The Civic, Social and Multi Modal Lives of Digital Natives

“ . . . new digital internet tools do enable new forms of creativity, communication and participation, but not necessarily for all young people, or for the groups who are most often excluded historically in the off-line sphere by socio-economic factors (Banaji, 60).”

It seems to me this is reflective of the political realities of the moment. Historical exclusion of certain groups (for multiple reasons) is a part of constant civic negotiation, and is subject to dilations and deflations based largely on the whimsy of the current socio-political climate.

We are moving further and further from reliance on paper currency. On-line vendors offer everything from fresh fruits and vegetables delivered to one's home on a daily basis to king-sized artisan mattresses which come through the mail compressed, and decompress when released from their shrink-wrap shipping confinement; the point is that the way people shop is also changing dramatically as are the ways in which people can choose to be educated and where they want to be while that education is pursued.

Under these circumstances it seems as though the distance between the excluded and included must necessarily expand. 

As educators, part of the discussion we're having about digital natives involves exploring an issue crucial to student success, digital equality.

“Recently young people have developed a psychological problem: the so-called Mixi tsukare (fatigue) (Takahashi, 79).”

I no longer have a face-book account. I closed mine, for the second time, nearly eight years ago. The reasons fall into a general category I like to refer to as the “I didn't see that as a possibility” scenario. Excitement generated by the seeming limitless possibilities offered by social networking—yesterday I was talking with my friends outside of class and now I'm talking essentially to the whole world—can be intoxicating. The ability to re-connect with old friends and make new on such a scale is brand new even when considered in dog years.

The difference is that, if I am impulsive regarding my communication, as can happen when waxing nostalgic—perhaps an off-the-cuff comment about a mutual, non-present, third party--during a real-time conversation, I have the opportunity to amend a mis-communication in real time and the possible slight was never recorded and not heard by the third party. This is, of course, not the case with social media generated conversations.

When I hit the send button, my response and therefore what is perceived as my honest opinion, has now been recorded for a wide audience to consume and judge. This does not have to be a recurrent action to have impact.

Let's say I'm a 14 year old having issues with a classmate and I have just come in from mowing the lawn. Hot and tired, I power up my computer (or other device) and grab a cold soda. My problems with this classmate are on my mind, having had the opportunity to ruminate while mowing.

I open the face-book page, take a slug of my soda and notice that another classmate has signed on to face book and made a comment about my current, albeit momentary, antagonist. Without taking a moment to consider the power of words (I am after all only 14) I type in a string of angry epithets and hit the enter button.

As the evening wears on it occurs to me that I have published some really offensive comments, deserved or not, that many people in that community will consume. I feel dreadful, and that dreadful feeling will build. I do not sleep that night and, depending on the circumstances, this can go on for some time, perhaps the result of a now escalated event that might have been, to begin with, a small issue.

I am keenly aware of this having been trained in a discipline that favors a strong connection to rehearsal impulsivity as a generator of performance. Although impossible to fully restrict, it is so important to practice some restraint when replying, that I believe it should be part of the constant conversation (negotiation process) an educator has with young students.

“ . . . there is more variance across individuals than is suggested by broad generalizations such as “Digital Native” or “Net Generation” (Levy & Michael, 83).”

As a society, we are quick to label or pigeon hole. It is important to remember that the term, Digital Natives, is a relatively new way of describing a specific response or set of responses to coercive, universal, cultural alterations and subject to change based on data accumulation. While it is an effective means of putting an abstract concept into a container for observation, it does not constitute a “one size fits all” mentality. The key concept here is still the idea of tailoring to the individual learner.