Introduction
The Internet is all around us. Adolescents and youth are continuously exposed to it, using it most of the day, every day. The vast proliferation of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) is raising public debate and scholarly discussions regarding the nature and effects of ICT on adolescents. This chapter describes the social implications for adolescents of the rapid penetration of ICTs. It is organized through a discussion of the place of ICTs in the information society, the rise of the network society, and the parallel emergence of ânetworked individualism,â adolescence as a developmental life stage, the ways in which adolescentsâ Internet use is immersed in family tension, and the association of technology and social relationships. To help us understand how adolescents are using ICT, we describe the general network structure and the attributes of online and offline social networks.
In most Western countries, the use of ICTs in the workplace, at home, and on smartphones has become common. These technologies have been integrated into the daily activities of most individuals, not as a novel or extraordinary activity but to forge new paths for both ordinary and extraordinary activities to be accomplished. Many search for news, information, jobs, and products; people communicate online and offline, diversifying their sources of information, communication, and social support in their daily lives (Dutton, Blumler, and Kraemer, 1987; Wellman and Haythornthwaite, 2002; Katz and Rice, 2002a; Miller, 2016; boyd, 2017; Hampton and Wellman, 2018). The integration of these technologies into everyday life seems to be an imperative of the information age, a historical period in which information and knowledge are produced and reproduced at an unprecedented high rate. Information and communication technologies are the current tools that facilitate access to opportunities, knowledge, resources, and social capital which might otherwise be difficult to acquire. The Internet is a global network that links computers, and, through them, governments, organizations, and individuals, supporting economic, social, and information activity at a global level. Spanning geographic boundaries, ubiquitous, and converting the geography of locale in spaces of flows (Castells, 2000), the Internet transfers information in copious volumes and in real time, creating what some have described as a fluid society (Hampton and Wellman, 2018).
The information society and networked individualism
Social scientists have used different metaphors to describe the information age: the post-industrial society, the information society, the network society, the cyber-society, and more. Although we acknowledge the different conceptual views, we differentiate the network society from the information age. The network society refers to a social system in which individuals, groups, organizations, and states show more flexibility in crossing boundaries, and individuals have greater awareness of the network configuration of their relationships (Castells, 1996; Van Dijk, 2005; Wellman, 2001; Hampton and Wellman, 2018). The information society denotes the growing tendency to involve computers in the maintenance of data records, information flows, knowledge systems, and communication channels. Naturally, the network society and the information age are closely connected terms. Both concepts describe the economic, political, and cultural changes, and their consequent social organization in a society, resulting from the production of information. It is a shift from production-oriented to service-based occupations, the manipulation of symbols, and a decrease in the percentage of the labor force involved in the production of tangible products. Most importantly, society is characterized by the emergence of ânetworked individualism,â in which the likelihood of connectivity beyond the local group has increased dramatically (Wellman, 2001; Hampton and Wellman, 2018).
The notion of a network society is based on several social changes driven by technology. A central dimension of the change is the development of a new technological condition in which information technologies (including the Internet and mobile phones) facilitate the formation of new forms of social organization and social interaction over electronic networks. Information and communication technologies are not the reason for social change but they provide the infrastructure to make the change possible as they provide the means of communication necessary for the formation of new forms of production, management, organization, and globalization of economic activities. A further important dimension of the network society is the shift of the culture to symbolic communication and to organization primarily around an integrated electronic system of communication and entertainment. Media are becoming more and more diverse, with specific audiences making different choices, and causing fragmentation of the traditional means of mass communication. Hyperlinks to entertainment and news sites are critical for human culture, and the Internet is becoming the linchpin of the symbolic environment.
The result of these diverse changes is that the major functioning of society now relies on networks. The concept of networks is elaborated later in this chapter; in the meantime, we might look at networks as a form of social organization with certain qualities. They are flexible and adaptable, and electronic communications afford networks the capacity to decentralize and adapt the execution of tasks while coordinating purpose and decision-making.
This concept of networked individualism was established by sociologist Barry Wellman (2001). He depicts society as having moved from a form of social organization in which we belonged to and interacted within small, densely knit, socially homogeneous, social groups to a form in which we interact on an individual basis with other individuals, regardless of membership of social groups. Individuals are born into families, live in neighborhoods, and have jobs at workplaces. In the past, their social interaction was restricted to these social spheres, in which they tended to get together, become acquainted, and establish closer or more distant social ties. Now, the information society is transforming this type of organization and interaction into one in which networks are built across distance, group boundaries are permeable, interaction is with diverse others, links shift from network to network, and hierarchies are becoming flatter and more complex (Hampton and Wellman, 2018).
As the use of Instant Messaging (IM) and social networking sites exemplifies, rather than belonging to the same group, individuals in present-day society have their own personal networks through numerous social applications. Although complex social networks have always existed, recent technological developments have rendered their emergence as a dominant form of social organization and the paramount medium of global communication. Just as computer networks link machines, social networks link people. Moreover, computer networks and social networks work conjointly, the former linking people in the latter, while people bringing their offline situations to bear, when they use computer networks to communicate (Wellman et al., 1996).
The implication of networked individualism is that interpersonal relationships via computer-mediated communication are increasingly based on the specialized roles that people play. Such specialized relationships revolve around shared interests, common problems, short-time collaborations, and the need for information. Specialized social networks consist of like-minded people, and the Internet supports the development of groups and social connections which are based on shared interests and common lifestyles. Furthermore, people vary in the extent of involvement in different networks, participating actively in some, occasionally in others, and being silent lurkers in still others.
