Download Self, identity and Interpersonal relationship in individualized

EDD 5229
Liberal Studies in Knowledge Society
Lecture 4
Understanding the
Curriculum Content of Liberal Studies I:
Self, Identity and Interpersonal Relationship in
individualized society
Understanding the Structure of the Areas
of Study: Self and Personal Development
 The formal structure outlined by the CCD and HKEAA
 Module 1: Personal development and interpersonal
relationship
Theme1: Understanding oneself
Theme2: Interpersonal relationship
Theories of Personal Identity
 Two paradigms of self and identity formations
 Essentialism: Essentialism in identity studies refers to
approaches which takes social identity, such as gender,
ethnicity, race, nationality, class, as objectively exiting reality.
Their formations are based on some essentially fixed traits
such as biological sex, skin color, place of birth, formal-legal
status, level of income, etc.
 Constructionism: Constructionism in identity studies refers to
perspective which conceives identity as socially constructed
reality. They are on one hand collectively constituted in social
processes or even political movements, and on the other hand
individually ascription in deliberate articulations.
Theories of Personal Identity
 Two levels of identity
Studies of identity have been a multidisciplinary area of
inquiry. It could be approached from psychologists,
sociological or philosophical perspectives. Nevertheless,
identity has often be studied either at personal or collective
levels.
 Personal identity: It refers to the self-description, self-image, or selfconception that an individual assigned upon herself. One of its
fundamental features is the uniqueness of the selfhood.
 Social Identity: It refers to social-role performance that individuals
subscribe themselves or expected by others and/or membership of
social categories that individuals applied to themselves or imposed
upon by others. One of its fundamental features is its similarities with
others members of the social categories concerned.
Theories of Identity Development
 Two levels of identity
Though these two levels of identity can analytically be
differentiated, in reality they are closely interconnected or
even coherently integrated. For example, Anthony Giddens
has coined the concept of self-identity to depict such a
phenomanon.
Theories of Identity Development
 Theory of the self in symbolic interactionism
 The “looking-glass” self: Charles Cooley coined the concept
in 1902 to indicate the developmental process of the self as
an interpersonal process. It is a reflexive and glass-looking
process consisting of
“the image of out appearance to the other person;
“the imagination of his judgment of that appearance; and
“some sort of self-feeling, such as pride or mortification.”
(Cooley, 1902, p. 184; quoted in Broom, 1981, p. 98)
 Accordingly, to Cooley the self is not some inborn attributes
but social products generated from interactions with other
fellow humans. Furthermore, the self is not a passive receiver
of others’ judgments on oneself. It will actively interpret and
react to these judgments.
Theories of Identity Development
 The “looking-glass” self:
Finally, Cooley specifies that the others or the looking
glasses, from which one takes reference are not assigned
with equal importance by the self. As a result, some others
are characterized as “significant others” (i.e. parents) while
others are simply “referent others” (i.e. ordinary friends)
Theories of Identity Development
 Symbolic interactionist’s conception of the self
Built on Charles Cooley’s concept of the “looking-glass” self,
George H. Mead and Herbet Blumer, two founding father of the
symbolic interactionsim (a prominent theoretical perspective in
sociology) specify that the self is not a static structure but a
dynamic process through which attributes, meanings, judgments
that others passed onto oneself will be interpret and reinterpret.
That is they “saw the self as process not a structure.” (Blumer,
1969, p.62)
“The process of a self provides the human being with a
mechanism of self-interaction. …Such self-interaction takes the
form of making indications to himself and meeting these
indications by making further indications. The human being can
designate things to himself – his wants, his pains, his goals,
object around him, the presence of others, their actions, their
expected actions, or whatnot.” (Blumer, p. 62)
Theories of Identity Development
 Symbolic interactionist’s conception of the self
“With the mechanism of self-interaction the human being ceases
to be a responding organism whose behavior is a product of what
plays upon him from the outside, the inside, or both. Instead, he
acts toward his world, interpreting what confronts him and
organizing his action on the basis of the interpretation.” (Blumer,
p.63)
The negotiated self: In the perspective of symbolic interactionsim,
individuals are perceived as “an active agent in the construction
of his or her own self-concept. The self that emerges is a
negotiated self. …An important goal in this (negotiating) process
is the enhancement of self-esteem.” (Brinkerhoff et al. 1991, p.
