43IRSTI 13.07.25
"Generation Me - Generation We": Paradoxes of Prefigurative Culture in the Post-Soviet Space
Laura W. Turarbekova1, Almagul M. Kanagatova2, Dinara R. Saparova3, Saniya Zh. Edelbay4
14Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan 2National online academy "Ustaz", Almaty, Kazakhstan
3Sarsen Amanzholov East Kazakhstan University, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan
^Corresponding author: [email protected]
JORCID iD 0000-0003-3416- 0160 2ORCID iD 0000-0001-7933-4588 3ORCID iD 0000-0003-3234-1830 4ORCID iD 0000-0002-9186-2751 DOI: 10.32523/2616-7255-2022-139-2-168-188
Abstract. The article analyzes the term "paradoxes of prefigurative culture" in the context of the historical theory of Strauss-Howe generations due to the period of improvement of digital information technology. The main tenet of this study is that innovative technologies change the nature of man and his social connections in society and that they are firmly embedded in social communications, professional activities, the way of life of young people, education, science, and other fields. The paradoxes of prefigurative culture suggest the existence of an imminent conflict. On the one hand, this conflict with fundamental concepts and categories is used to characterize the human being in all his/her manifestations, and, on the other hand, with new cyberculture to create a new person. The slogan "Generation Me - Generation We" implies two models of behavior peculiar to the post-Soviet generation Y-Z. The study uses the data obtained from sociological surveys in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and the Russian Federation to identify such paradoxical situations in which they encounter "old" and "new" ideas about the essence of man, his place in the world, and his relationship with the world. The purpose of the research is to explore the paradoxes of prefigurative culture in the present tense, in the mode of the new digital reality.
Keywords: prefigurative culture; historical discourse; theory of generations; interdisciplinary research; digital culture; digital generation.
IRSTI 13.07.25
Received 04 April 2022. Revised 07 May 2022. Accepted 31 May 2022. Available online on 30 June 2022. For citation:
Turarbekova L.W., Kanagatova A.M., Saparova D.R., Edelbay S.Zh. "Generation Me - Generation We": Paradoxes of Prefigurative Culture in the Post-Soviet Space // Bulletin of the L.N. Gumilyov ENU. Historical sciences. Philosophy. Religion Series. 2022. - Vol. 139. - №. 2. - С. 168-188. DOI: 10.32523/2616-7255-2022-139-2-168-188
Для цитирования:
Турарбекова Л.В., Канагатова А.М., Сапарова Д.Р., Едильбаева С.Ж. «Поколение Я-Поколение Мы» : Парадоксы префигуративной культуры на постсоветском пространстве // Вестник ЕНУ им. Л. Гумилева Серия: Исторические науки. Философия. Религиоведение. - 2022. - Т. 139. - №. 2. - С. 168-188. DOI: 10.32523/2616-7255-2022-139-2-168-188
Introduction
During this era of expansion worldwide of digital technologies, it is impossible to ignore their impact on the modern person. It is impossible to deny that innovations play a pivotal role, influencing the most different and unexpected sides of human existence. Undoubtedly, innovations change and, in many respects, facilitate the majority of the daily tasks connected with human work, communications, and adaptation of the person to environmental conditions. However, by facilitating people's daily existence, new technologies will inevitability change the world, and its habitat - directly influencing it, by changing its ecological characteristics (.g., innovations in agrarian technologies, in technologies of mining, interfaced with changes of a landscape), or indirectly, by changing the modern person's consciousness and physical condition, which leads to changes in his/her relations with the world.
The trend towards philosophical reflection on the impact of new technologies on the state of a person and his/her relationship with the world was marked since the mid-19th century and was finalized about in the 1920s-1930s the 20th century, due to the emergence of ideas about breakthrough, revolutionary new technologies that can change the life of mankind. For example, the intellectual movement known as Russian cosmism was a teaing about the futurological component of perceptions of technology. The works of Fyodorov (1906), Tsiolkovsky (1986), and Vernadsky (2012) reflected the hope for breakthrough value of innovative technologies in support of mankind for the realization of the person's highest purpose and prime targets. This trend can be identified as technical optimism. Technical optimism is characterized by a positive assessment of the role of innovative technologies in a human's life, an optimistic view of the future of the relationship between man and technology, as well as the relationship between man supported by this technology and the world. From the point of view of the technical optimist, innovation is unconditional goodness, a natural completion of progress, and a panacea by which the problems of physical and social imperfections of man and mankind, such as disease, death, social and economic inequality, and others, will finally be solved.
Along with technical optimism, another trend in the assessment of the relationship between man and technology, marked in the first half of the 20th century, can be noted. The approach, which could be considered an anthropological one, allows getting a real perception of the relationship between humans and the mechanisms they invent. One of the first similar approaches was used by Berdyaev (1933) from the first lines of his work; this philosopher characterized the relationship between modern man and technology as follows: "Technique is the last love of man." Objecting to Spengler (1940), Berdyaev characterized the technique as a means and instrument, rather than a goal:
There can be no technical goals in life, there can be only technical means, but the goals of life always lie in another field, in the field of spirit. The means of life very often replace the goals of life, they can occupy so much in human life that the goals of life finally and even completely disappear from human consciousness (Berdyaev, 1933:5).
Technophobia is peculiar, which is expressed in the fear that technology - the generation of culture without which culture does not exist - is at the same time the end of the culture, which will kill the culture. According to Berdyaev, the main paradox of the technique consists in simultaneously coexisting in its opposite, in axiological important elements - technical, natural, and organic. If the technical element wins the natural and organic elements, culture will be re-born "into something else, no longer similar to culture" (Berdyaev, 1933:6).
After World War II, Heidegger expressed a similar position. In 1949, Heidegger wondered about the metaphysical essence of "technique," suggesting two possible approaches to defining it. The first, instrumental, suggests defining technique as a way to achieve goals. The second, which Heidegger called anthropologically, defines the technique as a human activity. At all times,
Heidegger claimed, the equipment was one of the ways of disclosure of the truth during creative human activity, a way of achievement of a state "aletheia" (from Greek d-Ar]0£ia - not closeness, a condition of evidence, the truth), that is essence unconcealedness. The technique reveals the essence of the thing, the material from which the thing is created, as well as the process of revealing the essence of the material, the thing, and the involvement of the creator of the thing.
Technology is a way of revealing. If we give heed to this, then another whole realm for the essence of technology will open itself up to us. It is the realm of revealing, i.e., of truth. [...] Technology is a mode of revealing. Technology comes to the presence [West] in the realm where revealing and concealment take place, where ale'theia, truth, happens. (Heidegger, 1977: 5-6).
