Week 3 Reflection: Digital Natives and Immigrants? or Digital Visitors and Residents?
After both reading and watching the content from David White and Alison Le Cornu, I have concluded that I am in agreement with their ideologies surrounding the status of one’s internet use. White put it best when he argued that digital use should be observed with a “sliding scale” rather than with binary opposition (White, 2014, 5:42). I believe that this is true.
In the video, White discusses how the idea for the concepts of digital visitors and digital residents was engendered from Marc Prensky’s analysis of digital use. Prensky argued that there are two types of users: digital natives or digital immigrants. Digital natives are those who are “…at ease within a digital environment” (White & Le Cornu, 2014), while digital immigrants are individuals who will never fully understand how to navigate the digital world because they did not grow up immersed in technology (White and Le Cornu, 2014). Like White and Le Cornu, I don’t agree with placing individuals into these two solid categories.
In my opinion, digital “competence”/ability doesn’t have an age. I work with individuals who, according to Prensky, would be digital immigrants. They didn’t grow up being immediately immersed into technology. However, they are thriving within the digital marketing industry, using technology like any other Gen Z. Furthermore, I think that individuals can develop digital literacy with the proper resources and guidance. The more that someone uses technology, the more they will get used to it and be able to advance their skills. Therefore, I like the concepts of digital visitors and digital residents better.
Digital visitors don’t leave any social trace of themselves online. On the other hand, digital residents use the online environment as a “place”, leaving a social presence after they have gone offline (White, 2014, 4:13). Viewing online as a “place” is intriguing to me because I know that my behavior is different depending on where I am. For example, in class, I am more reserved. When I’m with my roommates at home, I am more chatty and outgoing. The same notion can be applied to online personas.
As Gustavo Mesch states in his article, “…online activity is conceived
as different and even separate from one’s offline activity, having a life of its own, usually separated from real life as a parallel reality of the participating individuals” (Mesch, 2009, p. 54). It seems that sometimes the way users show themselves on social media (for example) is different than in real life. Whether it be the way they communicate, dress, etc., their online identity may be different than their in-person identity. Of course, this isn’t true for all users. Yet, are online platforms giving individuals a space to show who they want to be?
Mesch states that “Youth have an opportunity to express online
their ‘real’ or inner selves, using the relative anonymity of the internet…[to experiment] with their identity and self” (Mesch, 2009, p. 54). Hence, individuals can actually use their social media platforms as a “place” to fully express themselves. I think outside validation also adds to this idea. Personally, when I post a photo on Instagram, I may get positive comments from people in which I have lost touch. But, their comments nonetheless give me a boost of confidence and keep me wanting to add to the version of myself that I have put online. I just wonder if spending too much time on one’s online persona can be detrimental to one’s actual live, in-person self. That’s a point for a whole other topic, but it is some food for thought.