144)
Theories of Identity Development
 The situated self: Another group of interactionists has
adopted a more structural approach (structural school) to the
conception of the self.
These sociologists, such as McCall and Simons (1978) and
Stryker (1968, 1980), emphasize the importance of the
institutional structure in which individuals are situated. It is
suggested that the self emerged from this situation will be
conditioned by social expectations or even obligations
prescribed to the positions, in which the individual is assigned
into.
Theories of Identity Development
 The situated self:
The concepts of role and role-identity:
• The concept of role refers to the performances expected of the
occupant of a given position or social status, such as the roles of a
daughter, a wife, a teacher or a HKSAR citizens.
• The concept of role identity signifies that a role occupant has
internalized the role expectations and performances prescribed by
external social institution to become part of her own self. It is exactly
through this process of internalization of the externalities of the
social institution that an individual self is amalgamated with a social
role and as a result constituted a social identity.
Theories of Identity Development
 The situated self:
The concept of role set and role conflict:
• The concept of role set refers to the network of multiple roles that an
individual has to engage with at the same time or once at a time. For
example, a teacher may simultaneously be a daughter, a wife and a
mother.
• The expectations and performance of these multiple roles are most
likely to be in conflict. As a result, an individual may experience the
inter-role conflict. For example, in performing the role of a school
teachers may in conflict with the role of a mother and a wife.
Furthermore, a role occupant may also experience intra-role conflict
as there may be discrepancies among role expectations from
different role partners of a role. For example, a teacher may face
conflicting expectations from her students, fellow teachers and
school head.
Theories of Identity Development
 The situated self:
Identity hierarchy: Confronted with inter-role conflict, an
individual's identities have to set priority with these competing
role identities. Hence, the concept of identity hierarchy refers to
the resolution that an individual has to sort out in situation of
inter-role conflict.
Theories of Identity Development
 Theory of categorization and social identity
 Apart from interactionalist perspective of analyzing how an
individuals internalizes role expectations and performances into
their selves and constitutes her role-based identity, Henri Tajfel
and his followers most notably John C. Turner look at formation
of group identity formation as a social process of categorization.
 This tradition of identity study begins with the concept of
categorization. It refers to “the cognitive process that allow
human to streamline perception by separately grouping like and
unlike stimuli. Tajfel demonstrated that people categorize social
as well as nonsocial stimuli and that people use social categories
to identify themselves and others.” (Thoits and Virshup, 1997; p.
114) Tajfel illustrate the concept with research focusing on race,
ethnicity, class, and nationality and empirical examples of back
and white, Jews, Pakistanis, and French- and English speaking
Canadian.
Theories of Identity Development
 Social identity and theory of categorization
 Accordingly, Tajfel defines social identity as “that part of an
individual’s self which derives from his knowledge of his
members of a group (or groups) together with the value and
emotional significance attached to that membership.” (Tajfel,
1981, quoted in Thoits and Virshup, 1997; p. 116)
 Turner also defines “social identity as “self-categories that
define the individual in terms of his or her shared similarities
with members of certain social categories in contrast to other
social categories.” (Turner et al, 1987, quoted in Thoits and
Virshup, 1997; p. 117)
Theories of Identity Development
 Social identity and theory of categorization
 For Turner, social identities are in-group versus out-group
categorizations. It spawns out of the distinction between the
we-group and the they-group.
 This perspective has elevated the identity study from the
individual level of role identity to the collective level of
identity based on ethnicity, nationality, social class, and other
social groupings. As a result, identity theory can apply to
analyze macroscopic phenomena such as racial prejudice
and discrimination, conflict between ethnic and national
groupings, ethnocentrism, etc
Theories of Identity in Late-Modernity
 Anthony Giddens’ conception of self-identity
 Giddens defines “self as reflexively understood by the person
in terms of her or his biography.” (Giddens’ 1991, p. 53)
 Identity, according to Giddens, indicates a person’s sense of
“continuity across time and space.” (ibid)
Social Space 1
(Role 1)
Social Time 1
Social Time 2
Social Time 3
…Social Time n
Social Space 2
(Role 2)
Social Space 3
(Role 3)
…Social Space n
(…Role n)
Theories of Identity in Late-Modernity
 Anthony Giddens’ conception of self-identity
 Self-identity, therefore, can be defined as a sense of
“continuity as interpreted reflexively by the agent.” (ibid) More
specifically, a person with a reasonably stable sense of selfidentity is, therefore, the one with “the capacity to keep a
particular narrative going. The individual’s biography, if she is
to maintain regular interaction with others in the day-to-day
world, cannot be wholly fictive. It must continually integrate
events which occur in the external world, and sort them out
into ongoing ‘story’ about the self.” (Giddens, 1991, p. 54) In
short, self-identity can be discerned as coherent and
continuous narrative one imputed to oneself.