However, in 1949 the modern technique seemed to the philosopher to have nothing in common with Aletheia, in other words, the process of revealing the truth. The essence of modern technologies is mass production - Ge-stell (from the German word Gestell, which means framework, but also supporting structure), which in English translations of Heidegger's (1977) text is marked as "enframing from the frame." Ge-stell is an impersonal process of creating material goods, Aristotelian cause-effect relations (i.e., causa materials, causa formalis, causa finalis, and causa efficiens) and the anthropological definition of technique as a human activity, the result of which is the disclosure of the essence of the created and creating, lose its meaning. The essence of modern technology is not that it is a means for achieving certain goals, but is not even that in the course of activity, as an essential component of men's being. The essence of modern, to Heidegger, technologies is to produce as much product as possible, capable of remaining in reserve and available for impersonal mass industrial production, creating a framework from which a modern man cannot escape, even if he believes that, according to the kind of his activity, he has nothing to do with mass production. Heidegger (1977) gave an example of a forester:
The forester who measures the felled timber in the woods and who to all appearances walks the forest path in the same way his grandfather did is today ordered by the industry that produces commercial woods, whether he knows it or not. He is made subordinate to the order ability of cellulose, which for its part is challenged forth by the need for paper, which is then delivered to newspapers and illustrated magazines. The latter, in their turn, set public opinion to swallowing what is printed, so that a set configuration of opinion becomes available on demand. Yet precisely because man is challenged more originally than are the energies of nature, i.e., into the process of ordering, he never is transformed into mere standing-reserve. Since man drives technology forward, he takes part in ordering as a way of revealing (Heidegger, 1977:8)
Berdyaev's and Heidegger's negative view of modern technologies can be called "technological pessimism." Technological pessimism is careful and often inclining to a negative assessment of the relationship between the person and the technique. Recognizing the inevitability of the presence of the technique in human life, establishing the fact that there is no person without human activity, and, without the creation of technical improvements, philosophers, who are technological pessimists, are afraid of substitution or even destruction of human by inhuman.
One of the main theoretical assumptions of this article is that technological optimism and technological pessimism remain important in relation to digital technologies, despite the fundamental difference between the last ones from modern, to Heidegger, and even more to Tsiolkovsky (1986) or Fyodorov (1906), technologies of mass industrial production. This assumption, despite its apparent simplicity, is still an assumption, because, according to many theorists of digital or network society, its arrangement is fundamentally different from the society of mass consumption and mass culture. The explanation of this assumption is possible precisely if the paradoxes of digital culture are taken as a matter of course, as a natural consequence of its unnatural being.
Thus, the two main positions in the assessment of the role of modern technologies, namely technological optimism, and technological pessimism, are two opposite poles between which the authors' research concerning the influence of digital technologies on modern youth will oscillate.
Since around the 1970s, there has been a steady increase in research on the impact of new technologies on humans and society. Among the first studies of this kind is the work of James Martin's (1978) work The Wired Society. In 1978, Martin, an information technology specialist, had the idea of a "connected" society, which discovered more of a shade of futuristic science fiction. Based on modern trends in the development of technology, the author predicted the emergence of the World Wide Web and the invention of portable personal computers. The approach to the impact of new technologies on human life in the future, as expressed by Martin in 1978, could be described as futuristic and technological, somewhat continuing traditions of Russian cosmism. Indeed, the author was not so much thinking about changing any fundamental characteristics of man and society as successfully predicting the direction in the development of technology - what would be invented, how it would work, what could be done as a result of this innovation.
However, the most exciting part of the question of the impact of new technologies on human life concerns a man himself, his existence in the world. Techno-futurology, without consideration of fundamental changes concerning an individual's existential and social characteristics, is of no interest. The conventional view suggests that the daily dynamic world with mass access to Internet resources has created a new type of person, with special communicative connections in the conditions of his/her own individual digital space. However, is this true? Is such a statement too arrogant in terms of the fundamental existential characteristics of human nature? The main paradox, in this case, is understood as a contradiction between, on the one hand, a common idea of a "new" person, whose physical and intellectual capabilities have not only expanded, but have become fundamentally different due to new technologies, and, on the other hand, the simple truth that the physical and intellectual restrictions imposed on people by their human nature up to now remain intact by digital technologies. A man remains powerless face to face with illness and death, sharing it with other people by the physical space and irreversible time. Not human, but inhuman is the basis of any fundamental paradox of technology; it is a measure of contradictions hidden in its very basis.
What is the "Paradox of Prefigurative Culture "? Materials and Methods
For a better understanding of the fundamental paradox of technology the authors described above (i.e., the contradiction between human and inhuman components), it is necessary to find a modern basic concept in which the universal human concept is inhuman, and which would also include the concept of "technique" not only as a "means of achieving the goals," but also as a related Ge-stell, accompanying framing to it (the term is strangely and unsuccessfully translated into Russian by the word "placing"). Technology requires training in a number of skills for mastering it, in which sense such a most general concept should relate to learning communication. The technique is trained, but the technique is also taught. The technique carries information about itself, in itself, and through itself; the essence of modern technology - Ge-stell, culture as framing and cultivation, humanizing of inhuman, and knowledge and its transmission.
At the same time, the learning function of the technique is related to formation - a method of transmitting information, mainly from generation to generation. In this sense, understanding culture as Ge-stell, namely a teaching technique and one that is taught, technique (i.e., a medium of teaching information and a method of learning), it is necessary to turn to theories relating to knowledge transfer that is types of educational communication, capable of reflecting the state of modern culture and technology. One of these theories could be Margaret Mead's (1970) "prefigurative culture".
An American cultural anthropologist, Mead distinguished between three main types of culture, in terms of the way of passing knowledge from generation to generation: Post figurative, cofigurative, and prefigurative culture. In post figurative culture the transfer of knowledge is carried out from the older generation to the younger generation, in cofigurative culture the exchange of
knowledge takes place on an equal basis between generations, and in prefigurative culture, the younger generation has knowledge that the older generation cannot possess, that is, the younger generation teaches the older one new skills. It is assumed that the modern world is at the stage of prefigurative culture, in which the contradiction between the older and younger generations is expressed in various social adaptation and communication practices. The older generation remains tied to the past, to analog communication practices, to face-to-face communication, while the so-called Y and Z generations, for whom the digital technology is the good of civilization, are tied in their communication practices to the present and the future.
The digital generation can be defined as a generation of people born during the boom of digital innovation in the consumer market. Generations Y and Z are not inventors, but consumers of digital products. The age of the "digitally literate" generation (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005) varies from researcher to researcher. For some scholars, the generation of "post-millennials" begins as early as 1995 (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005), while for others generation Z begins its history from 2001 (Oh & Reeves, 2014). Dates corresponding to the rise and prosperity of digitalization are also indicated (i.e., 2004) (Strauss & Howe, 1997). The social activity of representatives, that is generation Z born between 1995 and 2012 also serves as the measure for determining the age limits of generation Z. Stillman and Stillman (2018) call this generation phygital (physical-digital), explaining that young people live simultaneously in a kind of two realities - virtual and real.
Thus, the digital generation has many names: Postmillennials, generation Z, generation Facebook (Shamis & Nikonov, 2019), generation YouTube (Stillman & Stillman, 2018), digital natives (Prensky, 2001), "be always online" groups, "dot-com" children, network generation, generation I, generation C (net, connection), generation D, that refers to the word "digitalization" or generation R (responsibility) (Heckenberg, McDuff, Smith, & White, 1991, as cited in Torocsik, Szucs, & Kehl, 2014). However, no matter what experts call the group under research, it is clear that this is a generation of consumers of digital innovation, born in the era of the rise and wide presence of the last ones in the consumer market.
To describe the situation in the post-Soviet space, whose historical sequences slightly differ from the countries to which the above-described research of generation Z related, there are some adaptive additions to the characteristics of generations and events (Table 1).
Table 1. Characteristics of generations and events for post-Soviet states (Shamis &
Nikonov, 2019)
Names of Generations Date of Birth Key historical events for Post-Soviet Space
1 G1eneration GI (General Item) or winners 1903-1923 Revolution of 1905 and 1917, World War I, collectivization, electrification, NEP.
