The evolution of communication forms today has resulted in a digitally saturated world, by which members of society worldwide integrate their Social media activity into their everyday lives; it was found that ‘almost 1.5 billion active users visit the social network (Facebook) on a daily basis.’ (Statistica, 2018). The last fifty years has brought drastic developments and advances within digital world; computers have evolved from the humans that communicated the binary instruction whilst information was stored in physical space in object form. ‘ICT is maintaining its lead as the fastest-growing service sector'(Katz, 2008). This new three-dimensional space by which knows no physical bounds has brought about change to how society functions as a whole. All sectors have been impacted, by the effects on the individual and society collectively. With these advances constantly developing it is sociologically interesting to look at whether or not virtual presence is helping or complicating the lives of the individual and the form of social structure. It was argued in ‘The Promise’ (Mills, 1959, pg 15) that technology has ‘raised more problems- both intellectual and moral- than they have solved’.
Para 1: Background, development and Digital Natives/Youth of Today
The growing use of these platforms and their users means there is an incomprehensible amount of information and data readily available. This gathering of information goes from being a ‘private trouble’ to a ‘public issue’ that even democratic political movements are under influence by. There is privacy issues, in that, this is no longer content owned or controlled by the individual, however part of a global corporate profit. ‘Marx says that the entire relations of production correspond with the social consciousness and ideas in different life spheres.’ (Sevignani, 2012). This quote leads me to further argue that this is evident of the power structures within society, in that, the individual proletariats are exploited of their own personal virtual lives to help with sectors such as marketing and politics. This is evident of the surveillance society by which we are part of, as Bentham discusses within the concept of panopticonism. ‘Disciplinary power, …is exercised through its invisibility’ (Foucault, 1975); the users cannot see that they are being controlled and conditioning their content to suit the voyeuristic nature of peer surveillance. ‘Discussions of communication inevitably involve the use… of the concept of an audience, the term referring to the recipients of a message or the spectators of a media performance.’ (D. Chaney, 1972) This idea of manipulating the audience is something that Geoffman puts down to ‘The presentation of the self’ (. We construct different versions of ourselves in order to be perceived, this is our “front stage” whereby we have a co-presence with others. This becomes different in ‘The 21st century social order’ as Jenkins (points out that with online presence we are creating the ‘second life’. Due to this, we take away from our physical presence and the ‘frontstage’ amongst others to build a virtual one. The interaction within this “second life” takes off the pressures of this exchange in “perceptions” with ‘individuals not know(ing) each other, but they are connected by their shared interests and activities’. (D.L. Hansel et al, 2010). This relationship and communication is, therefore, of a different nature and one that can be thought up and built rather than instantaneous and natural.
For those in society unable to gain access to these platforms thereby become the digitally excluded. This creates an inequality within society Thus, it can be argued that social media while creating a social mobility with no bounds is an advance and broadens connections with others, ‘social media use can adversely affect virtually all facets of individual-level consequences.. including psychological, emotional and physical well-being and social development.’ (Bolten et al., 2013); these consequences often intrude on the developments of those described as ‘digital natives’. I have come to realise that the difference in Social Networking site use between the Digital Natives and immigrants is resulting in different forms of social conditioning, following what (BLAH) describes as ‘informal rules’ for the different peer groups. Those Digital Immigrants, who have transitioned and adjusted to the digital world tend to overshare in what appears to be an attempt to assert their presence, caring little about the quality. For those natives, who only know the digital world by which they’re a part of, it is far more a matter of quality over quantity and the social validation gained from their feedback; ‘Teenagers and college students report that they compulsively check social network profiles and updates’ (Lewis and West, 2009) . Their priority lies with the construction of their ‘best self’ which can be looked at Baudrillard’s postmodernist theory of hyperreality in that “it is a question of substituting signs of the real for the real itself”(Baudrillard and Poster, 2007, 170). From my own personal experience within real life situations take, for example, a live performance whereby most people (including myself) tries to capture the moment through photo and video to possibly later upload on to SNS – providing it is of good enough quality. This isolation of that moment by photo or video becomes no longer the focus but a symbol of meaning beyond that; an individual wants it to tell others a bit about them; PERCEPTION. Hyperreality is displayed in trying to portray to others