The capacity of the Internet to support the production and consumption of information cannot be gainsaid. Since its first introduction into homes, in many countries its most frequent use has been for communication. It offers delayed (asynchronous) communication applications, such as email and forums, as well as real-time (or synchronous) applications such as Instant Messaging and social networking sites. Internet communication is used to keep in touch with known individuals, to support existing relationships with co-workers, family, and friends, and to form new relationships. Youth are growing up in a multimedia and multi-communication environment. For many adolescents, the Internet is the main source of information and entertainment, and an important tool for communication. As youths tend to be the earliest adopters of this technology, their experience differs dramatically from that of their predecessors.
Public and academic discourse on the relationship between youth and ICT is ambivalent. Many commentators are enthusiastically utopian, maintaining that Internet applications provide children and adolescents with new opportunities for creativity and active learning (Tapscott, 1998; Prensky, 2001; Eshet-Alkalai, 2004; Meneses and Molino, 2010 Koltay, 2011; Teemed, 2019). Moreover, social policy emphasizes the development of skills such as computer literacy, because these skills are believed to be required for an increasing number of occupations. In this approach, which celebrates the emergence of the information age and the rise of the network society, the electronic media are seen as a means of empowerment, liberating children from social inequalities. At the same time, the Internet can have negative effects on teenagers. Because access can seldom be effectively regulated, youths risk exposure to inaccurate information and abusive content (Livingstone and Halper, 2007). Moreover, the Internet might be harmful to social and family life, as arguably time spent on computer activity comes at the expense of participation in family, social, leisure, and sports activities (Kaylan and Yelsma, 2000).
The debate on the social impact of ICT is particularly important for the study of adolescent life, because adolescence is a period of speedy biological, psychological, and social transformation, and of rapid expansion of social circles. In their peer group, in close association with friends and peers, adolescents develop life expectations, school aspirations, world-views, and behaviors (Turkle, 2011, 2015a; Miller, 2016; boyd, 2017).
Scholars from such diverse disciplines as cultural studies, psychology, sociology, and communication have studied the communication aspects of the Internet. In the early research we can identify the conceptual and methodological tensions that set the research agenda for subsequent years. In this Introduction we will refer briefly to only two of them, which are central to our conceptual argument; they are the interplay of technology and society with both the online and with the offline world.
Technological and social views
Communication using the Internet has been called computer-mediated communication (CMC) (Rice, 1980). The term underscores two features that were influential in shaping research agendas. First, the word âmediatedâ indicated a clear difference from interpersonal communication, in which individuals engage in symbolic interaction directly, without the use of technologies. Second, the features of the computer, the cultural artefact that is the mediator, were added to the concept and were assumed to shape the messages and interpersonal relations that it made possible. Technology, then, was assumed to constrain the options and meanings of the symbolic interaction between individuals. At the very start of the inquiry into the Internet and sociability, tension arose between two major perspectives: technological determinism and social shaping of technologies. It partially overlapped the tension between virtuality and offline reality, between generative and reflective approaches.
We distinguish between studies that regard the Internet as culture and those that regard the Internet as a cultural artefact (Hine, 2005). To study the Internet as culture means to regard it as a social space in its own right, and to explore the forms of communication, sociability, and identity produced in this social space and how they are sustained by the resources available in the online setting. From this perspective, the Internet has been referred to, not as a communication channel but as a place for being or dwelling, capable of sustaining complex social spaces. Oneâs online sociability is conceived as different and even separate from oneâs offline identity. An individual was viewed as having a life online, usually separate from real life, as a parallel reality of the participating individuals. In this view, the virtual space is a coherent social space that exists entirely within computer space, wherein new rules and ways of being could emerge. Individuals operating in an online community may be geographically dispersed, experiencing different hours of the day in different locales, but they share the same virtual space and rules and have a common history. They can, therefore, treat their online interactions as real. In this view, online communication can exist in itself, completely separated from real life, and individuals can communicate at a distance, overcoming the fragmented character of offline life. Being online, individuals are not only released from the constraints of location but are also freed from the constraints of their offline personalities and social roles. Individuals can express online their real or inner selves, using the relative anonymity of the Internet to be the person they want to be, the individual whom they describe to others, experimenting with their identity and self (Bargh, McKenna, and Fitzsimons, 2002; boyd, 2017).
In this view, the relative anonymity of life on the screen gives individuals a chance to express often unexplored aspects of the self and offers the creation of a virtual persona. Cyberspace becomes a place to âact outâ unresolved conflicts, to play and replay difficulties, to work on significant personal issues. Turkle (1996) summarizes this position: âWe can use the virtual to reflect constructively on the real. Cyberspace opens the possibility for identity play, but it is very serious play.â This approach has methodological implications. Conceiving of the Internet as an object of study means examining only the virtual persona, online communication, and online social norms, rules, and etiquette, without even considering the other direction, namely, how established social norms and values are reflected in the online world. In this case, the Internet has been hailed for the possibilities it is perceived to offer to its users to slough off the constraints of their material surroundings and bodies, enabling them to create and play with online identities. When photos or videos are not presented, cyberspace seems to provide an escape from social inequalities, such as racism or gender discrimination (Turkle, 1996). Similarly, from this perspective, Internet communication creates new forms of social relationships, in which participants are no longer bound by the need to meet people face-to-face but can expand their social arena by meeting others, located anywhere in the online universe, mind-to-mind. Virtual relationships are assumed to be more intimate, richer, and liberating than offline relationships, because they are based on genuine mutual interest rather than the coincidence of physical proximity. Cyberspace is described then as a zone of freedom, fluidity, and experimentation, insulated from the mundane realities of the offline material world (Bargh, McKenna, and Fitzsimons. 2002).
A completely different view obtains if one studies the Internet as a cultural artefact, an object immersed in a social context, considering how the...
