Critical analysis of article " internet lives- social context and moral domain in adolescent development
This article by Karen Bradley looks at the impact of the internet on social and moral behaviours of the young people who operate within its social places ie chat rooms, myspace.com . She offers food for thought for the non digital native particularly regarding internet norms and ettiquette within these spaces, but moreso her article offers opportunity to reflect, on whether these norms fit into societal expectations or whether the internet is so unreal and not to be judged from without it's own self made context.
Without doubt the impact of computers, and the internet in particular, is the most astounding technological development since the wireless back at the turn of the (last) century. Communication became instant with the wireless, but obviously one way, which resulted in its misuse in the second world war, amongst other terrible situations of propaganda and self promotion.. It was enormously popular, with many images relayed over the generations of the family getting up to date information on the state of the world around them, as well as variety programs, ie plays, dramas, singing, to queens birthday message, even the cricket, with its man made sound effects. However, most families joined around the radio together and had the opportunity to talk to one another, discuss what they were hearing, laugh and cry together.
So, the radio was a successful communication tool, then came the television, wow, pictures too. Soon the radio was pretty outdated, the situational use remained the same with the family fronting up with their dinner trays in front of the tv to catch the news. Another great communication tool, with the family watching together and sharing views and impressions on what was collectivley happending in their world. But again tv was open to abuse, and perhaps you could suggest much to do with the self image problems of the young today could be blamed on the 'beautiful people' flashed into their homes over the last 50 years. Role models of today invariably have a high profile- which means celebrity, gone are the quiet achievers, what is valued today is celebrity, 'publicity or putting it out there. But I digress. The point of this being that young people understand and value celebrity and 'putting their news out there" and this is the one major value of the internet for them.
Instant two way communication from the privacy of you own home with the world. A major point Bradley makes is that for the users of these domains, is the lack of influence and or control by parents or adults. The on line environment offers freedom to its users.
Bradley suggests the internet is a separate social context, the like of which has never been seen before, with all sorts of statistics available about its popularity ie 75% of 12-17 years old are regular users of social arenas like chat rooms and myspace.com.
Australian children are more physically protected now than they have ever been, many go from school directly to after school supervised activities such as ballet, music lessons, footy practice, not to mention kumon, five senses and other assorted 'educational programs. I would suggest that is because parents like to see their children busy, most parents love homework- you only have to look at the people bragging about how busy their children are, or the waiting list of children for either selective high schools or "known performers" in annual UAI marks. Parents don't like their children 'doing nothing', they feel out of control and bad parents if their children are not gainfully employed ie at their desks.
And as the hours in the day has remained unchanged , what has suffered is the childrens social lives, their chance to 'be',the opportunity to connect with their peers, gossip, exchange news and most importantly I think, the opportunity to confirm their place in the social structure.
Which then leads back to the internet. With all the time children are spending at their desks doing homework, studying etc,their computer is the essential in their lives, look at all the public schools, they are even called technology high schools, and the private schools that boast x number of computers per student- combine that with the ability of this generation to multi task and wow. Many screens are open at any given time, they are studying, involved in msn, listening to music, keeping an eye on sites, blogs etc, yet I challenge any parent to catch them doing anything other than the 'official' line. (Screen swapping should be an olympic sport.) What we have is a social need and opportunity and voila the internet offers freedom to make it happen. Freedom to converse with anyone, and often, in the chat room situation, they don't know who they are communicating with, freedom from adult rules and freedom of speech.
But is this necessarily a bad thing, does it mean they are not living up to societal expectations. Bradley's article looks a Piaget to understand how the moral codes of conduct are constructed whereby young people 'move from a heteronomous moral environment in wchich rules are given and enforced by punishment from adults, to an autonomous moral stage.....But also make independent moral judgments based on their own experiences. " This constructivist view would accord with current pedagogical trends- constructing ones knowledge and we know from our own course that the users of the domain give it life, accordingly the rules to play must come from within.
And users are able to converse annonymously, 'block' anyone they don't want to talk to, they can even observe happenings 'offline', but and to the point of this essay, they are able to explore issues that the adults in their life , parents, teachers and others may or may not be comfortable with. Bradley provides much comfort to parents and educators with her understanding of the reality of this social context. She concedes that children do lie and have relationships that are dependant on the computer- 'that different rules govern different social contexts and form social conventions",
she recognizes that the young people are empowered by the different boundaries, they are working through very real issues for them, but almost in a test case kind of way. This is universally accepted that you have an online personality and a real personality and that what goes on on the internet stays on the internet. Very like any group of party/holiday/sport team?, exploring boundaries. We are traumatised by stories of paedophilia and stalking on the internet, instant news, books are written and taught at schools to remind children that we need to protect them, it is a risk, but a small one, these users make up the rules and abide by them.
This is a difficult situation when the non-digital natives own relationship with the computer is for the most part, one of a tool, a fast tool information wise, but a thing. A machine that helps you do your job, or send letters, or pay bills, or check movie or bus timetables, whereas the natives really believe it is their best friend. It is often the last thing they do before they go to bed and the first thing they do when they get up, check for messages, just like a best friend can be....Quite controlling., Just the thing for all those isolated teenagers 'safe' at home, alienated from real world communities, to have the opportunities to test some boundaries, make some friends, make some mistakes, make judgment calls everynight, opinions on all sorts of things bounce around in cyberspace.
I would suggest that the real problem is ours, the users recognise that the context is not real and they have made up rules for dealing with that. Bradley suggests the children recognise this and that they do in fact have different relationships not only with on line friends but also that their relationships that are predominately 'on line' can be tense or strained and usually different when the boundaries change. So what is the moral dilemma? Bradley goes on to propose two opposing camps for viewpoints in the moral argument for and against the online world. Firstly, the conservative view that the "internet...Is dangerous because it rules do not enforce morality" and the other view that the internet 'is a boon because it encourages questions and provides infinite scenarios in which young people can test their emerging sense of right and wrong".
Following on what were have been studying the second constructivist view is probably the most appropriate line to take as children construct ways of thinking about welfare, justice, rights, through a variety of social experiences. The 'gold ol days' argument where moral decline is an obvious response to people not maintaining the strict moral code of their elders, is one every young adult has heard since the beginning of time.
We need to be conscious and sympathetic to these new conventions of social interaction and accept this new paradigm if we are to be relevant as teachers. Young people are smart, they work hard and rebel less than ever before, it is import that their social context be given respect.
posted by chershar at 1:34 AM
|
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<<>