A reality check about teens and virtual reality

Our Sunday Visitor has published a lengthy piece, "Can teens stay connected without losing touch?" (June 14, 2009, edition) by Emily Stimpson, that contains much good information and food for thought. Here is a bit of it, with some commentary at the end:

Virtual realities

Pick a study, any study -- the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the National Survey of Student Engagement, the Kaiser Family Foundation Program for the Study of Media and Health, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute civic literacy surveys, studies by the National Bureau of Labor Statistics, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Geographic Society. They all say the same thing: The virtual worlds teens enter when they're texting under the table (or blogging, posting pictures online, leaving comments on people's Web pages, etc.) is harming them as much as, if not more than, it's helping them. Teens' "totally connected life" is shortening their attention spans, narrowing their worldview, damaging their ability to communicate, and leading some down a very dangerous path.

There are, of course, many exceptions. There are teens who use cell phones and computers wisely, teens who spend hours on the Internet researching religious orders or trying to understand the connection between Virgil and TS Eliot, teens who film video podcasts to spread the Gospel, and who still love curling up with a good book. But they are not the norm.

"It's not that this generation is less intelligent than previous generations," said Emory University professor Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future. "And, of course, digital technology can and does deliver good content to them. The problem is that's not what the vast majority of teens are using these tools for. They're using them for what 15-year-olds care about: Other 15-year-olds."

Constant connections

As Bauerlein sees it, social media has locked teens into a world where peer contact and social life no longer ends at 6 p.m. when it's time to join the family for dinner. Instead, it goes on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via blogs, social networking sites and, of course, texting.

"When I was 16 and walked into my parents house, my connection with my peers was over for the day. I had to sit at the dinner table and listen to my parents talk about money or politics. Walter Cronkite was on in the background talking about the Vietnam War. I didn't care about those things, but I couldn't help but overhear them.

"Today's teens shut all that out," he continued. "They're text messaging at the dinner table, then they spend the rest of the evening in front of the computer, posting on blogs or chatting with friends. Even when they're logged off, social life is still going on. Someone could be posting a comment on their blog or writing something about them online. There is no escaping their peers."

That never-ending peer contact leaves little room for learning about politics or reading Jane Austen. It also leaves little room for adult voices, the voices that, in the past, have taught teens the art of conversation, modeled maturity for them, and ushered them into the adult world.

"Teenagers can't grow up if their main contacts are with other 17-year-olds," said Bauerlein. "You grow up by modeling older people. They're the ones who teach you there is a bigger horizon than high school, a bigger timeframe than last week."

That last comment jumped off the page at me: "Teenagers can't grow up if their main contacts are with other 17-year-olds." And yet isn't it an intrinsic, readily-accepted "fact" that putting kids of the same age together in groups of 15, 20, or 30 day in and day out for nine months out of the year is somehow an essential, "traditional" part of "growing up"? If children grow up by modeling older people, then why is it so readily assumed that complsory public education is necessary for the "socialization" of children?

It used to be, Bauerlein notes, that children would spend some 5, 6, or 7 hours a day with their peers, and then would move back into the world of their parents, coming in touch, even if indirectly, with the "real world." Yet something about this doesn't add up. Part of it is that the compartmentalized lives of so many children is merely a reflection of what the "real world" is and how it operates. And while it's easy enough to blame technology, it seems to me that technology only drives the car, so to speak, when those who should be driving the car don't know why they are in the car, or where the car is going.

Put simply: kids spend 12 or 13 years in a public school system that not only bears no resemblance to reality, but is often an active enemy of reality by virtue of the many artificial social barriers created and maintained in the name of "education." Children are told repeatedly that education is necessary and valuable because it will help them get a good job, have a stable and exciting career, and provide them with comfort and security. They are not encouraged to think about the meaning of life, the mystery of existence, the pursuit of truth, the joy and necessity of pursuing the good. Within this sterile and shallow world (which I dwelt in for 13 years, K-12), there is occasional relief from boredom and restlessness, but for the most part kids just try to survive. An essential part of that survival is, of course, having friends, fitting in with a certain group, finding some sort of identity.

This is even more the case, of course, when kids come from broken families and when their contact with adults is often uneven, uncertain, non-existent, or even abusive. As they shuttle from this home (with mom and boyfriend) and that home (dad and stepmother) and another house (grandparents or family friends), they innately seek to create some sort of stability, however tenuous or empty it might be. Having constant contact with friends via any number of devices is partially a result of thinking (and being taught, at least indirectly) the adult world is of no interest or value to them, and a matter of belonging, however superficial that belonging might be. Kids raised in homes with few books, little meaningful conversation, and constant television (and other forms of entertainment) will tend to think and relate in scattered and convenient ways, all of which promise instant satisfaction and immediate results.

In other words, while technologies can certainly deepen the problem, the central issues are, as always, a matter of first questions: Who am I? What am I? Why am I alive? What is the meaning of existence? What is the good? Having rarely, if ever, consider these questions—and rarely if ever having been asked these questions—kids and adults alike will naturally gravitate to what is base, easy, convenient, pleasurable, entertaining, and comfortable.

Comments

[keith0718]

A good book on this subject: Hold on to Your Kids.

[Kevin]

This sounds like an atheist coworker of mine. Despite being very intelligent, her only interests are hobbies and entertainment. I guess it's the logical consequence of her belief that life has no objective meaning.

[Dennis]

Without (specifically, at least) saying so, you point out one of the main reasons for homeschooling in the modern era as well as the main counterargument to the "socialization" objection...

I'll keep this in mind the next time someone insinuates that we're "stunting" our children!

[Jeanne EDG619]

Very thoughtful article. I work in educational technology and see many benefits of its use. But I think the real issue is putting limits on how much it is used in both education and at home. This of course is easier said then done now that technology has become so portable. The cell phone is with them constantly.

The next important factor is proper use of technology. Parents and Teachers need to be good role models for our children and teach them proper use of technology. Children need to be engaged in other activities that require face to face communication and play time.