2 S2ilent (book children) 1923-1943 World War II, Stalin repression, reconstruction of a destroyed country, discovery of antibiotics, first "five-year plan," industrialization, and collectivization.
3 G3eneration BB, baby boomers 1944-1963 End of the Great Patriotic War, Soviet thaw, boom of birthrate, conquest of space, USSR -world superpower, cold war, first plastic operations, creation of contraceptive pills, uniform standards of education in schools, guarantee of medical care, and Caribbean crisis.
4 G4eneration X or unknown, "with key around the neck" 1964-1984 Continuation of the cold war, restructuring, war in Afghanistan, AIDS, and drugs.
5 G5eneration Y, Milleniums, Next 1985-2002 Collapse of the USSR, globalization of the economy, terrorist attacks and military conflicts, brain drain, search for own identity, ethnopolitical conflicts, political crises, development of digital technologies (mobile phones), and Internet brands.
6 G6eneration Z, Indigo children, generation of gadgets and smart-phones, home landers, digitally natives 2003-2023 Global crisis, terrorist attacks, establishment of Customs Union, WTO, color revolutions, political crises, the rise of digital technologies, era of the Internet, and development of cyberculture.
Thus, belonging to a generation is determined not by the year of birth, but on the basis of common values that arose from historical events (i.e., threats, challenges, generational phantasms that took place throughout the post-Soviet space). The picture of the world of the digital generation is a picture of the world of young people, namely consumers of digital technologies, who have grown up in an exceptionally media-saturated environment consumed by them with the same technologies. Teaching how to consume media information, how to communicate and produce digital content cannot be a matter of the previous generation "X," whose knowledge, values, and skills are formed by analog content from the time of sunset of the cold war and the beginning of the end of the USSR. Generation Y, but especially and mostly generation Z, are people of prefigurative culture in which transfer of knowledge takes place in inverse and reverse order, which means the younger generation teaches (or supposedly teaches) the older generation. Pioneer in digital generation research, Tapscott (1998) called the generation of prefigurative culture "generation Next» and characterized it as the most unique of all existing generations. Since their childhood, the members of generation Next have been distinguished by their learning power and knowledge gained through digital technologies; concepts such as speed, innovation, freedom, and tolerance define the essence of the modern generation.
The purpose of this research is to identify paradoxes of prefigurative culture of the modern digital generation in the post-Soviet space. The article contains the results of the analysis of sociological surveys on the impact of digital technologies on adolescents the authors conducted in Russia and Central Asia. Also, a valuable source of practical information is the results of work with focus groups, which included Kazakh schoolchildren aged from 14 to 18 years. In addition, the authors conducted the survey Cultural and Valuable Orientations among Kazakh Schoolchildren (50 people). In the territory of the former Soviet republics, the transformation of the valuable guidelines for adolescents and their orientation is influenced by the factor of the geography of residence and ethnicity.
Paradoxes of Prefigurative Culture Results
As a result of the research, a slogan reflecting the essence of the generation of consumers of digital innovation and related content: Generation Me - Generation We was formulated. The wording Generation Me - Generation We implies two models of behavior peculiar for the post-Soviet generation Y-Z: The model "I" and the model "We". The model "I" is a clear individualistic orientation towards self-development, independence, freedom of choice, freedom of speech, and individual rights. In turn, the model "We" represents the generation's intention to perceive itself as part of a great global world and, at the same time, a culture understood as an ethnic culture. Often, the generation expresses such intention in positioning itself in terms of belonging to traditions, language, customs, and family. Such contradictory characteristic of the digital generation complies with several digital culture paradoxes and may be related to the paradoxical nature of prefigurative culture.
1. Paradox of Glocalization
The term glocal - word-suitcase, tracing paper from the Japanese word dochakuka (i.e., global localization), has been used in the economic and sociological lexicon since the 1980s (Khondker, 2004). "Glocal" characterizes the state of the economy, society, and culture, where the most acceptable strategy is the position in which the individual exists simultaneously in two dimensions, namely global and local. The use of digital technologies, and especially the Internet, contributes to the formation of glocal strategies as well as special "imagination" (Friedman, 2005) or, better to say, imaginary geography, the imaginary system of the world where imaginary local "I" comply into imaginary global "We" without problems.
Generations Y and Z, including in the post-Soviet space, are global network generations. Without knowing the limits in obtaining information, there are no spatial boundaries for them: They are generations with friends, buddies all over the world, with whom they communicate at any time of the day and the night. Representatives of Generation Z can freely try on different personalities, show interest in different areas of life, join different network communities in all countries of the world (where Internet content exists and is not limited to users), and widen their horizons ("Meet generation Z," 2014).
Space seems to have expanded to infinity, and man has become a man of the world: The individual is peculiar, inscribed in variety. The word "diversity" plays a key role in a globalized world. Generation Z is growing in an unconventional social environment. From its members' point of view, there is no right or wrong, normal or abnormal. It is obvious to them that people come from different socio-economic levels, races, and nationalities. They perceive the world as consisting of people of different gender identities and sexual orientations. Such acceptance of an incredibly diverse world is not a manifestation of tolerance, but a way of thinking. Tolerance implies that there are "other" or "different" people, and, according to generation Z, such representation is not true. In the global world, diversity is the norm ("Meet Generation Z," 2014).
Very likely for Kazakhstan, one of the bright examples of glocality is the K-pop culture. Transformed from a regional youth subculture, the Korean K-pop style gained a peculiar development in Kazakhstan with new language content. Thus, by the end of 2010, in Kazakhstan, among teenagers 12-16 years of age, the boy's band Ninety One became popular. The band sings songs in Kazakh, using an ethnic Kazakh video in their video clips, consisting of symbols understood by a teenager born in the era of independence of Kazakhstan (e.g., shanyrak, berkut, and yurt), but in the rhythm of K-pop and with the participation of performers dressed and moving in
the style and rhythm of K-pop. One of the most popular songs of the band Men Sen Emes (i.e., I am not you) gave the title to the documentary film directed by Catherine Suvorova. The title of the film in Russian sounds like Sing Your Songs.
Another cultural phenomenon of similar order is the popularity of the Kazakh singer Dimash. Externally following certain K-pop standards (e.g., hairstyle, appearance, and makeup), Dimash often uses elements of ethnicity in the stage image (e.g., Kazakh ornament and Kazakh chapan). The songs are heard in Kazakh, Russian, English, and other languages. Society and the teenager formed in it, as it emphasizes that the young Kazakhstani boy is on the one hand cosmopolitan, but on the other the carrier of his local, national, ethnic, and local culture.
The global culture, where the today's teenager lives, is at the same time local to him. With access to the network, he becomes familiar with the world and diversity of cultures, being the carrier of his local culture. He has an opportunity to communicate his culture, introduce it to a large circle of virtual friends, and make it recognizable and popular. The digital generation has a sense of connection with the whole world without leaving its local place. Its space is limitless and, at the same time, narrowed to the limits of the bedroom. Adolescents appropriate the media, and more and more media tools move from the public spaces of the household to private places, from the living room to the bedrooms, accumulating in the teenager's room. Youth are described as having created a bedroom culture that facilitates their media consumption without parental supervision or limitation (Mesch, 2009). According to the survey the authors conducted in this research, most respondents prefer to stay at home in their spare time (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Favorite place of free pastime
In the street (5%)
In public places (e.g., malls, cafes, interest clubs) (10%)
Browsing the Internet (25%)
At school or at school clubs
(5%)
Of the 370 respondents the authors surveyed, 25% noted the Internet as a place to spend time. This means that the distinction between physical and virtual space does not play a large role.
