Unequal Struggles and Impossible Digital Choices For Parents During Covid-19 (Part Two)

G. White, CC By SA 2.0

Sonia Livingstone: Craig’s question - how do we design ways for parents and guardians who manage resource-constrained households to access vital social and informational networks – is a crucial one. In some ways, access to digital resources create new workarounds that can empower families. But as we have all three argued, in many ways they intensify the inequalities that many families face and, therefore, the urgency of finding new educational and policy solutions.

Our lives during the pandemic have already gone through several significant stages. At first, confusion and disbelief, relieved only by the misconception that the pandemic would be quickly over. Then an overwhelming concern for our personal circumstances, accompanied by anger and frustration with politicians and those with the power to address the problem, as recognition of the likely duration of the pandemic began to sink in. Then, a (perhaps belated) analysis of the societal costs and their unfolding geopolitical consequences. I remember in the early months of 2020 noting how little attention was paid to children and young people. Indeed, in some quarters, they were blamed for their (supposed) bad behavior in spreading the virus to others while (supposedly) avoiding it themselves. Only those of us specifically attuned to research and advocacy for young people observed the growing evidence of the adverse mental health consequences of isolation and anxiety, the increased risk of being victims of family breakdown or abuse, and the catastrophic and deeply unequal costs of school closures – for children’s education most obviously, but also for their friendships, community belonging and participation in the wider world, and their future life chances.

Even when the losses suffered by children during the pandemic are noticed, they are too often treated as a homogenous group (“children”). And the assumption is easily made that everything could be put right if only society could return to life as it was before. But as Craig has argued, inequality and injustice differentiates children’s experiences, with some much harder hit than others. Like Craig’s Digital Edge project, we too found that, in the case of the ethnic minority families, most of whom lived on a very low income, digital technologies seemed to offer a workaround to the structural disadvantages they face, and to map some practical steps they could take to benefit their children (often involving an investment in technology that is disproportionate to their income).

I also appreciate Meryl’s point that life before COVID-19 was already highly problematic for many families, and so it hardly provides an occasion for nostalgia or a vision of the life we hope to return to “when this is all over.” In part inspired byMeryl’s research, Alicia Blum-Ross and I, in our “Parenting for a Digital Future” project, also interviewed some families with children on the autism spectrum. And informed by Craig’s work on the Digital Edge project (as we both participated in Mizuko Ito’sConnected Learning Research Network), we also interviewed a good many families from, as we say in the UK, diverse ethnicities and cultural origins.

Although I strongly agree with Meryl’s critique that it is unsustainable – indeed, unconscionable - to leave these families during COVID-19 with no alternative than an ICT-mediated reality, in interviewing both groups of families in our London-based research, we were struck by the strength of parents hopes for a digital future for their children. In relation to the families of children with special educational needs and disabilities, we analyzed this in terms of parents’ talk of aspecial affinitybetween their child’s capabilities, as they see them, and the distinct affordances of digital technologies. For example, parents told us how they valued the visual natureof digital media learning, or how their children preferred the asynchronous communicationof some messaging services, by comparison with the intensity of face-to-face communication. This special affinity is reflected directly, for instance, in promised routes to a digital future, such as theMicrosoft Autism Hiringprogram, and indirectly through cultural representations of ‘on the spectrum’ geeky software engineers (think of Big Bang Theory or Silicon Valley), leading parents to hope that, for their child too, “geeks will inherit the earth.” 

But, of course, the future is inherently unknowable, and so these parental strategies, whilst borne of need and, often, of the lack of any viable alternative, are nonetheless risky and uncertain. We’ll need to revisit this discussion in a few years or even decades to see whether– bear fruit. Or, will they turn out to illustrate what Lauren Berlant has called “cruel optimism,” meaning that parents would have done better to place their hopes and investments in something other than digital technology, for this may not only disappoint but may even impede children’s life changes. More urgently, we need to build strong alternative pathways for these children and their parents, to reduce the allure of such a risky “digital future.”

S. Craig Watkins: Meryl and Sonia raise some interesting questions about parenting in the context of COVID and the degree to which systemic forms of racism and inequality underscore the extraordinary challenges that many families face.  Meryl, you are right: the brutal nature of capitalism leaves families on the margins with only bad choices.  For example, work in “essential jobs” that heighten your risk of virus exposure or struggle to provide shelter and food for your children.  Meryl and Sonia, I think we would agree that the challenges that we and others have alluded to such as unequal learning opportunities or increasing household stress in the context of COVID could have been predicted by our research.  Did it really take a global pandemic and the murders of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Eric Garner and others to recognize the unprecedented forms of inequality that shape our lives today?

Sonia has made a few references to mental health, something that I have been thinking about a lot in my current research.  Over the last year my team and I have been speaking with young people and mental health professionals about the state of mental health.  We were experiencing a mental health crisis before COVID and we know what the pandemic has done for mental health.  We have done parents a great disservice by blaming the mental health challenges their children face on smartphones and social media. If only the problem was that simple. Let me be clear: these technologies have certainly been designed to absorb our attention and keep us scrolling. But the mental health crisis among young people--pre and post-COVID--is a result of factors far more complicated than smartphones.  The conditions that underlie the mental health conditions of children and teens--a lack of support, strained personal relationships, poverty, discrimination, and a sense of hopelessness--are rooted in the sharp realities of structural inequality.  To the extent that we blame the youth mental health crisis on technology alone, we undermine the development of solutions that help families and societies respond in more effective ways. 

