Family Spaces of Socialisation Dialogue in the Times of Digital Revolution
Abstract
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: The aim of the article is a theoretical diagnosis of the influence of the pace of recent civilisation changes on a selected fragment of the socialisation process in the family. The course of analysis is the specificity of the relationship between parents and adolescent children (aged 15-18), including an attempt to explore the modifications occurring in these areas resulting from the development of information technology.
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND METHODS: The research problem of this paper is an attempt to answer the question: To what extent do new inter- and intra-generational divisions – appearing as a result of rapid civilisation changes generated by the development of information technologies – modify the socialising dialogue in relations between parents and adolescent children? The research method used was a selective analysis of theoretical works and research reports from sociology, psychology, psychiatry, neurobiology and information technology.
THE PROCESS OF ARGUMENTATION: The article presents selected elements of the conceptual model used to analyse the world of contemporary generations. It includes the new division into the world of the present past and the world of the present future, together with their new inhabitants – people of the past and people of the future.
RESEARCH RESULTS: As a consequence of the increasingly deepening division of the world of generations, constructing a socialisation dialogue in the relationship between parents and adolescent children has become more complicated. The confrontational-verifying influence of intra-familial socialisation concerning the areas of secondary socialisation is noticeably losing its significance.
CONCLUSIONS, INNOVATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The modifications of intergenerational relations within the family, occurring as a result of rapid civilisation changes, result in an “unfinished”, incomplete socialisation process of adolescent children, heading towards an unknown form of adulthood with this new cultural capital.
References
Andreassen, C.S., & Pallesen, S. (2014). Social network site addiction – an overview. Current Pharmaceutical Design, 20, 4053-4061.
Aneesh, A. (2009). Global labor: Algocratic modes of organization. Sociological Theory, 27(4), 347- 370. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01352.x
Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood. A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469-480. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066X.55.5.469
Baran, B. (Ed.). (1991). Filozofia dialogu. SIW Znak.
Barber, B.R. (2008). Skonsumowani. Jak rynek psuje dzieci, infantylizuje dorosłych i połyka obywateli (H. Jankowska, Trans.). Warszawskie Wydawnictwo Literackie „Muza”.
Bauman, Z. (2006). Płynna nowoczesność (T. Kunz, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Literackie.
Beck, U. (2002). Społeczeństwo ryzyka. W drodze do innej nowoczesności (S. Cieśla, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar.
Bloom, H. (2000). Global brain. The evolution of mass mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Bostrom, N. (2016). Superinteligencja. Scenariusze, strategie, zagrożenia (D. Konowrocka-Sawa, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Helion – Onepress.
Buber, M. (1992). Ja i Ty. Wybór pism filozoficznych (J. Doktór, Trans.). „Pax”.
Carr, N. (2012). Płytki umysł. Jak internet wpływa na nasz mózg (K. Rojek, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Helion.
Cash, H., Rae, C.D., Steel, A.H., & Winkler, A. (2012). Internet addiction: A brief summary of research and practice. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 8, 292-298.
Cheng, C., & Li, A.Y.-I. (2014). Internet addiction prevalence and quality of (real) life: A meta-analysis of 31 nations across seven world regions. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 755-760. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0317
Danaher, J. (2016). The threat of algocracy: Reality, resistance and accommodation. Philosophy & Technology, 29(3), 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-015-0211-1
DuBravac, S. (2015). Digital destiny: How the new age of data will transform the way we work, live and communicate. Regnery Publishing.
Firestone, R.W. (1988). Voice therapy: A psychotherapeutic approach to self-destructive behavior. Glendon Association.
Giddens, A. (2001). Nowoczesność i tożsamość. „Ja” i społeczeństwo w epoce późnej nowoczesności (A. Szulżycka, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Grzywa, A. (2010). Manipulacja, czyli poznaj mechanizmy psychologiczne wywierania wpływu. Psychologia Sukcesu.
Guerreschi, C. (2010). Nowe uzależnienia (A. Wieczorek-Niebielska, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Salwator.
Hagler, D.J. Jr, Hatton, S.N., Cornejo, M.D., Makowski, C., Fair, D.A., Dick, A.S., Sutherland, M.T.,Casey, B.J., Barch, D.M., Harms, M.P., Watts, R., Bjork, J.M., Garavan, H.P., Hilmer, L., Pung, C.J., Sicat, C.S., Kuperman, J., Bartsch, H., Xue, F., … Dale, A.M. (2019). Image processing and analysis methods for the adolescent brain cognitive development study. Neuroimage, 202 (Suppl. 1): 116091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116091
Harari, Y.N. (2018). Homo deus. Krótka historia jutra (M. Romanek, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Literackie.