The paradoxicality of the phenomenon of Kazakh K-pop and the "sleeping culture" of Kazakh teenagers consists not only in the term glocal itself, which contains two contradictory terms from the point of view of ordinary consciousness. The paradox of post-Soviet glocalization, as well as any glocalization in general, is that not only globality but also locality does not correspond to the declared function. Imaginary globality corresponds to the level of real mental and social development of a teenager who has no idea of real global flows, not only because of his immaturity but also because all ideas about the global the average teenager gets from the limited digital Internet content available to him. The teen, like any digital user, remains a weak and dependent consumer imprisoned in technical Ge-stell.
On the other hand, stated locality has nothing to do with real local culture. In the case of the same Kazakh K-pop or the phenomenon of popularity of the singer Dimash Kudaibergenov, none of the performers, neither externally, nor due to the symbols used, nor in the lyrics, corresponds to the real local state of things existing, in the authors' view, for the residents of the station Arys or the city of Shymkent or the place of Buckei-Orda or the ancient burial on the plateau of Ustyurt. The digital environment does not transfer the real person to the real place, digital photography on the social network does not transmit smells, sounds, or even real light and color, especially digital content cannot help to live the life of the local resident of the place, and communication with digital friends is sterile and does not allow to feel the presence of the other. The locality, like the globality imagined, only once again highlights the inhuman essence of the technique, now in digital format.
2. The Internet as a Friend and an Enemy
In the research Youth of Central Asia: A Comparative Review that the Representative Office of the F. Ebert Foundation (Rakisheva, 2017) conducted in Kazakhstan, the answers of respondents aged 14-29 from the countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan were almost the same. The world network is used by all young people, mostly citizens of Kazakhstan (84.7%), and less of Tajikistan (53.5%). Kazakhstani respondents spend the longest time on the Internet (on average 3.93 hours), while Tajikistani young people spend the least time on the Internet (2.32 hours). A possible explanation for this gap is the difference between the political and economic situations of the two countries. In the research the authors of the article conducted, 25% of Kazakhstan's schoolchildren spend their free time on the Internet. The authors asked them about sites they visit often; the results showed (Table 2) that social networks are popular websites among teenagers. Indeed, 88% of all respondents chose this answer, while 40% indicated search sites, and 21% game and leisure websites. This research confirms that social networks have a significant impact on teenagers, for them it is not only a platform for communication but also a demonstration of their capabilities, a kind of "vanity fair" where likes and dislikes are means of expression of sympathy and antipathy, respectively.
Table 2. What kind of websites do you visit often?
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
>cial met
rch webs
Sc ia Games, leisure websites Sea ites Other
■ Percentage 88% 21% 40% 1%
By recognizing that the amount of time devoted to surfing on the Internet is quite large, these same teenagers point to the negative impact of the Internet and its products (e.g., social networks, applications, video platforms, and games). Confirming Internet addiction, along with its positive impact on the development of schoolchildren (as 50% of schoolchildren claim), 35% of the respondents pointed to the negative impact of the Internet, many fake sites, information, and cyberbullying and trolling on social media.
Figure 2. What or who negatively affects your well-being/mood?
What or who negatively affects your well-being/mood
Ten percent of the participants referred to the Internet and 25% to social networks (which in principle also implies the use of the Internet) as causing negative influence.
Teenagers need the Internet, always and everywhere, because it allows them to find friends, do homework, introduce themselves, make themselves feel part of the big world, relax, watch videos, listen to music, and read a book. However, it is also a good platform for cyberbullying and dissemination of fake information, it tightens the user into its networks, prevents him/her from receiving the simple joy of real communication, and prevents him/her from analyzing and looking for answers to complex problems on his/her own.
Characteristic obsession for modern adolescents is the so-called lost profit syndrome or fear of missing out (Stillman D, Stillman I, 2018). The power of social networks has made it easier to follow current events online, but also offline. However, the benefit of over-awareness is a destructive grain. In practice, the real-time of a person's physical and social existence remains limited, leading to internal conflicts, obsessions, or, as the authors mentioned above, the paradox of the evil-good Internet, a friend-enemy. Various studies of the last decade indicate that more than 50% of social media users suffer from the lost profit syndrome (Gemmel, 2016; Krasnova, Wenninger, Widjaja, & Buxmann, 2013; Murphy, 2013; Przybylski, Murayama, DeHaan, & Gladwel, 2013; Sapadin, 2018). Thus, external constant awareness is the cause of the psychological and mental ill-health of adolescents, which have developed under the influence and in an era of intensive consumption of digital products.
3. Digital Footprint in Education and Teacher Personality: Thinking vs. Thought
Based on the characteristics of the digital generation, transformations in education must include building soft skills, forming critical thinking, and flexible skills. The need to acquire such skills comes from the fact that searching the Internet implies finding the necessary information and being able to analyze it and present it correctly to the Internet audience. In the interview with Svetlana Ushakova, who is the head of the non-governmental organization Institute of National and International Initiatives of Development, the authors turned attention to today's problems in education. Experts in the field of non-governmental organizations and startup projects note weak training of young people, and their lack of communication culture, academic writing skills, and knowledge in the field of economy. Instead, in modern times, due to their fragile situation and the fast diffusion of information technologies, modern Kazakhstani youth should be mobile and flexible.
However, in fairness, it must be noticed that the lack of skills such as critical and analytical thinking is not necessarily a consequence of the widespread presence of digital technology in the lives of post-Soviet teenagers. It is quite likely that older generations of teachers who were educated in the USSR did not instill such skills in young people, as far as they did not have them themselves. Whatever it be, it must be admitted that digitalization in education is not limited to the number of computers and smart boards purchased for schools. It is also not enough to pass on the skills and knowledge of an experienced user of computer products to a child. The digital generation from childhood better understands the laws by which the digital environment lives and works. The child should be taught how to use information, in order to develop critical thinking. The ability to obtain the necessary and valid information, and interpret it largely depends on the level of education and on the successful virtual communication of the individual.
Thus, according to the Russian University 20.35 (http://www.20.35 University/en/#about.html), the mission of universities in Russia is the successful socialization of personality through the development of a set of digital skills. Based on this concept, the trajectory of the student's educational activities should be built independently; the concept is flexible and involves creating a "digital competency profile based on a digital footprint". Within the framework of this concept, students learn such non-traditional specialties from classical universities as dataanalyst, technologist, entrepreneur, organizer, leader of communities, and architect of ecosystems. New methods, such as games, visionary lectures, and clubs of thinking, are used at the same time.
The role of the teacher becomes paradoxical in this case. The generation of digital consumers probably does not need a teacher - an information holder. It is almost impossible for a modern teacher to compete with digital encyclopedias and libraries in the speed of obtaining information and the amount of provided information. In addition, the process of recording and processing pedagogical information (e.g., recording student progress and achievement, various statistics, curriculum development, volume, and method of delivery of educational material, and communication with students) is automated and does not require significant effort. The teacher is an information holder, and the key participant in the educational process apparently disappears as a character.
