The use of the term 'digital natives'
In 1996, John Perry Barlow wrote about digital natives and digital immigrants to distinguish between those who have always been immersed in digital media and those who have been introduced to it at some point of their lives and are newcomers to its use. The phrase ‘digital natives’ is problematic for post-colonial theorists. It focuses on aboriginal or indigenous people, and adolescents in a negative way, or refers to them in a dichotomous form in keeping with other binaries such as civilized and un-civilized, developed and under-developed. There are imperialistic notions surrounding the term ‘natives’.
The terms I prefer to use are digital insiders and digital newcomers (Goodson, Knobel, Lankshear, & Mangan, 2002). These terms allow for multiple experiences, rather than just being at one extreme or the other of a continuum.
The phrase ‘digital newcomers’ which also seems to me to be preferable as it disassociates itself with terms again that post-colonial theorists would have problems with (i.e. the term 'immigrants' can be argued to bring up negative connotations).
A person who is arguably more famous as a result of his use of the phrase 'digital natives' is Marc Prensky. More on him soon.
Contributions and opinions are welcome. More on this soon.
References
Barlow, J. P. (1996, February 8, 1996). A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace. Retrieved 11/8, 2006, from http://www.eff.org/Misc/Publications/John_Perry_Barlow/barlow_0296.declaration.txt
Goodson, I. F., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C., & Mangan, J. M. (2002). Cyber Spaces/Social Spaces: Cultural Clash in Computerized Classrooms. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
posted by Nicola @ 4:43 PM
4 Comments:
Insiders / outsiders
Newcomers / established
.... how are these less dichotomous?
I think the phrases 'digital insiders' and 'digital newcomers' are still dichotomous, but are possibly less value-laden, and allow for more scope, rather than being at either one or the other end of the continuum.
However, I intend to critique each phrase, and I do believe each are somewhat problematic. However, the term 'natives' is the one I have most problem with, and yet 'natives' in New Zealand for instance, are very special and esteemed, e.g. native flora and fauna, etc.
If they're dichotomous, then they don't allow for more scope - they're dichotomous. I think you need a term or terms that enable the sense of a continuum.
'Natives' are not devalued in the educational technology debate. Quite the contrary in fact - the ed tech futurists who use the term 'digital natives' valorise those they consider 'natives'. They do not use it as a perojative term. The term when set in the context of this discourse is a very different one to the use of 'natives' in other knowledge contexts, such as to refer to original inhabitants of a colonised country. There is no relation between the use of 'natives' in these two knowledge contexts. They are the same term, but no meaning is imported from one to the other. Words are often used differently in different disciplines. To critique 'natives' in ed tech for the value-laden use of the term in other contexts would be a category mistake.
The problem is not that one says it's a positive term. The problem is that the term is value-laden, and that using it a context other than what is intended does happen, and with that the values associated with that term still are brought from disciplines to other disciplines.
A colloquial term that is common nowadays - but shouldn't be - is, in my opinion, a derogatory comment, when someone states for instance, 'oh, that is so gay', not meaning to to critique those who are 'gay' (though perhaps they are without thinking?), but the term 'gay' is actually used as a put down of the context in question. However, in my opinion the term 'gay' cannot be divorced from it's context, and from its value-laden meanings.
Gay as happy
Gay as homosexual
Gay as a put-down of something that one doesn't like
Obviously, the most common understanding of the meaning of the word amongst those in the field, would prevail in discourse and understanding.
So, even if my argument is not quite appropriate, I still believe that the use of a term that means something different in different disciplines, still has connotations and imports meanings from one context to another - regardless of whether one intends for that to happen or not.
So there, we may have to differ, but I thank you for your contributions Karl. The blog was wanting . . . .
I couldn't discuss this verbally very well. As a digital newcomer, with digital insider tendencies, I prefer to use this blog . . . . ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home