Theories of Identity in Late-Modernity
 Anthony Giddens’ conception of self-identity
 Constituents of self-identity: A stable self-identity, i.e.
coherent and continuous self narrative, would compose the
following attributes
 Ontological security: “A stable sense of self-identity
presupposes the … elements of ontological security - an
acceptance of the things and of others.” (ibid) The sense of
ontological security implies that a person has to extend
beyond self-reflexion and connects to her or his environments,
both physical and social. In turn, it will generate both sense of
trust and bondage with the physical and social environments.
Theories of Identity in Late-Modernity
 Anthony Giddens’ conception of self-identity
 Constituents of self-identity:
 Trust: Trust can be construed as the confidences and
expectations that a person invested on particular relationships
with social and physical environments. It is generally evolved
from the positive feedbacks obtained by the person in the
particular relationships.
 Bondage: As the positive feedback generated from a
relationship with a human aggregate accumulated, the person
involved will develop strong sense of belonging to it and in
turn constitute a social bondage. As a result, a “social identity”
develops.
Theories of Identity in Late-Modernity
Ulrich Beck’s Theory of Individualization in Risk Society
The process of individualization
 “Modernization does not just lead to the formation of a centalized
state power, to concentrations of capital and to an ever more
tightly woven web of division of labor and market relationship, to
mobility and mass consumption, and so on. It also leads …to a
triple ‘individualization’: disembedding, removal from historically
prescribed social forms and commitments in the sense of
traditional contexts of dominance and support (the ‘liberating
dimension’); the loss of traditional security with respect to
practical knowledge, faith and guiding norms (the
‘disenchantment dimension’); and …re-embedding, a new type of
social commitment (the ‘control’ or ‘reintegration dimension’).
(Beck, 1992, p. 128)
Theories of Identity in Late-Modernity
Life Situation
(objectivity)
Liberation (Disembedment)
Loss of Stability
Reintegration(Re-embedment)
Consciousness/
Identity
(subjectivity)
Theories of Identity in Late-Modernity
Ulrich Beck’s Theory of Individualization in Risk Society
The process of individualization
 “Modernization does not just lead to the formation of a centalized
state power, to concentrations of capital and to an ever more
tightly woven web of division of labor and market relationship, to
mobility and mass consumption, and so on. It also leads …to a
triple ‘individualization’: disembedding, removal from historically
prescribed social forms and commitments in the sense of
traditional contexts of dominance and support (the ‘liberating
dimension’); the loss of traditional security with respect to
practical knowledge, faith and guiding norms (the
‘disenchantment dimension’); and …re-embedding, a new type of
social commitment (the ‘control’ or ‘reintegration dimension’).
(Beck, 1992, p. 128)
Ulrich Beck’s Theory of Individualization:
 The process of individualization
 Beck’s definition of individualization: “‘Individualization’ means, first,
the disembedding and, second, the ‘re-embedding’ of industrial
society ways of life by new ones, in which the individuals must
produce, stage and cobble together their biographies themselves.
Thus the name ‘individualization’, disembedding and reembedding …do not occur by chance, nor individually, nor
voluntarily, nor through diverse types of historical conditions, but
rather all at once and under the general conditions of the welfare in
developed industrial labour society, as they have developed since
the 1960s in many Western industrial countries.” (Beck, 1994, p.13)
Ulrich Beck’s Theory of Individualization:
 The process of individualization
 Zygmunt Bauman’s definition of individualization: “’Individualization’
consists of transforming human ‘identity’ from a ‘given’ into a task
and changing the actors with the responsibility for performing that
task and for the consequences (also the side-effects) of their
performance. ….Human being are no more ‘born into’ their
identities. … Needing to become what one is the feature of modern
living - and of this living alone. …Modernity replaces the
heteronomic determination of social standing with compulsive and
obligatory self-determination.” (Bauman, 2000, p. 31-2)
Ulrich Beck’s Theory of Individualization:
 The process of individualization
Institutionalized ‘beds’ - identity bases - for the reembedment of modern individuals
‘Beds’ in capital market, e.g. occupations, professions, socialclass positions, etc.