However, the trend for digitalization of textbooks, classes, and training models is often only the result of fashion direction. The reality is that, with the increase in the speed of mental processes in generation Z (i.e., thinking, memory, perception, and attention), the digital generation is going through the formation of a new model of thinking, namely the network. Such a model is built on the processing of information in small portions (as protection against overloading of mind with information), on visual rather than text images, on colorful pictures formed in the form of a clip, which can be replaced with one click of the mouse. The result is the phenomenon of multitasking in children (i.e., simultaneous execution of actions: doing homework, listening to music, and "scrolling" the line in the social network). However, sensory and motor skills hardly develop, and personal communication is minimized.
The solution to this problem is seen in the proficient and dosed application of digital devices during the training process. In this way, teachers and parents involved in the joint learning process have a big responsibility. However, the government is equally responsible in the formation of its social policy. It is necessary to develop mechanisms for financing education, which would allow using the exclusive personal efforts of the teacher in the process of education. Thinking processes cannot replace the history of ideas.
Paradox of the Third Place - Digital Topos
Oldenburg's concept of the third place reflects the special social function of space for teenagers of the generation of digital consumers. Considering the popularity of the Internet and the absence
of borders, especially territorial borders, it is important for teenagers to have a place that carries comfortable conditions for communication and innovative creation. Calling home, study, or work the first and the second places, Oldenburg noted that for the third place, which includes public cultural places, pubs, and coffee shops, the main and most attractive condition is the equalizing space, where people come for communication, entertainment, and rest, regardless of their gender, economic, social, age, and national status.
All over the world, the common and unique features are specific to third places. The relationship between an Arab coffee shop, a German beer shop, an Italian tavern, an old rural shop in the American province, and a bar in the city ghetto is becoming evident when the study goes beyond one era and culture. When the researcher looks at the next object, intending to describe it in all its uniqueness, he quickly recognizes an already familiar example. The age-long common features of third places come through a variety of external forms and do not seem to depend on differences in cultural attitudes relative to typical meeting places in an informal setting. A beer bar, an American middle-class representative of which sees no reason to be proud, can be the third place in the same measure as the famous Vienna coffee shop. The advantage of the third place is its ability to serve the human need to communicate almost regardless of whether a nation recognizes its value. (Oldenburg, 1999:67).
Indeed, Starbucks, McDonald's, globe centers, and co-working centers are in every big city of the global world. Such places equalize people of different incomes, ages, nationalities, and beliefs. In the process of strengthening the integration links between individuals, organizations, and countries, expecting the development of links between them because of today's globalization, adolescents meet their need to communicate and consume information in different ways. One of the best solutions is the very place where they can meet friends, work with a laptop (in most cases such "places" have free Internet Wi-Fi access), as well as have delicious and inexpensive food. All these public places represent a kind of topos, and the availability of free and unlimited Wi-Fi here allows us to talk about modern digital topos. Digital topos is simultaneously specific (physically present in one single specific place) and universally abstract (i.e., all McDonald's and Starbucks are similar to each other as two drops of water and sell the same coffee and sandwich as an addition to being able to check their page on the social network).
The authors' conversation with teenagers highlighted that 70% of them set up meetings in big shopping malls, Starbucks, McDonald's, and other popular places. With 24-hour network access, with a certain number of virtual friends, a person is one-on-one with a screen, a machine that intermediates communication with people. At the same time, digital topos allow you to meet people and talk offline. In this case, digital topos are the expression of the need to live and create in realtime and place.
Timeless Time
Time is one of the fundamental characteristics of human existence, its biological and social essence. Time is related to life, to its beginning, duration, and completion, to the continuation of man in time beyond the limits of his physical existence (e.g., next generations), as well as to human social existence (e.g., date of birth and death, time of adulthood and education, working and rest time, years, months, days, hours, minutes, and seconds - even for theories of space-time, Earth time equivalents are used). It is believed that in the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the modern challenges of the network society disturb the human life cycle. The network society, with its mandatory condition of immediate receiving of information, allows almost quickly to combination the data from different places of the world and transfer them to any place of the world with the help of hypermedia. Being in Almaty at 10.00 o'clock in the morning, an ordinary user of any chat can
talk in real-time, for example, with a person from New York City. At that moment it can be 23.00 o'clock on the previous day of the month.
The digital generation lives in the world of instant high-speed transmission of information flows (Castells, n.d.). Time is of great value for the phygital generation. Due to its severe shortage in the last decade (tight competition, frequent information change, and constant lack of time), the amount of time spent becomes a condition for the realization of work. generation Y-Z, living in the Internet space, saves time and communicates by symbols and signs. Smiles, stickers, and GIFs are tiredness of language competing with timeless time, in which "there is no time to explain" (slogan of a popular meme).
According to French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, culture and society are inseparably linked, and they are linked by communication and communication methods. Culture is symbolic (i.e., symbols, signs, and language). The meaning of any signs refers either to things and objects of the real physical world, or to phenomena of mental and spiritual life (e.g., concepts, representations, and feelings). The meaning of symbols indicates the significance and value of these phenomena both for the individual (individual symbols) and for small and large groups of people. It is obvious that the active use of symbols in chats, and in letters speaks of another cultural change of the XXI century: The attitude of Communists to the time of life and work, to man, to any life phenomenon expressed in symbols, signs. According to the authors, 100% of Kazakh teenagers use smiles, emojis, or pictures in correspondence. They explain this by the fact that the use of emoji significantly reduces time, decorates the letter, and expresses the mental state. The generation of digital consumers grows up in the era of torrents, demotivators, infographics, images, and maps. The use of these symbols forms a culture of speed. At the same time, the rate of information transmission leads to the above-mentioned fear of missing out. The research of Swiss cultural scientists and sociologists of the project JAMES (Suter et al., 2016) shows that teenagers experience a panic fear of being ignored or not responding to a message in time in any messenger. A survey of 370 respondents in Kazakhstan showed that 100% of them use WhatsApp "to be aware of what is happening." Most of them associate this condition with the fact that chat groups of classmates or friends connected by common interests are created on the platform, and teenagers "must" be in this group, in order "not to fall out of the race."
The paradox of timeless time unites sicknesses of the generation of digital consumers -syndrome of loss of profits and nomophobia, that is fear of being left without mobile communication (from no-mobile phobia). In conversations with focus groups of Kazakhstani teenagers, the authors asked: "What do you feel if you leave the mobile phone at home?" Seventy-five percent of the respondents said that they felt a lack of confidence, were nervous and were anxious. The rest 25% said that the lack of a mobile phone would only cause a sense of curiosity about what phone calls and messages they might have missed. The lack of the Internet and the inability to obtain information instantly led teenagers to a nervous state. Stillman and Stillman (2018) made the following example:
Jonah, what are you doing?
What do you mean?
You constantly swipe a finger on the screen of a mobile phone.
A-a ... Biology test results would already have to appear in an electronic journal, so I'm just updating this page.
Every 30 seconds?
Yes, we were told that the results will be late in the evening.
But now is only six o'clock, and there is still a long evening ahead. Why don't you forget about it for a while and do something else? How about checking once in an hour or in half an hour?
What difference does it make? (Stillman, 2018:187)
Timeless time is a visible reduction of the time spent for getting information, and collecting and processing any data - being a good thing at first sight, especially with regard to its economic component - does not remove the problem of real-time in its inconvertibility and with the need for a person to live this period of time. The paradox of time without time does not cancel the facts of the condition of human existence, the physical and intellectual limitations of a man and mankind, and the need to live and die.
