours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Create groups.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Calculate probabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Compare what we do today with what we did yesterday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From its point of view, this makes perfect sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem arises when we begin to look at people in the same way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When we say:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThat is just how he is.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cShe always reacts in the same way.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThey are all the same.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI already know what they will say.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n At that point we are no longer encountering someone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We are encountering the prediction we have formed about them<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps this is one of the quietest ways in which a relationship ceases to be alive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is something no profile can ever contain completely: the possibility of change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Someone may contradict themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They may grow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They may be afraid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They may do something we never expected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They may be different today from who they were five years ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They may surprise us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps recognising a Thou also means allowing another person the right not to be forever confined by our interpretation of them<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is particularly difficult in our closest relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With a stranger, we know how little we know.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With someone we have known for twenty years, we may assume we already know everything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And that is precisely where we can stop truly meeting one another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In digital spaces, the phenomenon becomes even more apparent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We see a photograph.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A sentence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A comment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A thirty-second video.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And in no time at all, we construct an entire person.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are shallow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are arrogant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are intelligent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are ignorant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are trustworthy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are narcissistic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are right-wing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are left-wing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are one of us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They are one of them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From a fragment, we construct an identity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then we begin to engage not with that person, but with the identity we have assigned to them<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is one reason so many online conversations seem never to become genuine encounters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two people are not really talking.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two representations are fighting each other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This dynamic does not belong only to social media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It can enter a couple's relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A workplace team.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A community.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou always do this.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou never understand.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere is no point talking to you.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n These phrases appear merely to describe behaviour.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But they often do something far more powerful:<\/p>\n\n\n\n they close off the possibility that the other person might be different from how we have defined them.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n And when we no longer leave room for someone to surprise us, the relationship risks becoming an endless repetition of something we have already decided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The next time you are about to respond to someone with whom you have a difficult relationship, try something very simple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Before writing or speaking, finish this sentence in your mind:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cRight now, I am thinking that he or she is\u2026\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps a word will come to mind:<\/p>\n\n\n\n selfish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n aggressive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n shallow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n unreliable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n cold.<\/p>\n\n\n\n unable to listen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You do not have to deny what happened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You do not have to pretend that a particular behaviour did not occur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Simply add a second sentence:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis is something I think about them. It is not necessarily everything they are.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n It takes only a few seconds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But it creates space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And sometimes that space is precisely where a relationship begins again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When I speak of techno-relational approach<\/strong>, I am not thinking of a kinder technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I am thinking of our ability to remain human even while using tools that necessarily turn parts of our experience into numbers, profiles, streams and categories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The question is not whether we should fight algorithms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is how we can avoid becoming algorithms ourselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A message can be a relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A video call can be an encounter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An online community can become a profoundly human space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And yet we can sit at the same table, look each other in the eye and never truly meet at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The difference lies not only in the tool.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It lies in how we look at the person in front of us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps the more interesting question, then, is not:<\/p>\n\n\n\n how much do I know about this person?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n We could replace it with another:<\/p>\n\n\n\n is there still something about this person that I am willing to discover?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Because as long as the answer is yes, the relationship remains open.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The other person has not yet become merely a photograph.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A role.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A prediction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A profile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They remain someone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n They remain a Thou<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whom might I be failing to encounter in my life because I think I already know who they are?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps it does not have to begin with a profound conversation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It may be enough to meet them anew.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This deeper exploration grows out of the fifth episode of season three of Tra pagine e legami<\/strong>, devoted to Martin Buber and to I and Thou<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The podcast opens a door.<\/p>\n\n\n\nWe need categories<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Algorithms need to simplify<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The right to surprise us<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Even a photograph can become a verdict<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Within the relationship<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A small experiment<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
This is also what the techno-relational approach means<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A question to live with<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nA question to live with<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nTra pagine e legami<\/h3>\n\n\n\n