My Evocative Object: “AirPods”
Humans need ways to be distracted. As a baby you are given rattles to numb the need for mental stimulation and the woes of being a baby. When you clock-out of your nine-to-five you turn on the TV to decompress from your workload. Since childhood I have struggled with chronic anxiety. My thoughts have flooded my mind with seemingly no way to channel (unless I resort to insanity). The best tools to combat my anxiety have been distractions. I have many hobbies to distract myself from day-to-day. However, as far as I can remember I have had a growing addiction to technological distractions, specifically ones with sound mediators (i.e. dialogue, music, etc.). I would watch a movie, and headphones would allow me to be in my own world. I found that I needed headphones to be able to distract myself while pursuing other distractions. My Spotify playing would be parallel to my drawings, while also having a tv show in the background. Now I cannot even write a paragraph for school without having another stream of noise in my mind. My need for distraction is the reason why I can always be found with my wireless Bluetooth headphones, my AirPods.
As I step onto the bus to go to class, I am comforted by the little pieces of plastic and wiring in my ears. My small white AirPod case can always be found in the front pocket of my backpack. If I leave my AirPods at home, I am devastated because it is nice to not have to hear my own thoughts. It is almost a necessity if I would like to have a quiet ride. My AirPods allow me to be alone. In Bernadette Wegenstein’s chapter “Body” in the Critical Terms for Media Studies she emphasizes the distinction between body and embodiment. Wegenstein defines embodiment as contextually dependent on the environment in which the physical body is. By this definition of embodiment, Wegenstein also establishes the fracturing of embodiment with the increasing technological use of society. People split into multiple selves when using the various interfaces of technology, the technological barriers somewhat protect people’s dignity thus allowing them to perform.
Using AirPods, to me, is like a term that was used in Sherry Turkle’s Evocative Object, “brain prosthesis”. The distraction in my mind by the dialogue of whatever is coming from my mind allows me to relax and “perform” in social interactions in a way that is comfortable. The barrier of the media as a constant white noise in my mind protects me from the version of myself in my mind, thus allowing me to be more present in the moments with others. Technology has become an embodiment of myself. My comfort in technology could be an example of a parasitic reliance of new technology, or it could be symbiotic relationship to use technology as tools of self-realization. In my opinion, I believe using media technologies in this reliant form has given me a sense of control over my mind.
In Caroline Jones’ chapter “Senses” in the Critical Terms for Media Studies, she explains that technology has trained our minds. Endless scrolling has affected our attention span. McLuhan insights in the “Senses” chapter states that media technologies have become extensions of man thus, extending our senses and supplemented our way of thinking. However, one of the dangers of using technology as an extension is the narrow scope that technology has. It is inherently biased because of our own perceptions and for the communities that do not have access. If we solely use technologies, then we are only perceiving reality through the layers of interfaces of technology rather than firsthand experience.
This isolation of my thoughts using media technologies could be like the Evocative Object “My Laptop” and the attribution of “brain prothesis” the author, Annalee Newitz, gave to her laptop. Wearing AirPods, the Bluetooth aspect allows me to complete my tasks. I am impeded from my tasks without them in my ears; this highlights my need for distraction and the reliance I have already. I have noticed that whatever is playing in my headphones determines my mood and productivity. I even use my AirPods as a channel to convey my emotions to my own body. If I am on the edge of a good mood I will play something that reminds me of a happy moment to supplement my mood. The state of myself in which I feel the most comfortable, is a state where I am an extension of myself who is constrained by a medium.
A mindset that I use to justify my overuse of this technology is that not only do AirPods allow me to have access to my own knowledge of my mind, but also access to music, and knowledge of others through podcasts. I use these objects as a medium to myself. To me they represent my expression of my feelings to myself. If I am feeling incredibly overwhelmed, the heavy metal in my ears reflects that. My AirPods have given me the perspective of the world with autonomy over what noise I hear. Perhaps this lack of control I have felt over my own body has inspired my ideology of the importance of autonomy in my own mind. This may have caused my attachment to this technology. My fear of loss of control may have also stemmed from the helplessness I have experienced with my own body. My day-to-day tasks are constantly mediated by AirPods and afforded me focus, however they have also been a barrier for human interaction because I have to tune myself out. Ultimately, AirPods are a medium of communication and perception in a digital interface, however, impedes my perceptions and communication of reality without technological interference.
Written by Bridghet Wood
Image by Bridghet Wood
Citations
Jones, Caroline. “Senses.” Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by Mark B. N. Hansen, University of Chicago Press, Chicago [Ill.], 2010.
Newitz, Annalee. “MY LAPTOP.” Evocative Objects: Things We Think With, edited by Sherry Turkle, The MIT Press, 2007, pp. 86–91. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hhg8p.14. Accessed 30 Sept. 2025.
Wegenstein, Bernadette. “Body.” Critical Terms for Media Studies, edited by Mark B. N. Hansen, University of Chicago Press, Chicago [Ill.], 2010.
