If, in 2005, 982 press articles focused on the danger of screens for children, there were 103,400 in 2012 and rose to 1,646,500 in 2018. This use of digital technology seems to worry adults more and more. This book aims to take stock.
In 1972, Stanley Cohen designated “moral panic” as this disproportionate reaction fueled by moralizers seizing scapegoats. Their goal? Denounce a person or group presented as a threat to society, its values and its coherence.
First there was this concern in the 1930s, in the USA, around the deleterious effects of pinball machines. Then concerning radio broadcasts in the 1940s. What followed was the indictment of Comic books in the 1950s. And again role-playing games in the 1960s. Without forgetting, of course, rap from 1990. All were suspected of perverting youth by an adult society destabilized by a youth culture that escaped them.
Aren’t screens causing the emergence of generations of “digital morons”? ? A level of intelligence that is falling dangerously. A diversion from culture and social relations. A high risk of digital dependence. Or is this a media torment combining clichés, preconceived ideas and incantations to designate a new and caricatured evil of the century?
Beware of bias
The observation, however, is implacable. Social changes linked to the mass diffusion of digital technology and the omnipresence of technoculture among new generations. Screens have invaded our world. We spend five hours a day using them, 50% more than ten years ago. It is therefore legitimate to question the potential impact on the balance and development of children and adolescents. But also on the neurodevelopmental disorders from which they sometimes suffer.
To answer these questions, this little book gives the floor to seventeen scientists. Their responses do not constitute opinions, forward-looking opinions or philosophical convictions. They rely on what science has been able to demonstrate through meta-analyses (syntheses of dozens or hundreds of experiments) and what it cannot prove. Does the use of digital technology harm the intelligence of our children? Is it the cause of serious physical and psychological disorders? Is it at the origin of the ignorance of our youth? Is it ineffective in educational terms?
To this end, several abuses are denounced. Speculative hypotheses that are not based on any evidence. Generic terms that do not take into account the diversity of uses (such as “screens” or “screen time” presented as a global reality even though they are multiple). The confusion between causality (cause and effect link between two variables) and correlation (two variables cited side by side). The single-factor explanation which highlights a single origin when there are multiple ones; etc …
What science can say
A certain number of established links are equally worth questioning. Does the massive use of screens lead to excess weight, due to lack of physical activity, or is it excess weight which encourages us to use screens more? Is this use linked to children's discomfort or the opposite? Does too much television produce attentional problems or the opposite? It is impossible today, based on scientific data, to decide between these questions. This is why we must maintain a critical mind when faced with their complexity.
The authors note: none of the presumed negative effects of screens have been dismantled in a reliable and definitive manner.. Yet they are accused of massively increasing inattention, intellectual passivity, dispersion or scattering… Indeed, a handful of children go from simple pleasure to loss of control and excessive and compulsive use. But here too, is this practice the consequence of screens or does the identified discomfort have other origins, with screens becoming a refuge and a symptom? For the majority, the positive effects of video games are significant on concentration, visuospatial abilities, working memory or probabilistic learning…
The conclusion? Let's stop demonizing these damn screens. Exposure to these tools is neither good nor bad in itself. If their use is adjusted and measured, adapted and thought through, publicized and supported, it can prove positive and constructive in terms of learning. Everything depends on the content, the context and the involvement of adults who have a role to play in moderating and modulating its use by taking an interest in it and setting rules and a framework for use.
- Children and screens, Coordinated by Anne Cordier and Séverine Erhel, Ed; Retz, 2023.
This article is part of the “Open Book” section
It is signed Jacques Trémintin
Read also:
- The factory of the “digital moron”Michel Desmurget, Ed. du Seuil, 2020, 576 p. At the risk of being called a reactionary, a moralist or an alarmist, Michel Desmurget warns of the digital mirage, relying on hundreds of studies carried out by the international scientific community.
- Understanding and controlling the excesses of digital society, Didier Dubasque, Ed. EHESP, 2019, 206 p. The digital revolution at work in both our professional and personal communication advances like a galloping horse. Between the acceptance of the cyberaddict and the rejection of the refractory, there is a middle path: use wisely the tremendous progress brought by IT.
- Children and adolescents facing digital technology. How to protect and educate them, Jean-Charles Nayebi, Ed. Odile Jacob, 2010, 236 p. The author refuses to demonize the internet which, for him, can constitute an excellent means of communication and opening up to the world. What poses a problem is not so much the tool as how it is used.