Heersmink, R. (2016). The internet, cognitive enhancement, and the values of cognition. Minds and Machines, 26, 389-407.
Hidalgo, C. (2015). Why information grows. The evolution of order, from atoms to economies. Basic Books.
Ito, J. (2019, April 24). Forget about artificial intelligence, extended intelligence is the future. WIRED UK. http://www.wired.co.uk/article/artificial-intelligence-extended-intelligence
Kaplan, J. (2019). Sztuczna inteligencja. Co każdy powinien wiedzieć (S. Szymański, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. Penguin Books.
Klingberg, T. (2008). The overflowing brain: Information overload and the limits of working memory. Oxford University Press.
Koch, C. (2016). Puberty is only the pre-wash cycle. Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Kurzweil, R. (2006). The singularity is near: When humans transcend biology. Viking.
Lopez-Fernandez, O., & Kuss, D.J. (2019). Harmful Internet use – Part I: Internet addiction and problematic use. Panel for the future science and technology. European Parliamentary Research Service.
Mead, M. (1970). Culture and commitment: A study of the generation gap. Natural History Press.
Morańska, D., & Jędrzejko, M. (2013). Cyfrowi Tubylcy – socjopedagogiczne aspekty nowych technologii cyfrowych. Oficyna Wydawnicza ASPRA-JR.
O’Neil, C. (2017). Broń matematycznej zagłady. Jak algorytmy zwiększają nierówności i zagrażają demokracji (M.Z. Zieliński, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Passas, N. (2000). Global anomie, dysnomie, and economic crime: Hidden consequences of neo- liberalism and globalization in Russia and around the world. Social Justice, 27(2), 16-44.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6.
Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Strayer, D.L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J.M. (2013). Who multi-tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability, impulsivity, and sensation seeking. Plos One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054402
Sztompka, P. (2002). Socjologia. Analiza społeczeństwa. Wydawnictwo „Znak”.
Tillmann, K.-J. (2013). Teorie socjalizacji. Społeczność, instytucja, upodmiotowienie (G. Bluszcz & B. Miracki, Trans.). Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Tzezana, R. (2017, March 3). Singularity: Explain it to me like I’m 5-years-old. Futurism. https:// futurism.com/singularity-explain-it-to-me-like-im-5-years-old
Vinge, V. (1993). The coming technological singularity: How to survive in the post-human era. In NASA. Lewis Research Center. Vision 21: Interdisciplinary Science and Engineering in the Era of Cyberspace. 11-22. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19940022855.pdf
Weber, M. (2004). The ‘objectivity’ of knowledge in social science and social policy. In S. Whimster (Ed.), The essential Weber (pp. 359-404). Routledge.
Weinschenk, S. (2012, September 11). Why we’re all addicted to texts, Twitter and Google. www.psychologytoday.com. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/brain-wise/201209/ why-were-all-addicted-texts-twitter-and-google
Winterhoff, M. (2017). Mythos Überforderung. Warum wir gewinnen, wenn wir uns wie Erwachsene verhalten. Penguin Verlag.
Wrzesień, W. (2003). Jednostka – rodzina – pokolenie. Studium relacji międzypokoleniowych w rodzinie. Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
Wrzesień, W. (2014). Modyfikacje wzorów socjalizacyjnych w rodzinie w czasach nałogowych konsumentów. Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny, 76(3), 261-280.
Wrzesień, W. (2017). Zmiana pokoleń w czasach globalnej anomii. Societas/Communitas, 24(2), 37-52.
Żółkowska, T. (2013). Ja, Ty, Inny – dialog? Studia Edukacyjne, 28, 17-30.
Copyright (c) 2022 HORIZONS OF EDUCATION
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain the copyright to their work while granting the journal the right of first publication. The work will be simultaneously licensed under a CC BY-ND license, which permits others to share the work with proper credit given to the author and the original publication in this journal.
- Authors may enter into additional, non-exclusive agreements for the distribution of the published version of the work (e.g., posting it in an institutional repository or publishing it in another journal), provided that the original publication in this journal is acknowledged.
We allow and encourage authors to share their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on personal websites) both before and during the submission process, as this can foster beneficial exchanges and lead to earlier and increased citations of the published work. (See The Effect of Open Access). We recommend using any of the following academic networking platforms:
