Children and New Media

I would like to comment on some transformations I have noticed in children’s relationship to new media.
I consider there has always been peer pressure on children to have similar things to other children whether it is toys, clothing etc. Comparing the present to say the 1960’s (which I qualify) the same pressures were evident then as are now. I think that even in the 60’s we were a part of the consumer society, although the commodities were slightly different but still cost (normally the parents). Eg. In the 60’s kids wanted things like Malvern Star pushbikes, Dunlop volley sandshoes (now called trainers) commodities all the same and that hasn’t changed.
I will argue that what has changed is how they communicate with each other. I would consider that he oldest a child in western democratic society would be when they get a mobile phone (earlier if they are good naggers – sorry , negotiators). There is a very good chance that there would already be a PC in the house so MSN would probably start about ten years old.
Good points: the children are becoming computer literate at an early age. It means that their typing skills will improve as will their use of the English language. They also have access to a large range of knowledge present on the internet (as exemplified by Zac and his tennis racqets).
I think that a child’s social circle would be larger than in the 60’s, although the strength of the relationships would be weaker.
Bad points: The use of modern technology as well as the economies of supplying this technology have widened the have/have nots gap. Another point is that in using things such as MSN and SMS the traditional English language is being butchered, with many words being abbreviated for the purpose and finding their way into everyday use. Also the use of calculators has diminished a basic arithmetical understanding.
Having found myself leaning towards Marxism (as no doubt many of my classmates have figured out) it is easy for me to see the results of consumerism, branding and also the results of globalization in the homogenization of societies (not only in Aust).
I think it is fantastic that children have the use of modern technology but I also think it is important that they are taught values of commodities. Unfortunately, I think this is not happening in our modern world. The penetration of the credit society runs very deep, much to many people’s (and by extension children’s) detriment.
Socialisation of children is now left largely to mass media influences. It is a leviathan that is extremely difficult to battle against. It thrives on children striving to be different, puts increased stress on their development and creates an urge in them to grow up before their time, a difficult experience.
Having said that, I do have confidence in our younger generation. I have found in watching my son’s friends grow up a difference in the way they communicate, staying in contact even when not face to face. The issue of all the porn on the net does not worry me, it saves the parents giving their kids a book on the subject. Like anything, whether on the net or in real life, there is good and bad and children recognise that. Basic monitoring of kids friends and net use is easy enough to achieve and in my opinion all that is required. They know that these violent video games are fictions, and from research and experience it has far less bearing on a child’s outlook than their living circumstances.
Doesn’t matter which historical period you live in, growing up is never easy, therefore I think that sometimes the older generation worries too much.

THOUGHTS ON THE SUB-PRIME CRISIS

I am wondering if anybody is having any thoughts on the problems they are having with the stockmarket in the USA at the moment.
I am going to toss some thoughts out there and see if anybody is interested in replying or commenting.
I think it is very relevant to SOC 104 and would be worth discussing for a little while in tutorials.
Commencing with neo-liberalism. As Mark has noted in the Week 9 lecture notes (p. 20), neoliberalism involves governments privatizing services they were previously responsible for, allowing them to wash their hands of the responsibility to the population.
This process passes responsibilities of the privatised services to tending the interests of shareholders, away from the people using the service. From here it can be argued that responsibilities of the privatized service are transformed. There is a need to try to achieve balance – on one hand creating profits for the shareholders while at the same time providing a service that people are willing to pay for. I am confident in saying that a privatized company will show preference to the shareholders concerns as opposed to those who use/pay for the service.
When Keating in his wisdom commenced the privatisation process in Australia, freeing up markets for free trade and ending many protectionist strategies in place, the process of neoliberalism began. We have seen what were many public owned services sold off in the name of privatization. The point I will argue here is that historically, and I am going back a long way, governments had origins in looking after services that were common to the people when societies grew too big for individuals to look after such things as their own waste disposal, road maintenance, water and power supply, moving later on into the provision of communications and public transport.
The people originally elected representatives to oversee these services. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am at a loss as to how modern government have been permitted to privatise these services that in reality (historically, at least) belong to the general population. It was a common feature of the workforce after World War II that if a person was unskilled or otherwise unemployed they would be able to find employment in one of these public services e.g. Water Board, RTA, Council, Telstra (then the PMG – Postmaster Generals Office). The shareholders of these organizations were the general population, the user pays system here meaning the people that owned the services paid for them. Profits were spent in further employment and the improvement of services. The point here is that there was not the extra economic burden of payment to shareholders.
Moving along to the present day, I fail to see the sense in the sub-prime loans affairs that were permitted in the US recently. People with absolutely no chance of repaying a housing loan were permitted to borrow amounts of money that they had zero chance of repaying. Who in their right mind would propose such a scheme, let alone put it into practice. It was only a matter of time before the system collapsed. A basic argument that could be proposed here is that there is no humanity involved in profits made for shareholders. i.e. Profit first, people last. Conspiracy theorists could possibly read the attempt in the creation of an increased poor (people living in cars), a very neat method of population control.
Here is where I thank my lecturer and tutors. From a sociological viewpoint, and it is difficult to be objective, I will try to explain in terms of conflict. The people in power in tandem with mass media have created a culture where people strive to reach the unattainable. Any of those in opposition are marginalised or otherwise oppressed. The needs of the society as a whole run a poor last to the making of profit. The collapse of companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are a result simply of the need for greed. Now it seems as if the self proclaimed most powerful government in the world is going to spend $700 odd billion dollars owned by the general population to keep these companies afloat while still leaving the same people in control. There is no mention of any help going to the people whose lives have spiraled into crisis over the sub-prime affair.
Quite simply, since governments have rated the success/wealth of a nation in terms of things such as average wages earned or Gross Domestic profit and governed using economic models allowing the proliferation of shareholder dominated institutions, there has been a greatly increased movement of wealth towards the “haves” at the expense of the “have nots”. I know I will attract criticism here, but I feel that the capitalists have now acquired so much wealth that the top end has overbalanced, and is now toppling over. It seems to be the best way to put it in layman’s terms. Keep an eye out for possible class conflict.
I will argue that privatisation has added the extra burden of the provision of profit to shareholders, an unnecessary and unaffordable capitalist orientated expense that society in general can ill afford, a process enabled and re-inforced by modern mass media.
Is there anybody willing to have a go at explaining this economic crisis in terms of consensus or conflict theory?
I am open to criticism providing it is constructive.

Click here to access George Bush’s address to the American people on this issue.