{"id":9395,"date":"2015-02-09T08:59:41","date_gmt":"2015-02-09T08:59:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.communitymediaresearch.it\/?p=1231"},"modified":"2026-01-19T18:50:12","modified_gmt":"2026-01-19T17:50:12","slug":"le-ricadute-della-tecnologia-della-comunicazione","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.community.it\/en\/2015\/02\/09\/le-ricadute-della-tecnologia-della-comunicazione\/","title":{"rendered":"The fallout of communication technology"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ours is a highly 'permeable' as well as 'liquid' society, to use the well-known category introduced by Bauman. Permeable because the use (and sometimes abuse) of new communication tools transcends the boundaries of spheres of life, penetrating them and making them more labile. It is enough to observe some of the ways we act every day, our own and those around us, to realise that how increasingly difficult it is to separate the moments and areas of life<\/strong>. Using a mobile phone even when at the table with guests or family. Talking loudly on the phone when in public places, on the train or metro. Sending messages or making phone calls (perhaps without a speakerphone) while driving a car. The list could go on and on with more or less unpleasant episodes that escalate to rudeness. Thus, the sphere of work merges with that of family life<\/strong>because we can be reached by emails and messages even on weekends or during holidays. The work environment, in turn, can be mixed up with personal relationships, thanks to the widespread use of social networks.\"famiglia<\/a>
\nAll this indicates, once again, how the spaces of our lives are permeated by the dimension of communication and the use of new technologies<\/strong>. And, paradoxically, while these tools break the traditional boundaries of our worlds, we tend to recreate them in our micro-behaviours. When we phone or chat in a public place, we abstract ourselves, as if we were alone with our interlocutor. We fall into a private sphere, and we do not realise that others are close to us, forcibly listening to our confidences. What effects the use of new communication technologies has on daily life and society is the subject of the LaST Survey. And it is interesting to compare, in this respect, the results with similar research carried out in the USA, where those tools have been in use for longer. At first glance, there are no very significant differences. In Italy as in the USA, the first three aspects highlighted have negative dimensions. It is believed that use of smartphones, social networking, internet <\/strong>and so on excessively distracting (68%<\/strong>69% in the USA), generate a lazy society (64%<\/strong>76% in the USA) and wear out communication between people (62%<\/strong>68% in the USA).<\/strong> So, they are used a lot, but negative feelings prevail. However, some aspects also emerge that draw a diversity between the two worlds and tell of very different conditions. The perception that new communication technologies have improved people's quality of life is widespread among only a slight majority of Italians (57%)<\/strong>whereas this is the case among 71% of Americans. That these nurture people's creativity gets a consensus among 44% of Italians, but is at 65% in the US. If social life is only increased by 21% in Italy, it is 52% in the USA. In short, it is as if - in our country - the systemic impact that new technologies have on society and its functioning is not perceived. And on the other hand, it could not be otherwise if we consider that in Italy the idea of the smart city is still more of a title than a practice, or that the simplifications generated by the use of technological platforms (think of bureaucratic practices) have a limited diffusion.<\/p>\n

The issues brought to the attention of the respondents highlighted both positive and negative aspects of the impact on the use of communication technologies. To try to provide a summary measure, by summing up the different signs of the proposed options, we obtained two profiles outlining attitudes towards these tools. Respondents are divided, but clearly prevailing are the \"catastrophists' (56.2%)<\/strong> compared to the \"Improvementists' (43.8%)<\/strong>. The former are those who almost exclusively highlight the negative effects of using new communication technologies. This orientation is present above all among students, residents in the Centre-South and graduates. In particular, it is inversely proportional to age: while it is very widespread among the younger generations, it tends to fade as one gets older. Paradoxically, it is precisely those who were born in the digital age and are socialised into this world who are also the most critical and those who feel the worst repercussions. In contrast, the 'ameliorators' are those who largely see positive consequences. Pensioners, northeasterners and university graduates are the profiles most present in this group. But the degree of appreciation is, specularly to the 'catastrophists', directly proportional to increasing age. Thus, it is the more adult groups that observe positive effects on their lives.<\/p>\n

The novelties introduced by new communication technologies, therefore, find a higher degree of appreciation among the older generations than among the so-called digital natives. The dimension of discovery and novelty, the memory of past conditions, make one appreciate more the possibilities offered by innovations<\/strong>. But, perhaps, they make them more vulnerable, more circuitous. The younger generations, precisely because they have grown up with these means, seem to express greater criticality and selectivity. They use them a lot and with gratification, but they sense their pervasiveness. And perhaps they are more impervious to it than we think.<\/p>\n

Daniele Marini<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ours is a highly 'permeable', as well as 'liquid', society, to use the well-known category introduced by Bauman. Permeable because the use (and sometimes abuse) of the new communication tools transcends…<\/p>","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9395","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-osservatori"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.community.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9395","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.community.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.community.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.community.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.community.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9395"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.community.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9395\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13032,"href":"https:\/\/www.community.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9395\/revisions\/13032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.community.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9395"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.community.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9395"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.community.it\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9395"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}