Net Gen
Generation Y, the net Generation, N-Gen, the gaming generation, the digital generation, netizens, millennials…
There are many terms for the youth of today. However, far from being neutral, objective terms, each of these labels are intrinsically linked to, and embedded within, the various discourses about youth in which they appear. One of the most often, most widely, and most loudly privileged representations of today’s youth, evident in many of the terms used to describe and define youth today, is that of them as “techno-savvy” (Deloitte Consulting, 2005), “media saturated” (Phillips, 2007) or “digital natives” (Prensky, 2001).
This is a generation who have “spent their entire lives surrounded by and using computers, videogames, digital music players, video cams, cell phones, and all the other toys and tools of the digital age” (Prensky, 2001) and for whom these digital media have become integral parts of their lives to the point that they are “like extensions of their brains” (Prensky 2005). There is an implication through these writings, and in particular Prensky’s, that not only has this generation grown up in digital media, but also has embraced it.
The definition of today’s youth as ‘digital natives’ clearly constructs them in binary opposition to older members of society who are represented as ‘digital immigrants’. This discourse stresses representations of the youth of today as no longer ‘little versions of us’, as they may have been in the past, but instead as “learning, playing, communicating, working, and creating communities very differently than their parents” (Tapscott, 1997). These views have been repeated, regurgitated and reduced to such an extent that they have become naturalized and, to a large extent, invisible (Hills, 2005). It is in this way that we seem to have taken for granted the idea that the youth of today were “somehow produced by technology” (Buckingham and Willett, 2006, p2).
However, I feel I have to point out that this representation of young people as ‘digital natives’ is based on generalisations, assumptions and seems rather close to stereotyping. With further examination it proves to be a rather deterministic and ethnocentric oversimplification which does not really provide an accurate description of the complexity and variation of this generation (Hills, 2005). Furthermore, it does not take into account the fact that “use of the Internet, Web and mobile phones world wide remains the privilege of a small number of people” (Maczewski, 2007).
It is quite obvious that these views are based squarely in the Western world, where access is higher. However, even within a Western nation, such as Australia, there are still inconsistencies. For example, while figures show that in 2001 60% of young people had accessed the internet in the week preceding the census (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004) the levels of internet access “varied across states and territories” and access “was more prevalent in metropolitan areas than in ex-metropolitan areas” and also high income earners and people with higher levels of educational attainment registered relatively higher levels of access (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007).
Furthermore, in 2002 Indigenous people had lower levels of IT use than the non-Indigenous population and were two-thirds as likely to have used a computer and around half as likely to have accessed the Internet in the last 12 months as non-Indigenous people (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004). Thus it seems apparent that factors such as ethnicity, geographic location and socio-economic classes do impact the level of access to technology, even within a Western nation. With these kinds of inconsistencies and variances within just one nation, not to mention the rest of the world, it becomes rather confusing as to how Prensky can describe a whole generation within so small a classification as ‘digital natives’.
In conclusion, although the technologically empowered cyberkids of the popular imagination may indeed exist, the reality is that there is more complexity in the picture, and that it is ever changing within different geographical areas, different technologies, and different young people.
References:
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). 2059.0 - Census of Population and Housing: Australia’s Youth, 2001. Australian Bureau of Statistics: retrieved 26/05/08.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). 4714.0 - National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, 2002, Australian Bureau of Statistics: retrieved 26/05/08.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). 8146.0 - Household Use of Information Technology, Australia, 2006-07. Australian Bureau of Statistics: retrieved 26/05/08.
Buckingham, D. & Willett, R. (2006). Digital Generations: Children, Young People, and the New Media. Routledge: London
Deloitte Consulting. (2005). Who are the Mellenials. Deloitte Consulting. retrieved 10/05/08,
Hills (2005). What’s the big deal about Generation Y?. On-Line Opinion, retrieved 10/05/08,
Maczewski, M. (2007). Understanding how Information and Communication Technologies matter to Youth. University of Victoria, Victoria
Phillips, C. (2007) ‘Millennials: Clued In or Clueless?’, Advertising Age, vol.78, no.46, pp12-13
Prensky, M. (2001). ‘Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants’, On the Horizon, vol.9, no.5, retrieved 24/06/08,
Prensky, M. (2005). ‘Listen to the Natives’, Educational Leadership, vol.63, no.4 (Learning in the Digital Age), p8
Tapscott, D. (1997). Growing Up Digital: The Rise of the Net Generation, McGraw-Hill: New York
Image From: http://static.flickr.com/25/64817925_cd4991cae3_m.jpg