‘Beds’ in institution of marriage and family, husband, wife, father,
mother, etc.
‘Beds’ in modern political arenas, e.g. citizens, members of new
social movements, such as environmentalists, feminist, antigloabizationists, etc
Ulrich Beck’s Theory of Individualization:
 Individualization in Information Age
 “What distinguished the ‘individualization’ of yore from the form it
has taken in ‘risk society’ …. No ‘beds’ are furnished for ‘reembedding’, and such beds as might be postulated and pursued
prove fragile and often vanish before the work of ‘re-embeddment’
is complete. There are rather ‘musical chairs’ of various size and
style as well as of changing numbers and positions, which prompt
men and women to be constantly on the move and promise no
‘fulfilment’, no rest and no satisfaction of ‘arriving’, of rearching the
final destination, where one can disarm, relax and stop worrying.”
(Bauman, 2000, p. 33-34)
Ulrich Beck’s Theory of Individualization:
 Individualization in Information Age
 The rise of networked individualism and cyber-balkanization
“Networked individualism is a social pattern, not a collection of
isolated individuals. Rather, individuals build their networks, on-line
and off-line, on the basis of their interests, values, affinities, and
projects.” (Castells, 2001, p. 131)
Social Identity in
the Process of Individualization
 The conception of Individualization of modern society
 “'Individualization' consists of transforming human ‘identity’
from a ‘given’ into a task and changing the actors with the
responsibility for performing that task and for the
consequences (also the side-effects) of their
performance. ….Human being are no more ‘born into’ their
identities. … Needing to become what one is the feature of
modern living - and of this living alone. …Modernity replaces
the heteronomic determination of social standing with
compulsive and obligatory self-determination.” (Bauman, 2000,
p. 32)
Social Identity in
the Process of Individualization
 The conception of Individualization of modern society
 “individualization means, first, the disembedding and, second,
the re-embedding of industrial society ways of life by new
ones, in which the individuals must produce, stage and cobble
together their biographies themselves. Thus the name
‘individualization’, disembedding and re-embedding …do not
occur by chance, nor individually, nor voluntarily, nor through
diverse types of historical conditions, but rather all at once
and under the general conditions of the welfare in developed
industrial labour society, as they have developed since the
1960s in many Western industrial countries.” (Beck, 1994, p.13)
Social Identity in
the Process of Individualization
 The conception of Individualization of modern society
 Institutionalized ‘beds’ - identity bases - for the re-embedment
of modern individuals
 Beds’ in capital market, e.g. occupations, professions, socialclass positions, etc.
 ‘Beds’ in institution of marriage and family, husband, wife,
father, mother, etc.
 ‘Beds’ in modern political arenas, e.g. citizens, members of
new social movements, such as environmentalists, feminist,
anti-gloabizationists, etc.
Social Identity Crisis under Pure Relation
 Social identity crisis in the process of Individualization
 “What distinguished the ‘individualization’ of yore from the
form it has taken in ‘risk society’ …. No ‘beds’ are furnished
for ‘re-embedding’, and such beds as might be postulated and
pursued prove fragile and often vanish before the work of ‘emrebeddment’ is complete. There are rather ‘musical chairs’ of
various size and style as well as of changing numbers and
positions, which prompt men and women to be constantly on
the move and promise no ‘fulfilment’, no rest and no
satisfaction of ‘arriving’, of researching the final destination,
where one can disarm, relax and stop worrying.” (Bauman,
2000, p. 33-34)
Social Identity Crisis under Pure Relation
 Social identity crisis in the process of Individualization
 Social identity crisis can therefore be conceived as a
discontinuity between the stages of dis-embedment and reembedment in the individualization process
 Fragmentation of institutional-beds and the flexiblization of
modern identity: Under the network logic and the globalinformation paradigm
 National-local identity replaced by global-mobile identity
 Affect-familial identity replaced by flexible-familial identity
 Permanent vocationalism and unionism replaced by flexible,
self-programmed workers
Social Identity Crisis under Pure Relation
 Social identity crisis in the process of Individualization
 The permeation of pure relation growth:
 By pure relationship, according to Giddens, it is social
relationship build “purely” on the relationships itself. It differs
from traditional relationships which are based on institutional
bondages, such as parent-child relationships, or based on
institutional restraints, such as marriage and business
contracts. Instead, pure relationship “is not anchored in
external conditions of social or economic life - it is …freefloating. ….The pure relationship is sought only for what the
relationship can bring to the partners involved. …(It) is
reflexively organized, in open fashion, and on a continuous
basis” (Giddens, 1991, p. 89-91)
Social Identity Crisis under Pure Relation
 The permeation of pure relation growth:
 Pure relationships are by definition “double edged”.
