I’m not the one for great political/legal arguments most of the time (Yell at me later about this one), but this one is makes for an interesting opener for the following thought)
From the Armory Art Show
At what age does a minor (if at all, and if you believe in such things), get the death penalty?
Not such an idle question. The reason I ask is because in theory we supposedly control media access on behalf of minors, particularly children. Adults buy children stuff, allow them access to TV, the Internets, books, phones, music, magazines, newspapers, what have you, and should be the one providing explinations. Peer groups, however, are the largest body of influencers in society (not that your parents or your church/synagogue, or teachers, or employers are not, they still all rank really high on the list, and are often places to find, you guessed it, your peer group!)
Erikson and Piaget both notice that through challenging different parts of a “child”* worldview and resolving the conflict, a child grows. However, the question I have, is do children do this in a self directed way, or are we directly responsible? If so, what does it mean to guide a child? Do children just “lose innocence” naturally, or are we more impactive in that “loss” by directing their mediation? Further complicating the question is: Do children do this in groups, because they are directly impacting and pushing each other, or does the influence power of my peer group come from the fact that we happen to share a bunch of the same experiences? As in my cohort group, who I went to middle school with, should have roughly similar middle school experiences as me- is this because they pushed me to have similar experiences because they as a group had influence, or is it that their influence power came from the fact that I was in middle school going through middle school things and so did they and so we related?
In the 1920′s through the 1950s Madison Avenue created the advertising concept of “Teenager,” pretty much this was the period were we see the early stages of market segementation- are we seeing a negation on the internet? A super-segementation on the internet? The internet makes things funny here. It makes the idea of cohort and peer group very broad, whereas before it was much narrower. I don’t have to relate to my peer group. Nor does a 10 year old. Or a 3 year old. Or a 70 year old.
Who are those children after all? Or those aged, or those women, those men? Is there a bright line where I know for certain?
Also, if you switch cohort groups, does this mean you switch influences? Who made that choice of influence, you or the cohort in the end? Can you interrupt the choice by placing media in that space- that the cohort does xyz, and therefore you should too? Or does the cohort accept media first, and then the media can innterrupt, if the media is not accepted, forget it (so if no one paints in a cohort, painting can’t cause a message to be sent about the world)
*The reason for the start is that Piaget describes a process, usually associated with childhood, but really could be applied with adults, whereas Erikson describes stages that occur until old age.
Children And Teens In the Media Space
I’m not the one for great political/legal arguments most of the time (Yell at me later about this one), but this one is makes for an interesting opener for the following thought)
From the Armory Art Show
At what age does a minor (if at all, and if you believe in such things), get the death penalty?
Not such an idle question. The reason I ask is because in theory we supposedly control media access on behalf of minors, particularly children. Adults buy children stuff, allow them access to TV, the Internets, books, phones, music, magazines, newspapers, what have you, and should be the one providing explinations. Peer groups, however, are the largest body of influencers in society (not that your parents or your church/synagogue, or teachers, or employers are not, they still all rank really high on the list, and are often places to find, you guessed it, your peer group!)
Erikson and Piaget both notice that through challenging different parts of a “child”* worldview and resolving the conflict, a child grows. However, the question I have, is do children do this in a self directed way, or are we directly responsible? If so, what does it mean to guide a child? Do children just “lose innocence” naturally, or are we more impactive in that “loss” by directing their mediation? Further complicating the question is: Do children do this in groups, because they are directly impacting and pushing each other, or does the influence power of my peer group come from the fact that we happen to share a bunch of the same experiences? As in my cohort group, who I went to middle school with, should have roughly similar middle school experiences as me- is this because they pushed me to have similar experiences because they as a group had influence, or is it that their influence power came from the fact that I was in middle school going through middle school things and so did they and so we related?
In the 1920′s through the 1950s Madison Avenue created the advertising concept of “Teenager,” pretty much this was the period were we see the early stages of market segementation- are we seeing a negation on the internet? A super-segementation on the internet? The internet makes things funny here. It makes the idea of cohort and peer group very broad, whereas before it was much narrower. I don’t have to relate to my peer group. Nor does a 10 year old. Or a 3 year old. Or a 70 year old.
Who are those children after all? Or those aged, or those women, those men? Is there a bright line where I know for certain?
Also, if you switch cohort groups, does this mean you switch influences? Who made that choice of influence, you or the cohort in the end? Can you interrupt the choice by placing media in that space- that the cohort does xyz, and therefore you should too? Or does the cohort accept media first, and then the media can innterrupt, if the media is not accepted, forget it (so if no one paints in a cohort, painting can’t cause a message to be sent about the world)
*The reason for the start is that Piaget describes a process, usually associated with childhood, but really could be applied with adults, whereas Erikson describes stages that occur until old age.
Related articles by Zemanta