- Growing up with screens, Elisabeth Betou-Herve, Ed. érès, 2020, 347 p. The fascination exerted by screens and the colonization of space-time potentially lead to sleep deficit, image dependence, motor problems, language delays, attentional difficulties, overweight and obesity, cyberbullying, risky behavior, etc.
Dossier
Are screens a danger for young people?
Is it still possible to live without screens? Phones, tablets, microcomputers, televisions are everywhere. The norm is that each member of the family has one. The World Health Organization has just recognized “video game disorder” as an addiction. Conversely, there is talk of a digital divide for those parts of the population who cannot have access to it. More and more public services are only accessible via the internet. Social networks compete with television channels which nevertheless remain an essential cultural reference. Should we demonize these new media? On the contrary, should we learn to tame them by considering them above all only as tools? This file opens a debate which is really not ready to end (read the file on tremintin.com)
BONUS
Meeting with Michaël Stora, psychologist and psychoanalyst.
Make screens our allies, not our enemies
Co-founder, in 2000, of the Observatory of Digital Worlds in Human Sciences, Michaël Stora goes against the dominant discourse on screens. Not only does he oppose their demonization, but he even uses it as a therapeutic support. We should not try to fight screens but, on the contrary, make them allies promoting dialogue and sharing between adults and children.s.
What are the advantages of screens in children's education?
Michaël Stora: In a world where images are increasingly present, education must involve learning this media. The use of interactive screens paradoxically contributes to its desacralization. Playing with the image, knowing how to transform it, creating it yourself allows you to understand how not to let yourself be manipulated by it, since you know how it is constructed. This creativity even constitutes an excellent antidote against the disillusionment which can affect today's new generations who, by the way, are less naive than those who preceded them, much more gullible in front of their television screen. As for video games, they develop many skills which help to stimulate the cognitive capacities of the brain: spatialization (finding one's way in a three-dimensional image), deductive intelligence (anticipating what will happen), multi-tasking (establishing links between several tasks at the same time), hand/eye coordination…
What are the criticisms made about screens that seem most justified to you?
Michaël Stora: of all the uses of screens, it is that of social networks that dominates. This is where I will be most critical. Because we find there an over-idealized and very depressing world. This is the very illustration of the way in which digital technology seeks to shape our psyche, by imposing on it the most rigid standardization and codification. If you have a few curves, you have no interest in showing off on Instagram.
…and those who are not?
Michaël Stora: what worries you about using screens is the risk of addiction. But we can become dependent on many other things. I received therapy from a teenager who spent his entire life reading books! And not just any historical works. There was no reason, however, to blame writing, as one would have done if this young boy had remained glued to online games. What should be worrying is not so much the intensive use as such but the effects it produces in terms of desocialization and dropping out of school. The screen is only a tool and a support. What matters most is how you use it. It can become a means of communication and exchange between adults or children or, on the contrary, isolate them from each other. I intervened in Villiers-le-Bel, following the excesses of teenagers who had gotten into the habit of filming their fights which they then broadcast on Snapchat. Our action with the animators and street educators did not consist of demonizing the screens but of offering young people workshops to learn how to use this network in another way. And it worked very well.
What do you think of the 3-6-9-12 rule modulating access to screens according to age?
Michaël Stora: I consider it counterproductive: not only does it transform the screen into an object of desire, but it misses the real problems. Misuse of screens is a symptom of a deeper problem. We must not focus on the consequences, but go back to the causes. As for the supposed deleterious effects for the child's future, they have never been demonstrated. On the contrary, longitudinal scientific studies which follow haked gamers, these online game addicts, over many years, find that they have been rather successful in life and have become balanced adults. Myself, when I was younger, I was in love with films, going to the cinema up to ten times a week.
Isn't the acceptance of screens ultimately a question of generation and time?
Michaël Stora: the image is frowned upon, because we fear that it will supplant the written word. Not so long ago, comics and rock were accused of leading young people astray. Each era seeks to find a scapegoat for the discomforts that plague it. Today it’s the screens. Tomorrow, when they have been trivialized, we will find another culprit avoiding asking real questions again.
Comments collected by Jacques Trémintin for the Journal de l’animation
Photo created by freepik – fr.freepik.com
