contributed. For me the greatest struggle in arriving at useful policy
positions on the matter of social networking stems from my need to better
understand the philosophical motives driving questions about acceptable uses
of technology and all associated matters.
It seems that two primary concerns are evident: 1) Young people naively or
recklessly share too much of their personal lives in potentially (although
virtual) public spaces; 2) This exhibitionistic behavior has the potential
to complicate their personal lives today and lead to unwanted scrutiny in
future college or job searches.
However, there may be a larger question worth considering. Namely, how do
our policies regarding technology usage (especially social networking) shape
the habits of mind guiding a young person's future decisions within our
global economy?
Social networking abuses have demonstrated that it is easy for some
adolescents behind the anonymity of technological mediation to post vile
comments about others on a MySpace blog, to effectively wreck havoc on their
lives. In a loosely connected scenario, it seems equally easy for
unscrupulous, greed-driven predatory mortgage brokers to extend credit to
those who will never be able to repay the loan. Technology seems to make
exploitation easier. Driven by the financial incentive for selling
impossibly complex adjustable rate mortgages, mortgage brokers are insulated
from risk as investment banks buy the mortgages and sell them off in slices
to investors. Gone are the days of your grandparents' loan when a handshake
at the local bank sealed the deal. Faceless exploitation, driven by greed,
and pushed into overdrive by technology, has a deeply corruptive effect
rendering people incapable of seeing their obligation to each other.
Ignoring the opportunity to teach adolescents about the real lives affected
by misuses of communication technology may contribute to repeated
occurrences of people disregarding others in the name of their own personal
freedom or gain.
Many educational theorists and practitioners have commented on the changing
role of education in our flat world. Shockingly, the dizzying
consequences of fast communication technology create nostalgia for the good
old days of industrialization where by today's standards those old factories
seem to be a model of solidarity. While conditions of the old steel towns
were harsh, people were also united. They walked the same streets, shared
the same water, entered the same factory gates, and stood shoulder to
shoulder against shared injustices. Moreover, cultural institutions,
notably schools, could plainly see their obligations to help the children
they were established to serve. The need for social reform is self evident
when a child physically broken by industrial machinery enters your
classroom. Yet, what are the signs that the infrastructure of multinational
capitalism has deleterious effects on our students today? Unlike children
from the turn of the last century, young people today are not forced to
operate the machinery driving this phase of capitalism. Yet, that machinery
drives their social lives just as it drives global commerce. The effects
are not always self evident. Their fingers are not cut. Their bodies are
not battered. Their clothes and faces are not stained with coal dust. Be
certain, however, our attention is needed all the same. What form that
attention will take will be determined, in large part, by people
contributing to and following this discussion. These are important times.
Chad Barnett
Director of Admissions
The Linsly School
Wheeling, WV 26003
[ For info on ISED-L see http://www.gds.org/ISED-L ]
Submissions to ISED-L are released under a creative commons, attribution, non-commercial, share-alike license.
RSS Feed, http://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?RSS&L=ISED-L