 They provide reflexive or even emancipatory chances for
reconstituting traditional social relationship. They offer
opportunity for the development of trust based on voluntary
commitments and an intensified intimacy.” (p. 186)
 Yet pure relationship …create enormous burdens for the
integrity of the self. In so far as a relationship lacks external
referents, it is morally mobilized only thorough
‘authenticity. …Shorn of external moral criteria, the pure
relationship is vulnerable as a source of security at fateful
moments and at other major life transitions.” (p. 186-7)
Social Identity Crisis under Pure Relation
 The permeation of pure relation growth:
 As a result, the story of the self can no longer be told in a
continuous and coherent manner. In other words, the selfidentity experiences sense of discontinuity and
fragementation, i.e. ontological insecurity and extistential
anxiety in Giddens’ terms.
Social Identity Crisis under Pure Relation
 Zygmunt Bauman’s cultural identity of postmodernity
 The pilgrim as modern self: Pilgrimage of entrepreneurs,
tenured workers, citizens, civil soldiers, husband and wife, etc.
 Life strategy of postmodern self:
 Strollers: It signifies the life strategy and state of mind of
strolling in shopping malls, “finding oneself among strangers
and being a stranger to them, taking in those strangers as
‘surfaces’. ….Strolling means rehearsing human reality as a
series of episodes, that is as events without past and without
consequences. It also means rehearsing meeting as mismeeting, as encounters without impacts. …The stroller had all
the pleasures of modern life without torments attached.”
(Bauman, 1996, p. 26-27)
Social Identity Crisis under Pure Relation
 Zygmunt Bauman’s cultural identity of postmodernity
 Life strategy of postmodern self:
 Vagabond: It represents the life strategy and attitude of
wondering aimlessly and without destination. It also signifies
life strategy of unwilling to settle down, to be the native and
rooted in the soil. It post the stance of strangers and “being
out of place” to every place and everyone.
 Tourist: It represents another life strategy of movers, who
“move on purpose”. The purposes that tourists have in mind
are fun, joy, excitement and most of all careless. “One may say
that what tourist buys, what he pays for, what he demands to
be delivered … is precisely the right not to be bothered,
freedom from any but aesthetic spacing.” (Bauman, 1996, p. 31)
Social Identity Crisis under Pure Relation
 Zygmunt Bauman’s cultural identity of postmodernity
 Life strategy of postmodern self:
 Player: “The player’s world is the world of risks, of intuition, of
precaution-taking. Time in the world-as-play divides into a
succession of games.” (p. 31) In other words, player’s world is
made up of fragments and episodes of calculated risk. Yet
more importantly, player must “make sure that no game leaves
lasting consequences, the player must remember (and so must
his/her partners and adversaruies), that ‘this is but a
game’. …The game allows no room for pity, compassion,
commiseration or cooperation.” (p.32)
Social Identity Crisis under Pure Relation
 Zygmunt Bauman’s cultural identity of postmodernity
 The rise of networked individualism and cyber-balkanization
“Networked individualism is a social pattern, not a collection of
isolated individuals. Rather, individuals build their networks,
on-line and off-line, on the basis of their interests, values,
affinities, and projects.” (Castells, 2001, p. 131)
Social Identity Crisis under Pure Relation
 Zygmunt Bauman’s cultural identity of postmodernity
 The rise of networked individualism and cyber-balkanization
“Networked individualism is a social pattern, not a collection of
isolated individuals. Rather, individuals build their networks,
on-line and off-line, on the basis of their interests, values,
affinities, and projects.” (Castells, 2001, p. 131)
Growing up in the Information Age
 The Hurried Child (Elkind, 1981) and Child without
Childhood (Winn, 1984)
 By simplifying the access to information through TV and then
PC and Internet, it opens children to experiences that were
once reserved for adults, e.g. sex and violence
 By blurring the boundary between adults and children and
revealing the secrecy of adults in electronic media, children
are less deferential to adults’ authority and they become less
likely to trust or respect simply because they are adults
 “Growing up too fast too soon.” (Elkind, 1981)
 “Growing up too fast in the world of sex and drug.” (Winn,
1984)
Growing up in the Information Age
 Disappearance of Childhood:
 From literacy of printed materials to literacy of TV and then IT,