This is such an interesting blogpost! I recently made a promise to myself to stop listening to music when walking or doing an assignment as I found that the constant distraction was limiting my full creativity and unconscious thinking. I think this alongside what you said about Airpods being your “brain prosthesis” can kind of relate back to what Benjamin has said about how “the distracted mass absorbs the work of art.” If we are constantly distracted by music, are we even paying attention to anything, truly? Are we paying attention to what we’re listening to? Are we paying attention to the the task that we’re doing at all?
Hi Xelena!
I find your promise to yourself incredibly daunting and I commend you for the challenge! You bring up really interesting and important questions, and they all have the theme of attention. To address your questions I would like to define attention as synonym to engagement. To me, to have someone’s attention is to attract someone’s mental engagement with whatever I am doing. Thus, to answer your question of “when we are doing a task, are we paying attention? ” I would establish that the task has, at the least, our physical engagement rather than a fully present mental and physical engagement. This definition of attention using engagement as the key factor, ties in the philosophical theory of mind-body dualism popularized by Descartes, where the mind and body and separable entities. Therefore, there is a boundary between mind and body, which could be defined as a fracture. I believe that introducing media technologies with human attention just creates more channels that connect the mind and body, however is creating more fracture because it is adding a medium between the two established kinds of human engagement. Thus, creating a larger and lengthier labyrinth for our attention to go through.
Great post. I think you’ve done an amazing job at synthesizing what we have learned from Critical Terms with content from lecture. Specifically the part where you’re commenting on the fractured nature of embodiment that comes from the use of technologies (I would argue that it’s even more profound with wearable technology) and how AirPods become like a second skin. The question “where are you when you’re on the phone?” comes to my mind here from discussing it in class. A consciousness– fractured between your environment, your own thoughts, and now the music playing in your AirPods– is in three spaces or three bodies. It’s a really interesting consideration; this idea of fragmentation came up a lot for us in German Studies last year as well. Thanks for your candor and insights!
Hi Naomi,
Your comment is so insightful! I like your attribution of ‘second skin’ to AirPods, I believe it resonates so well! To answer the question of “where are you when you’re on your phone?” I would that I never fully present in a single space (whether it be reality or the reality of which I am on my phone), and you would be correct to say that the life that I am most comfortable performing is one where I am quite fractured. The question that arises for me, following your question, is this use of technology fracturing (splitting) my consciousness or am I perceiving my own reality through interfaces/layers of digital interference. And since technology is essentially omnipresent in our first-world society, is this technological integration just a synthesis/birth of our new reality? Thank you for commenting!
Bridghet, I found your piece so striking because of how honestly you wove your own lived experience with the theories we’ve been reading. The way you describe AirPods as both protection from your thoughts and a bridge into social “performance” with others really made me pause. It’s such a layered way of thinking about embodiment. Wegenstein’s idea of fractured selves comes alive here, and I couldn’t help but think about how often we accept those fractures as natural rather than asking what they cost us.
I also appreciated how you connected Turkle’s concept of a “brain prosthesis” to your own use of distraction. You reframed it as survival, and that really flips a common narrative about technology.
At the same time, your post made me wonder, if our sense of autonomy comes so deeply through technological filters, what happens to the parts of ourselves that only emerge in silence or discomfort? Jones’ warning about narrow scopes of technology feels urgent here, almost like we’re trading breadth of reality for control over perception.
Your reflection left me thinking about my own attachments to sound and distraction, and whether they create more intimacy with myself or more distance. That tension, I think, between autonomy and dependency and between portal and barrier, is what made your post so thought-provoking.
Really powerful reflection, thank you for writing it.
Hi Maryam!
Your comment is so thoughtful and I appreciate your vulnerability with me too! Your observation of using distraction as a method of survival is so astute, and really resonate with what I was trying to convey. It is interesting how we so quickly accept the tools that make us comfortable in the day-to-day. It is such a privilege to have technology as this commodity of our daily lives, however with this comes different situational challenges that give the opportunity for technology to become a tool for survival. Using technology as a survival tool makes me think of the stories where Apple’s Siri saves people immobilized in a car accident, or even a more common example of the trend of having a friend’s location via their phone. Using our personal devices as means of “safety” muddles the line of autonomy and dependency even more than ever. Technology users could even feel guilty for not utilizing these safety measures, which are also mediums of surveillance for agencies and institutions. Therefore, this dichotomy of autonomy vs. dependency between technology is ultimately not of our own, but just a channel from a higher power.
Your comment leaves a lot more to explore, and I will keep thinking of connections! Thank you so much!
Hi Bridghet! This reflection really hit me in an insightful and honestly uncomfortable way! You did a great job of showing how an ordinary object like airpods can become such a deep personal mediator between our inner selves and the external world. I really appreciated the connection you made with your own lived experience and theory; the tensions you describe between control and dependence echo broader cultural concerns with how technologies both empower us and limit us. What stood out to me (and made me uncomfortable because holy reality check) is how airpods become not just a tool of distraction, but a form of self-regulation, almost like an emotional prosthetic that shapes our embodiment and emotions. Do you think this dependence on airpods reflects a broader cultural shift, or do you see your attachment as uniquely perusal and shaped by your own experiences with anxiety? Great read!