The Question of Adaptability of the Theory of Generations in the Post-Soviet Space
The natural beginning of the discussion related to the study of the values of so-called Y and Z generations in the post-Soviet space would be the question of adaptability of the theory of generations in other historical conditions than the established historical events by the end of the 20th century in the United States (Strauss, Howe, 1992). Indeed, the generational theory itself needs excuses against attacking it as pseudo-science. Can the whole history of the nation(s) be a recurrent cyclical history of alternating generations following only four archetypes - prophets, nomads, heroes, and artists? An open mind suggests that nearly eight billion people living in two 250 countries of the world cannot obey the same logic of the same cycle of generational change throughout all human history.
Therefore, adopting the theory of generations can only be a limited and conditional methodological technique allowing a description of some group of people - the so-called generation - in the authors' case, the Y and Z generations, millennials, the Next generation, and digital aboriginals or digital consumers. It cannot be disputed that the availability of information forms a certain attitude towards it among those who do not know other ways of getting it. Technological innovations of the last 50 years allowing this perception of information is one of the consequences of the global capitalist relations of the 20th century. Thus, the type of thinking shaped by digital innovation is nothing more than a pattern of American-like thinking typical for the global world. In this sense, the theory of generations, which is based on the history of the United States, applies also to teenagers of the post-Soviet space and period. It is not possible to go beyond a global world with its needs for rapid exchange of information and unchecked trade of all with everybody.
However, if it is possible to talk about some specifically transformative culture of the generation of digital consumers, it is as "transformed" as "figurative." As the authors noted above, the digital generation of the countries of the post-Soviet space has formed a specific model of behavior, combining the "I" model and the "We" model. Here, "self-development," "independence, " "freedom of choice," "freedom of speech," and "rights" are combined with the perception of themselves as part of a larger whole, with the positioning of themselves as a representative of their family, the world of traditions, and customs.
Focusing on the theory of generations and the theory of prefigurative culture, it must be remembered that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were born in 1955. One of the paradoxes of the Next-generation is the fact that they are consumers, but not inventors of digital innovation. Innovations are created by baby boomers, a generation of space conquerors, revolutionaries of 1968, and hippies, emblematic figures of whom are Jobs and Gates. The paradox of prefigurative culture is the confirmation of the learning possibility by the generation of innovation consumers. Is it so? Is there something in the knowledge and skills of the Z generation that would not be directly available to the BB generation? That inhumane, which lies in the very essence of technology, does it really expand the boundaries of humans and fundamental up to the acquisition of inhuman features by a generation of post-Millenials, which allow declaring "glocal - phygital" as the carrier of new knowledge?
Conclusion
Generation Z is Stressed, Depressed, and Exam-Obsessed (2019) is the headline of an article published in The Economist. Less hedonistic than previous generations, including millennials (Y), modern teenagers aged 13-17 are exposed to stress and depression, they are predicted a future full of problems and crises, from environmental to economic and humanitarian. According to some Western researchers, the Z generation will be economically poorer, and physically weaker, with predictable life expectancy lower than for X or even Y generations. Recent research, comparing the state of mental health of two generations Y and Z, held at the University of Liverpool and University College of London, showed that Z, by consuming less alcohol and tobacco, nevertheless suffers from obesity and depression significantly more than their predecessors. According to the results, in the next 10 years, the number of depressed teenagers will increase by 6% (Marcout, 2019).
The technique is not axiologically neutral. The exclusively instrumental approach involves evaluating technology from the perspective of its effectiveness in order to achieve purposes. The anthropological approach assesses the degree and result of the interaction between technology and human. Generations Y and Z, digital consumers, show as best as possible the contradictions that are put in the very essence of technology. The paradox of its essence lies in its belonging to the world of humans and to the world of the inhumane forces of nature. This is probably why it is early to make optimistic predictions about the rosy future generation of digital consumers, and its ability to train the older generation of inventors of digital technologies.
Digital technology, being a definite benefit in the short term, could be turned into unforeseen consequences in the distant future. Understanding that technology itself is not a panacea for problems related to the existence of cellular organisms - birth, adulthood, aging, death - and problems related to the social essence of a human - interaction and coexistence, the need for systematic renewal of resources, and the problem of inequality - is possible and is the key to the real possession and management of technology. Technology is the means to achieve the goals, but also a kind of human activity; it does not exist without the idea of man that behind any technological device contributing to the improvement of the quality of life lies Aletheia, the state of the revelation of the truth. What Aletheia of generation of digital consumers will be, the future will show very soon.
Acknowledgments
The article was written within the framework of the project, financing of the European Union program Jean Monnet Erasmus + module "Digital humanities in the Republic of Kazakhstan: local solutions for global problems".
References
Berdyaev N. A. Man and machine (the problem of sociology and metaphysics of
technology). - 1933. - P. 3-37.
Friedman T. L. The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century / T.L. Friedman.
- New York: Farrar, 2005. - 110 p.
Fedorov N. F. What Was Man Created for The Philosophy of the Common Task: Selected
Works / N.F. Fedorov. - Switzerland: Honeyglen, 1990. - 210 p.
Heidegger M. The question concerning technology and Other Essays / M. Heidegger. -
London: Garland Publishing, inc., 1977. - 35 p.
Hermida M. EU Kids Online: Schweiz. Schweizer Kinder und Jugendliche im Internet:
Risikoerfahrungen und Umgang mit Risiken [Web resource]. - 2013. - URL:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280703194_EU_Kids_Online_Schweiz_Schweiz er_Kinder_und_Jugendliche_im_Internet_Risikoerfahrungen_und_Umgang_mit_Risiken (accessed 05.05.2022).
Gemmel K. Why Snapchat is the leading cause of FOMO [Web resource]. - 2022. - URL: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/why-snapchat-is-the-leading-cause-of-fomo (accessed 05.05.2022).
Generation Z is stressed, depressed and exam-obsessed // The Economist [Web resource].
- 2019. - URL: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/02/27/generation-z-is-stressed-depressed-and-exam-obsessed (accessed 05.09.2019).
K-pop [Web resource]. - 2022. - URL: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-pop (accessed 16.01.2022).
Khondker H. H. Glocalization as globalization: Evolution of a sociological concept, Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. - 2014. - № 1 (2). - P. 3.
Krasnova H., Wenninger, H., Widjaja, T., & Buxmann, P. Envy on Facebook: A hidden threat to users' life satisfaction? In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, 27th February -1st March 2013, Leipzig, Germany. [Web resource].
- 2022. - URL: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/49d5/4fe906f52ad6f04527ab2347b855c19877b7.pdf?_ga=2 .83212950.1430107475.1581604826-1345313738.1581604826.(accessed 05.09.2019). Lévi-Strauss C. Structural anthropology / C. Lévi-Strauss. - Moscow: Science, 1985. - 535 p.
Marcout M. Millennials: La génération Z plus affectée par la dépression que ses prédécesseurs [Web resource]. - 2019. - URL:
https://www.maxisciences.com/adolescent/millennials-la-generation-z-plus-affectee-par-la-depression-que-ses-predecesseurs_art42964.html. (accessed 05.09.2019). Martin J. The wired society / J. Martin. - New York: Prentice-Hall, 1978. - 300 p. Mead M. Culture and commitment: A study of the generation gap. / M.
Mead. - New York: The American Museum of Natural History, 1970. - 91p. Meet generation Z: Forget everything you learned about millennials [Web resource]. -2019. - URL: https://www.slideshare.net/sparksandhoney/generation-z-final-june-17(accessed 05.09.2019).