the closure of adult world erodes and evaporates as the
disclosure media of TV and then PC rise to dominance
 These result in the exposure of the “backstage” of adulthood
in front of screens of TV and then PC (Meyrowitz, 1985) and
the disappearance of children (Postman, 1983)
 Exposure of children to mass media (Sanders, 1995) and
“unrestricted knowledge about things once kept secret from
nonadults” (Steinberg and Kinchloe, 1997) have caused the
death of childhood and the loss of the literal selves of children
 The screenagers embrace discontinuity, turbulence and
complexity. They have the natural adaptive skills that enable
them to deal with the problem pf postmodernity. (Rushkoff,
1996)
Growing up in the Information Age
 The coming of the Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998) and
the screenagers (Rushkoff, 1996)
 The Net Generation “have new powerful tools for inquiry,
analysis, self-expression, influence, and play. They have
unprecedented mobility. They are shrinking the planet in ways
their parent could never imagine. Unlike television which was
done to them, they are the actors in the digital world.”
(Tapscott, 1998, P.3)
 The psychological complex of the N-Generation
 Tolerance and acceptance of diversity: “On the Internet,
nobody knows you’re a dog.” (p. 86)
 A curious generation: The interactive world of the Internet
elicits intensely heightened curiosity.
 Assertiveness and self-reliance: “They begin to develop selfreliance at an early age: they can find what they need quickly,
easily, and honestly” (p.87) in the Internet.
Growing up in the Information Age
 The coming of the Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998) and
the screenagers (Rushkoff, 1996)
 The Net Generation “have new powerful tools for inquiry,
analysis, self-expression, influence, and play. They have
unprecedented mobility. They are shrinking the planet in ways
their parent could never imagine. Unlike television which was
done to them, they are the actors in the digital world.”
(Tapscott, 1998, P.3)
Growing up in the Information Age
 The coming of the Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998) and
the screenagers (Rushkoff, 1996)
 The psychological complex of the N-Generation
 Tolerance and acceptance of diversity: “On the Internet,
nobody knows you’re a dog.” (p. 86)
 A curious generation: The interactive world of the Internet
elicits intensely heightened curiosity.
 Assertiveness and self-reliance: “They begin to develop selfreliance at an early age: they can find what they need quickly,
easily, and honestly” (p.87) in the Internet.
 A contrarian generation: “Because they have master the tools
to question, challenge, and disagree, these kids are becoming
a generation of critical thinkers” (p. 88) and not easily
submitted to authority at face value.
Growing up in the Information Age
 The coming of the Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998) and
the screenagers (Rushkoff, 1996)
 The psychological complex of the N-Generation
 A generation of high self-esteem: They acquire the capacities
to act on the environment and to mastery in the computermediated working environment at early age. They enhance
their self certainty. They also learn to establish their identity
through a much enlarged social world through the Internet.
 Generation of multiple self and virtual self
 A generation of intelligent / multi-intelligent: “Jean Piaget…
argues that intelligence develops in all children through the
continually shifting balance between the assimilation of new
information into existing cognitive structure and the changing
accommodation of those structures themselves to incorporate
the new information.” Internet and other computer-mediated
environments provide ample opportunities of the kind.
Growing up in the Information Age
 The coming of the Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998) and
the screenagers (Rushkoff, 1996)
 The psychological complex of the N-Generation
 A generation of stronger spatial orientation
 A generation of divergent and multi-media thinking
Growing up in the Information Age
 The coming of the Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998) and
the screenagers (Rushkoff, 1996)
 The social complex of the N-generation:





The question of the social skills of the N-generation
The question of the attention span of the N-generation
The question of the predisposition to cruelty
A generation of vanity
The question of stressfulness of the N-generation
Lecture 6
Understanding the Curriculum Content of Liberal Studies I:
Self and identity in post-traditional and individualized society
End