“Turkle refers to Erik Erikson’s mid-20th-century theory of “psycho-social moratorium”—the idea that an adolescent is allowed a “consequence-free time-out,” but suggests that while our culture no longer offers this safety net, cyberspace does, and it is no longer limited to adolescence. Thus, cyberspace can actually facilitate self-reparation in terms of identity—it can help individuals resolve social and identity issues in the same way that adolescence—a time of social experimentation—does. To what extent do you agree with Turkle’s argument? If Turkle’s premise is valid, what does this mean in terms of the on-line classroom?”
This is a dangerous statement to me because it suggests that adolescents can explore behaviours or personalities without consequence on-line.
I am doing my essay review on cyberbullying. If this is the type of exploration a teen chooses, the impact can be very severe. In many ways the impact is worse than traditional bullying because it is relentless, usually anonymous and very public.
Cyberbullying doesn’t lead the bully to more self-discovery. If anything, because of the superficial nature of the internet, the bully’s emotions don’t develop as well as they would in person. For example, the bully isn’t able to respond to social cues like body language or emotional responses like crying etc. that he/she would otherwise see in person. Also, if the bully is never caught, he/she doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of such behaviour.
Right now, there is controversy over a school’s role in cyberbullying. It is clear that a school needs to take action if this happens at school. Recent literature supports that a school also has a responsibility to act even if the bullying takes place off campus. This is because a victim’s learning could be severely disrupted if he/she is bullied by an anonymous classmate.
Schools need to develop intervention and prevention programs for cyberbullying. They also need to be aware of the legal implications for their authority over the child.
Trackbacks