We can only hope that out of the ashes of COVID and a public reckoning with systemic racism that we can build and sustain the momentum for substantive change. This is an opportunity to realize a new vision for society, one that takes the challenge of building a more equitable future head on.  Sonia and Meryl:  As we look toward a post-COVID society, what kind of solutions for families would you like to see gain more traction? 

Meryl Alper: We cannot wait for this indefinite pandemic to end to make, as U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren champions,“big, structural change.”Online and offline, we need to enable resource-constrained households to more fully tap into networks of connections, resources, and information that make it possible for them to advocate collectively on behalf of their children. I strongly agree with Craig that any such initiatives have to be culturally specific and lead from within. I am thinking of an autism services resource fair for parents that I attended last year in a predominantly Latinx immigrant community in Boston, one that is currently one of the main epicenters of COVID-19 in the state of Massachusetts. While these sorts of fairs happen with great regularity in mostly white, suburban neighborhoods, until the neighborhood group organizing it received a grant from a national foundation, there had never been one locally that was fully bilingual in Spanish and English, that fed families food donated from neighborhood Colombian and Dominican restaurants, and that featured autism advocates with shared experiences of racial discrimination in education and healthcare. In this vein, I really admire the work ofRicarose Roque, whose Family Creative Learningworkshopsleverage the strengths that minoritized parents with little background in technology can bring to support their child’s digital learning.

Individual solutions alone though will never solve systemic problems. Hands-on, in-person workshops that provide opportunities for technological tinkering are a non-starter during the pandemic, which has removed the possibilities of parentsbuilding supportive networks through everyday interactions at sites like child care centers. Taking up Craig’s question, about how to build a more equitable future moving forward, any investment in reconstructing a better post-COVID-19 society must center the needs of those most severely affected. Personally, I would like to see greater public investment in high-quality broadband internet access—whichVikki Katzhas beenchampioningfor years now—so that all children have the potential to do their homework at home without having to work from theparking lot of a Taco Bellto access wi-fi. I would love for there to be guaranteed paid family leave in the U.S. that allows more than just the most privileged mothers and fathers to build the kind of relationships with their children that pay dividends later on. In the U.S., there are also decades of housing segregation to reckon with and correct so that all children get to socially, emotionally, and cognitively benefit from racially integrated neighborhoods and schools. There should also be greater regulatory pressure across all branches of government placed on big tech companies like Facebook and Alphabet, who have enabled informational ecosystems that regularly expose minors to misinformation, disinformation, andadult content masquerading as child-friendly.

Speaking to Sonia’s most recent book, spanning both families of children with disabilities and ethnic minority families, I have to see those categories in my work as overlapping and through anintersectional lens. The dream of someday joining a program like Microsoft’s Autism Hiring Program (which has truly changed the lives of some autistic people and their loved ones) or becoming a “geeky” software engineer is one that is inherently raced, classed, and gendered. Yes, technology can provide immense sensory pleasure for these young people and open up new possibilities for socializing remotely with friends through online gaming and video chat. But it was only the parents of Black and Latinx autistic boys and girls that I talked to in my research who were afraid of police officers seeing their child as a mortal threat and treating them as such, like 15-year-oldStephon Watts. I am energized by BIPOC disabled people and parents of disabled children like artist, scholar, and activist Jen White Johnsonutilizing and developing resources through social media platforms like Twitter and Instagram; for example, coalescing around hashtags like#BlackDisabledLivesMatterto engage in advocacy. And touching upon the themes that both Sonia and Craig raise about mental health, teenagers, and technology, this is another conversation within which disability communities should be centered and consulted.

Bios

Meryl Alper is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Northeastern University, where she researches the social and cultural implications of communication technologies, with a focus on disability and digital media, children and families’ technology use, and mobile communication. She is the author of Digital Youth with Disabilities(MIT Press, 2014) and Giving Voice: Mobile Communication, Disability, and Inequality(MIT Press, 2017), which was awarded a 2018 PROSE Award Honorable Mention from the Association of American Publishers and the 2018 Outstanding Publication in the Sociology of Disability Award from the American Sociological Association. In her research and teaching, Dr. Alper also draws on over 15 years of professional experience in educational children’s media as a researcher, strategist, and consultant with Sesame Workshop, PBS KIDS, Nickelodeon, and Disney.

Sonia Livingstone is a professor in the Department of Media and Communicationsat the London School of Economics and Political Science. Taking a comparative, critical and contextualised approach, her research examines how the changing conditions of mediation are reshaping everyday practices and possibilities for action. She has published 20 books on media audiences, especially children and young people’s risks and opportunities, media literacy and rights in the digital environment. Her new book is “Parenting for a Digital Future: How hopes and fears about technology shape children’s lives” (Oxford University Press, with Alicia Blum-Ross). Sonia currently directs the Digital Futures Commission(with the 5Rights Foundation) and the “Global Kids Online”project (with UNICEF), among other projects. She blogs at www.parenting.digital.

S. Craig Watkins is the Ernest A. Sharpe Centennial Professor at the University of Texas at Austin.  He is the author of six books including The Digital Edgeand Don’t Knock the Hustle.  Craig is also the founding Director of the Institute for Media Innovation, a boutique hub for research and design. Among other things, the Institute is currently working on projects that address technology and mental health, bias in the deployment of artificial intelligence, and the social, racial, and economic aspects of a post-COVID world.