Theory of ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ are both inherent in childhood research. ‘Being’ views the child as a social actor engaged in constructing ‘childhood’, whilst the ‘becoming’ child is deemed as an ‘adult in the making’ – a period of termed ‘adolescence’, the stage prior to ‘adulthood’ where the child will ‘become’ (Wyn and Whyte 1997:11). This essay will focus on the latter concept of ‘becoming’, the ‘teenage’ years and the emerging influence of technologies upon contemporary childhoods. I suggest that technologies have negative consequences for the ‘Socially Constructed Child’ (James and Prout 1990:8) demonstrating this using sociological and criminological theory to explore the technological impact on identity work.
Technology is arguably good and bad, it is neutral. However, all technology can be misused and can heavily influence interactional behaviour and identity. Mary Aiken (2015, an expert in forensic cyber psychology, explores how human behaviour changes online and labelled this ‘The Cyber Effect’. This term can resonate with many of us as we have all witnessed children, as young as toddlers, engaging with a tablet or mobile phone as “virtual pacifiers” (Holliman and Sheehy 2017). However, the American Academy of Pediatrics (2016) recommends no screen time for children under the age of of 18months, yet infants are routinely targeted by companies developing devices with built in protective bumpers in gender specific colours and apps aimed for educational purposes
Recent studies suggest (Holloway and Valentine 2003, Livingstone and Bober 2005) that most of children’s everyday uses do not involve learning, innovation and creativity, but rather informal visiting of fan websites, downloading media, chatting with friends and window shopping. Because of this, the past two decades has witnessed a rise in labels/ terms applied to young people online. “Net generation” (Tapscott 1998), “cyborg babies” (Davis-Floyd and Dumit 1998), “cyber-kids” (Holloway and Valentine 2003), and “digital generations” (Livingstone 2018) are all labels that imply children are unconsciously victims of the electronic screen. For many teenagers, Tapscott argues “using new technology is as natural as breathing” (1998:40) suggesting a naturally constructed relationship with technology.
Sociological theory / identity / socially constructed child
For James and Prout (1990) childhood is a social construction, a lens for contextualizing the preliminary years of human being. Jenks (2008:90) suggests childhoods embark on a continuous process of social and cultural existence where children “inhabit a world of meaning” formed by interacting with adults. This then supports the ‘socially constructed child’ concept and underpins all aspects of childhood in relation to contemporary online practices.
Social constructionist Schutz (1964) argues that virtual worlds provide a space for ‘multiple realities’ to be developed and practiced as the internet is a platform for endless “new possibilities for constructing and performing a social identity” (Merchant 2006:236). The example of videogames and “disembodied role play environments” constructs a ‘virtual identity’, one that contrasts drastically from the real world. Anyone can be whoever they want to be behind an electronic screen due to the removal of physical interaction. Social theorists Giddens (1991) and Bauman (2004) claim identity in the modern world is contingent, multiple and malleable, supporting the ‘virtual identity’ claims of Guy Merchant. These varying identities are performed across a number of environments of email, discussion boards, messenger apps, or online games and the nature of the relationship with the ‘other’ varies. Interaction online can become problematic when the other’s identity is far from the true reality.
Criminological theory – Routine activities theory
‘Digital generations’ are constantly exposed to risky environments (Buckingham 2000:5)
and being present and interacting online produce a new platform for crimes to occur. Criminology can offer an alternative theory to the sometime problematic online realm of childhood. Routine Activities theory (RAT) (Cohen and Felson 1979) suggest that the “absence of a capable guardian” and the presence of a “suitable target and likely offender” during online interaction can possibly lead to negative consequences. RAT theory offers an alternative view that is situaltionally specific in contrast to that of social theorists who focus on cultural and social affects of online communities. Research on human interaction in cyberspace suggests that “users are both alone and hyper-connected, all at once” (Aiken et al. 2016:374) reinforcing the absence of a guardian to protect the suitable target (young people) interacting online across many interactional platforms.
The police face evolving challenges to protect the socially constructed child whether they are ‘being someone else’ or on the receiving end of another’s online persona. Policing methods are adapting as communities become more socially mobile through technology and the emergence of ‘new online crimes’ such as grooming, sexting and bullying. Sexual curiosity is normative in young adolescents, and virtual environments can create a vulnerable space for problematic behaviours of bullying or sextortion to occur. Access to technology and a likely offender are parts of this developmental pathway that has facilitated sexting as a crime. Kent police (2017) reported that children as young as nine are exchanging explicit sexts which means they are generating and distributing child abuse imagery and more than 4,000 children have been dealt with by police for sexting since 2013 with the mean age being 13 or 14 (Collage of Policing, 2017).
We have to question why a young person does it, and quite often they are speaking to older people and being groomed, resulting in them doing something out of character for them.
Young people may feel pressured to present themselves in a certain way on social media platforms to conform to ‘normal’ behaviours which may go un-noticed by parents, or teachers.
Police authorities raise awareness of the dangers of sexting/ sharing sexual content online through educational training and campaigns, whilst politicians attempt to introduce legislation to protect our younger populations.
In 2016, Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt, argued that mobile operators and social apps should ban sexting for those under 18. BUT, a big but, is there such AI technology that can identify explicit images and then prevent them from being sent??? There is a big debate surrounding AI intelligence and monitoring, but here we are talking about youths so is it a debate about parenting??