Mesch G. The Internet and youth culture // The Hedgehog Review. - 2009. № 11(1). - P. 50-53.
Murphy S. Report: 56% of social media users suffer from FOMO [Web resource]. - 2019. -URL: https://mashable.com/2013/07/09/fear-of-missing-out/(accessed 05.09.2019). National Technology Initiative University «20.35» [Web resource]. - 2019. - URL: http://www.20.35University/en/#about.html. (accessed 16.01.2022).
Oblinger D.G., Oblinger J.L. Educating the Net Generation. - Washington: Educause, 2005.
- P. 8.
Oh E., Reeves T.C. Generational differences, and the integration of technology in learning, instruction, and performance. In the handbook of research on educational communications and technology: The fourth edition. - New York: Springer. - 2014. - P. 819-828. Oldenburg, O. The great good place / O. Oldenburg. - New York: Marlowe Company, 1999. - 150 p.
Prensky M. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. From on the Horizon MCB University Press. - 2001. - Vol.9. - № 5. - P. 1-6
Przybylski A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwel, V. Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out // Computers in Human Behavior. - 2013. - № 29(4). - P. 1841-1848.
Rakisheva B. Youth of Central Asia: A comparative review. [Web resource]. - 2022. - URL:
http://www.fes-centralasia.org/ru/statja/ffeh-predstavljaet-sravnitelnyj-analiz-
issledovanij-serii-molodezh-centralnoj-azii.html. (accessed 05.09.2019).
Sapadin L. Fear of missing out. [Web resource]. - 2022. - URL:
https://psychcentral.com/blog/fear-of-missing-out/.html. (accessed 05.09.2019).
Shamis E., Nikonov, E. Theory of generations. / E. Shamis, E. Nikonov. - Moscow: the
University of Synergy, 2016. -130 p.
Spengler O. Der Mensch und die Technik: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life, trans. Atkinson / O. Spengler. - New York: Knopf, 1940. -120 p.
Stillman D., Stillman, I. Generation Z at work. How the Next Generation is transforming the workplace/ D. Stillman, I. Stillman. - New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2018. - 298 p.
Strauss W., Howe, N. The fourth turning: An American prophecy - What the cycles of history tell us about America's next rendezvous with destiny / W. Strauss, N. Howe. - New York: Broadway Books, 1997. - 200 p.
Suter L., Waller G., Bernath J., Külling C., Willemse I., Süss D. JAMES - Jugend, Aktivitäten, Medien - Erhebung Schweiz. Zurich: Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften. [Web resource]. - 2022. - URL:
https://www.zhaw.ch/storage/psychologie/upload/forschung/medienpsychologie/james/ 2018/Ergebnisbericht_JAMES_2018.pdf (accessed 05.09.2019).
Tapscott D. Net kids. Die digitale Generation erobert Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft / D. Tapscott. - Wiesbaden: Gabler, 1998. - 115 p.
Törocsik M., Szucs K., Kehl D. How generations think: Research on generation Z. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Communicatio, [Web resource]. - 2022. - URL: http://www.acta.sapientia.ro/acta-comm/C1/comm1-3.pdf (accessed 05.09.2019). Tsiolkovsky K. E. Dreams of Earth and Sky / K. E. Tsiolkovsky. - Old Greenwich: Athena Books, 2004. - 115 p.
Vernadsky V.I. Biosphere and noosphere. Ayres Press: The Biosphere was first published in Russian in 1926. / V.I. Vernadsky. - Santa Fe: Synergetic Press, 1986. - 86 p.
Лаура В.Турарбекова1, Алма^л М. Канагатова2, Динара Р. Сапарова3, Сэния Ж.
Едтбаева4
ы дл-Фараби атындагы Каза^ улттъщ университет^ Алматы, Казахстан 2¥лттъщ «¥стаз» онлайн академиясы, Алматы, Казахстан 3С. Аманжолов атындагы Шыгыс Казахстан yHueepcumemi, Оскемен, Казахстан
"Мен жэне Бiз: урпак,тар к,ак,тыгысы": посткецестш кещстштеп префигуративт
мэдениеттщ парадокстары
Ацдатпа. Мак,алада цифрлык, ак,параттык, технологияларды белсещД колдану кезещндеп Штраус пен Хоув тарихи урпакдарыньщ теориясы контекстщдеп "префигуративп мэдениеттщ парадокстары" термиш талданады. Бул зерттеудщ непзп кдгидасы:
инновациялык технологиялар адамныц табигатын жэне оньщ когамдагы элеуметтiк байланыстарын eзгертедi жэне олар элеуметтш коммуникацияларда, кэсiби кызметте, жастардыц eмiр салтында, бiлiм беруде, гылымда жэне баска салаларда берш орныккан. Префигуративтi мэдениеттщ парадокстары имманентп кактыгыстыц алгы шарттары бола алады. Бiр жагынан, негiзгi угымдар жэне категориялармен болатын кактыгыс адамды барлык кырынан сипаттау Yшiн колданылады, ал екiншi жагынан кактыгыс жаца жеке тулганы куруды кeздейтiн жаца киберкультураныц пайда болуымен байланысты. "Мен жэне Бiз: урпактар кактыгысы" ураны У^ посткецеслк буынына тэн мшез-кулыктыц екi моделiн бiлдiредi. Зерттеу адам табигаты, оныц элемдегi орны, оныц элеммен карым-катынасы туралы "ескГ жэне "жаца" идеялардыц парадоксалды жагдайларын аныктау Yшiн К,азакстан, Кыргызстан, Эзiрбайжан, Тэжiкстан жэне Ресей Федерациясындагы элеуметтiк сауалнамалардан алынган деректердi пайдаланады. Зерттеудiц максаты - казiргi уакытта, жаца цифрлык шындык режимiнде префигуративтi мэдениеттiц парадокстарын зерттеу.
Тушн сездер: префигуративтi мэдениет; тарихи дискурс; урпактар теориясы; пэнаралык зерттеу; цифрлык мэдениет; цифрлык урпак.
Лаура В. Турарбекова1, Алмагуль М. Канагатова2, Динара Р. Сапарова3, Сания Ж.
Едильбаева4
14 Казахский национальный университет им. Аль-Фараби, Алматы, Казахстан 2 ¥лттъщ «¥стаз» онлайн академиясы, Алматы, Казахстан
3 Восточно-Казахстанский университет им.С. Аманжолова, Усть-Каменогорск, Казахстан
«Поколение Я-Поколение Мы» : Парадоксы префигуративной культуры на
постсоветском пространстве
Аннотация. В статье анализируется термин «парадоксы префигуративной культуры» в контексте исторической теории поколений Штрауса и Хоува, особенно актуальной в период активного использования цифровых информационных технологий. Основной принцип данного исследования заключается в том, что инновационные технологии изменяют природу человека и его социальные связи в обществе, и что они прочно укоренились в социальных коммуникациях, профессиональной деятельности, в образе жизни молодежи, образовании, науке и других сферах.
Парадоксы префигуративной культуры предполагают существование имманентного конфликта. С одной стороны, этот конфликт с фундаментальными понятиями и категориями используется для характеристики человека во всех его проявлениях, а, с другой стороны, с конфликт связан с появлением новой киберкультуры, предполагующей создание новой личности. Слоган «Поколение Я - Поколение Мы» подразумевает две модели поведения, свойственные постсоветскому поколению У^. В исследовании используются данные, полученные социологическими опросами в Казахстане, Кыргызстане, Азербайджане, Таджикистане и Российской Федерации, для выявления таких парадоксальных ситуаций, в которых они сталкиваются со «старыми» и «новыми» представлениями о сущности человека, его месте в мире, его взаимоотношениях с миром. Целью исследования является исследование парадоксов префигуративной культуры в настоящем времени, в режиме новой цифровой реальности.