Hi Celeste!
I am glad my blog post was resonate with so many people! To answer your question, I believe that AirPods represent a larger cultural shift with technology dependency for emotional regulation, however in this post I used my own attachment as a case example for this phenomenon. Ultimately, I believe my attachment to AirPods is unique to me, but the growing technological dependency is not a new occurrence.
I do want to highlight the insight that humans have almost always used technology/tools as an organizational method of their lives. For example the whole discipline of semiotics, the study of language and communication systems, which has allowed humans to regulate/communicate thoughts. Another example that stands out to me is daily planners, that of which has been replaced by digital planner extensions like Notion and Google Calendar. I bring up these non-digital systems of organization because I want to ask why does relying on digital technology for emotional/life organization differ from non-digital tools? Perhaps, because humans are just using one digital device for everything and then that device becomes all-encompassing? I leave that for another discussion, thank you for commenting!
Hi Bridghet! I loved this blog post, such a fun title too. I’ve always had really mixed feelings about AirPods in particular, and so I really appreciate how you framed your AirPods as part of your embodiment and daily performance. Tying them to Wegenstein’s ideas of fractured embodiment and Turkle’s “brain prosthesis” was brilliant and honestly powerful. You captured that tension between technology giving us control while also narrowing our experience of reality. I really relate to connecting mood regulation to what you’re listening to, perhaps I’ve become too reliant on such technologies… I really wonder how much of my “self” is shaped through mediated sound.
Hi Kim Chi!
Thank you for your kind words! I am glad this blog post resonated with you! Reading everyone’s comments has tempted me to experiment with going without AirPods for a bit to see how my mind functions without constant noise. This experiment is honestly terrifying for me, which just highlights an addiction I have controlling the noise that goes on within my mind. Reflecting on this fear of mine has made me question the autonomy I actually have over my own embodiment. However, these pieces of wiring and plastic are getting my through life currently! Sounds like a later issue :’D
Thank you for commenting!
Hi, Bridghet! I really enjoyed this blog post. It got me thinking about whether AirPods help people focus or distract them. I remember when AirPods first came out, there were frequent news reports about people getting into car accidents while wearing them. While people might wear earphones to help them focus and avoid distractions, many still get distracted by the content, leading to accidents. I’ve also noticed that even in a quiet library, people still put on their AirPods and turn on their music apps. I’m one of them. In my opinion, while listening to music while studying can sometimes distract me, it also helps me get into the flow faster.
Hi Saber!
Great insights! I totally agree that there is a double standard when using AirPods. They are used to grant focus, but ultimately end up as a distraction. I too am one of the masses who uses AirPods in a quiet library. This phenomenon of mass distraction in academia reminds me of Walter Benjamin’s cult of distraction in film. In Benjamin’s essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” he states (pertaining to film), that audience reception in a state of distraction, ultimately leads to an audience with opinions but absent-minded ones. My application of this concept to AirPods, is when using AirPods as a medium to complete a task or social interaction ,they are seemingly aiding the completion of these events, however, ultimately they are just distracting from immersing oneself in the moment. I wonder if this resonates with you as well!
Thank you for commenting!
I really enjoyed your reflection on AirPods as an evocative object! My favorite part was how you bridged your own experience of distraction and anxiety to bigger media theories about embodiment and extension of the senses. The way you presented AirPods both as a limit and as a medium of self-control was really compelling. It captures something many of us probably feel but don’t articulate—the comfort of escaping into mediated sound while still being present in the world. Your invocation of Wegenstein’s fractured embodiment theory worked well in particular. It made me think about the extent to which using AirPods effectively bisects our consciousness between two realms: the external world that’s around us and the internal one of sound and psychic space. I also appreciated your use of Sherry Turkle’s “brain prosthesis” thesis to describe how the technology gets incorporated into your cognitive and affective regulation. That is the perfect word to apply in the explanation of AirPods as a coping mechanism and as an extension of self. The part where you reflected back on autonomy and control was so poignant. You described so eloquently how your relationship with AirPods makes you a master of what enters your head, even as it also makes you isolated from other humans. That tension—technology as freedom and restriction simultaneously—felt so true to the life of today. Your essay caused me to question how something as small and ordinary as AirPods holds deep emotional, psychological, and philosophical meanings of what it is to be human in a digital world.
Hi Bridghet! I found your analysis really authentic and honestly impressive as to how many different theorists you related to it. The nuanced relationship you have with your Airpods as something that affords you knowledge yet it is somewhat representative of your own restriction to it was a really interesting read! I can definitely relate to the itch of needing something playing in the background to be productive, and the disappointment associated with forgotten Airpods, or worse, dead ones. Your definition of your Airpods as a form of ‘brain prothesis’ is a really evocative (haha) comparison, however I do wonder: where is the line between the constriction of your Airpods versus the media that you consume while you use them?