When we talk about Digital Natives, are we just talking about privileged kids with access to technology? Siva Vaidhyanathan, author of an upcoming book on Google, thinks so:
"Invoking generations invariably demands an exclusive focus on people of wealth and means, because they get to express their preferences (for music, clothes, electronics, etc.) in ways that are easy to count. It always excludes immigrants, not to mention those born beyond the borders of the United States. And it excludes anyone on the margins of mainstream consumer or cultural behavior."In the case of the “digital generation,” the class, ethnic, and geographic biases could not be more obvious.
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of truth to this. In a recent talk at Berkman, sociologist Eszter Hargittai discussed her finding that “the only statistically significant predictor of engaging in creative activities at all is parental education.” And communication researcher John McMurria has observed that “a glance at the top 100 rated, viewed and discussed videos, and most subscribed channels [on YouTube] reveals far less racial diversity than broadcast network television.”
“It’s not just about access to the technology,” Henry Jenkins explained at the Totally Wired forum. “It’s access to defining skills and experiences. This is the new hidden curriculum.”
Unlike Vaidhyanathan, however, I see this as no reason to throw out the Digital Native metaphor. To the contrary. Unlike Baby Boomers or Generation X, Digital Natives are growing up now. When we use the term, we not only describe the past, but also look ahead to a future we can still change.
So let’s keep using the term, but as an aspiration as well as a description. Rather than pretend all kids are Digital Natives, let’s make that our goal. Because if we don’t act, the problems could get even worse.
Here is what I responded to him:
Hi Jesse.Just to expand a clarify a bit: My problem is not just with the fact that policies and studies focusing on something called "digital natives" exhibit a bias toward the privileged and make the underprivileged invisible (when dealing with education and democracy this is a sin!).
My larger problem is that there is no such thing as a generation. None. There is no sociological or statistical definition of a generation. There are no core or defining traits that exist beyond the colloquial.
The idea of "baby boomers" makes no sense beyond the pure demographic fact that there were a lot of people born between (select arbitrary start date and arbitrary end date). That's all it means. This country -- let alone this world -- is too diverse to distill any shared or core experiences from that long a period (generally defined as 1946 to 1964).
"Generation X" and "The Greatest Generation" are just book titles. And they are not even good books!
If you don't believe me, ask President McGovern how much generations share.
RSS Feed