Ключевые слова: префигуративная культура; исторический дискурс; теория поколений; междисциплинарное исследование; цифровая культура; цифровое поколение.
References
Berdyaev N. A. Man and machine (the problem of sociology and metaphysics of technology). 1933. P. 3-37.
Friedman T. L. The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century (Farrar, New York, 2005, 110 p.).
Fedorov N. F. What Was Man Created for The Philosophy of the Common Task: Selected Works (Honeyglen, Switzerland, 1990, 210 p.).
Heidegger M. The question concerning technology and Other Essays (Garland Publishing, London, 1977, 35 p.).
Hermida M. EU Kids Online: Schweiz. Schweizer Kinder und Jugendliche im Internet: Risikoerfahrungen und Umgang mit Risiken, Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280703194_EU_Kids_0nline_Schweiz_Schweiz er_Kinder_und_Jugendliche_im_Internet_Risikoerfahrungen_und_Umgang_mit_Risiken (accessed 05.05.2022).
Gemmel K. Why Snapchat is the leading cause of FOMO Available at: https://www.theodysseyonline.com/why-snapchat-is-the-leading-cause-of-fomo (accessed 05.05.2022).
Generation Z is stressed, depressed and exam obsessed, The Economist Available at: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/02/27/generation-z-is-stressed-depressed-and-exam-obsessed (accessed 05.09.2019).
K-pop, Available at: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-pop (accessed 16.01.2022). Khondker H. H. Glocalization as globalization: Evolution of a sociological concept, Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology. 2014. No. 1 (2). P. 3.
Krasnova H., Wenninger, H., Widjaja, T., & Buxmann, P. Envy on Facebook: A hidden threat to users' life satisfaction? In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, 27th February -1st March 2013, Leipzig, Germany. Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/49d5/4fe906f52ad6f04527ab2347b855c19877b7.pdf?_ga=2 .83212950.1430107475.1581604826-1345313738.1581604826.(accessed 05.09.2019). Lévi-Strauss C. Structural anthropology (Science, Moscow, 1985, 535 p.). Marcout M. Millennials: La génération Z plus affectée par la dépression que ses prédécesseurs. Available at: https://www.maxisciences.com/adolescent/millennials-la-generation-z-plus-affectee-par-la-depression-que-ses-predecesseurs_art42964.html. (accessed 05.09.2019).
Martin J. The wired society (Prentice-Hall, New York, 1978, 300 p.). Mead M. Culture and commitment: A study of the generation gap.
(The American Museum of Natural History, New York, 1970, 91 p.). Meet generation Z: Forget everything you learned about millennials. Available at: https://www.slideshare.net/sparksandhoney/generation-z-final-june-17(accessed 05.09.2019).
Mesch G. The Internet and youth culture, The Hedgehog Review. 2009. No. 11(1). P. 5053.
Murphy S. Report: 56% of social media users suffer from FOMO, Available at: https://mashable.com/2013/07/09/fear-of-missing-out/(accessed 05.09.2019). National Technology Initiative University «20.35». Available at: http://www.20.35University/en/#about.html. (accessed 16.01.2022).
Oblinger D.G., Oblinger J.L. Educating the Net Generation, Educause, Washington, 2005. P. 8.
Oh E., Reeves T.C. Generational differences, and the integration of technology in learning, instruction, and performance. In the handbook of research on educational communications and technology: The fourth edition. New York: Springer. 2014. P. 819-828. Oldenburg, O. The great good place. (Marlowe Company, New York, 1999, 150 p.). Prensky M. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. From on the Horizon. MCB University Press. 2001. Vol.9. No. 5. P. 1-6
Przybylski A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwel, V. Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out, Computers in Human Behavior. 2013. No. 29(4). P. 1841-1848.
Rakisheva B. Youth of Central Asia: A comparative review. [Web resource]. - 2022. - URL:
http://www.fes-centralasia.org/ru/statja/ffeh-predstavljaet-sravnitelnyj-analiz-
issledovanij-serii-molodezh-centralnoj-azii.html. (accessed 05.09.2019).
Sapadin L. Fear of missing out. Available at: https://psychcentral.com/blog/fear-of-
missing-out/.html. (accessed 05.09.2019).
Shamis E., Nikonov, E. Theory of generations. (The University of Synergy, Moscow, 2016, 130 p.).
Spengler O. Der Mensch und die Technik: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life, (Knopf, New York, 1940, 120 p.).
Stillman D., Stillman, I. Generation Z at work. How the Next Generation is transforming the workplace. (Harper Collins Publishers, New York, 2018, 298 p.). Strauss W., Howe N. The fourth turning: An American prophecy - What the cycles of history tell us about America's next rendezvous with destiny (Broadway Books, New York, 1997, 200 p.).
Suter L., Waller G., Bernath J., Külling C., Willemse I., Süss D. JAMES - Jugend, Aktivitäten, Medien - Erhebung Schweiz. Zurich: Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften, Available at:
https://www.zhaw.ch/storage/psychologie/upload/forschung/medienpsychologie/james/ 2018/Ergebnisbericht_JAMES_2018.pdf (accessed 05.09.2019).
Tapscott D. Net kids. Die digitale Generation erobert Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, (Gabler, Wiesbaden, 1998, 115 p.).
Törocsik M., Szücs K., Kehl D. How generations think: Research on generation Z. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, Communicatio, Available at: http://www.acta.sapientia.ro/acta-comm/C1/comm1-3.pdf (accessed 05.09.2019).
Tsiolkovsky K. E. Dreams of Earth and Sky, (Athena Books, Old Greenwich, 2004, 115 p.). Vernadsky V.I. Biosphere and noosphere. Ayres Press: The Biosphere was first published in Russian in 1926, (Synergetic Press, Santa Fe, 1986, 86 p.).
Information about the authors:
Turarbekova Laura Vladimirovna - Doctor of Philosophy, Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Kanagatova Almagul Medihatovna - Doctor of Philosophy, National online academy "Ustaz", Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Saparova Dinara Rakhmetovna - Senior lecturer, Ph.D. in Cultural Studies, S. Amanzholov East Kazakhstan University, Ust-Kamenogorsk, Kazakhstan.
Edelbay Sanya Zhakenovna - Doctor of Philosophy, Associate professor, Al-Farabi Kazakh National University, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Турарбекова Лаура Владимировна - философия докторы, философия гылымдарыныц кандидаты, Эл-Фараби атындагы Казак улттык университетi, Алматы, Казакстан.
Канагатова Алмагул Медихатовна - философия гылымдарыныц докторы, ¥лттык «¥стаз» онлайн академиясы, Алматы, Казахстан.
Сапарова Динара Рахметовна - мэдениеттану мамандыгы бойынша Ph.D., ага окытушы, С. Аманжолов атындагы Шыгыс Казахстан университетi, 0скемен, Казахстан.
Едыбаева Сэния Жакеновна - кауымдастырылган профессор, философия гылымдарыныц докторы, Эл-Фараби атындагы Казак улттык университет, Алматы, Казакстан.
