Yesterday, the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. Vivek Murthy, issued an advisory on youth and social media, claiming, "We must acknowledge the growing body of research about potential harms, increase our collective understanding of the risks associated with social media use, and urgently take action to create safe and healthy digital environments that minimize harm and safeguard children’s and adolescents’ mental health and well-being during critical stages of development." Clearly, Dr. Murthy sees smartphone and social media use as a public health issue and concern. In response, and capturing the sentiment that smartphone and social media use may not be a public health concern requiring government intervention, is this piece appearing today in Reason: "Murthy's report ultimately calls for policy makers 'to strengthen safety standards and limit access.' Suddenly depriving millions of young people of access to social media would not make them healthier; on the contrary, it would probably make them miserable." Appearing before Dr. Murthy's advisory, Cal Newport offered his take on the issue via a deep dive into the literature, tracing concerns over teenage use of smartphones and social media from 2012 to today.
As someone invested and interested in our uses of technology, from my role as an instructor of a college course titled, "Social Media," to my role as a parent of teenagers, I find this issue not only personally relevant but also worth analyzing. In my class of over 100 college students, if I ask students how they feel using social media, most of them are not positive about the experience. Fewer hands are raised if I ask about limiting or stopping the use of social media. From a behavior change perspective, most students aren't much beyond contemplating a change in their social media use. An assignment where I ask them to take a one-week break from a single social media app highlights the difficulty in just going cold turkey on behavior change, even for a week.
So, behavior change and health promotion aside, I find this discussion of smartphones and social media and their impact on teens really helped by using stasis theory to consider the arguments presented around the issue. Both me and students benefit from slowing down and considering their and others' takes on this issue. In the past, I've used stasis theory as a way to consider social media or smartphone addiction with some success. Even just the question of definition prompts discussion; after all, is it similar to say, "I'm addicted to TikTok" as it is to admit an addiction to alcohol, for example? This is to say that as we look at the varied takes on smartphone and social media use among teenagers, we can learn where the agreements and disagreements lie, and how we might reach some consensus in, potentially, taking action (or not), and what that action might look like.
I'll rely on Purdue University's OWL for an overview of stasis theory and there are numerous takes on stasis theory, with some adding a fifth question, but I'll rely on the main four here.
Question of fact: This question may look at whether something happened; is there an act or issue to consider? Did something change to create this event or happening? When I introduce this question, I like to use Bigfoot or UFOs as an example. Considering what we should do about the rise in UFOs, or the impact of Bigfoot, moves right beyond a question of fact. Regarding smartphones and social media, there seems to be universal agreement on the fact that there is an issue. We know that as of 2012, smartphone usage took a leap, especially among teens, and new aspects and spread of social media apps occurred. There is little debate regarding the increased usage among teens of smartphones and social media. And, there is little debate regarding the increases in concerns over teenage mental health, loneliness, etc. If one looks at the three sources cited above, as well as many other recent reaction pieces out there, the fact that we have an issue with discussing and arguing over and acting on seems pretty settled. Even The Reason's reaction does not discredit that something has happened.
Question of definition: I always appreciate this question as it leads to good discussion over how many of our arguments are definitional. Generally, this questions looks at how we are defining the issue, or what kind of an issue it is. With students interested in legal studies, we have useful discussions of how the law relies on definition. Perhaps there is a dead body, so the question of fact is not up for debate; however, lawyers may argue in court as to whether we will define this act as self-defense or murder. Regarding social media and smartphones, I see one definitional disagreement surrounding whether this issue is a public health issue. Is this issue of social media use among teens closer to smoking (as Cal Newport notes) or is it closer to generational differences, such as parents disapproving of teenagers' music. Obviously, the Surgeon General is clearly placing the issue within the realm of public health. As such, this allows for recommendations and calls to action and policy that might not happen if the issue were not defined as public health. The Reason writer attempts to position this issue as a free speech issue, invoking the First Amendment. Additionally, the writer is hesitant and nervous to cede this issue as similar to COVID-19, a public health issue, due to the the actions that could be taken due to that definitional positioning. In his words, "the COVID-19 pandemic has shown that federal health bureaucrats are willing to substantially disrupt the lives of millions of people on an operating theory that some public health intervention is needed." Therefore, do not define this as a public health issue.
Question of quality: The question of quality involves questions surrounding the seriousness of the issue. If we agree on the fact that this problem exists and we define it similarly, then we might consider how serious the problem is. If I take a pen from my work home, with no intention of returning it, I would agree the event happened and I may agree that technically I stole from my employer; however, how serious is this offense? Even the Surgeon General notes benefits of social media and admits to "gaps in our full understanding of the mental health impacts posed by social media." And yet, the Surgeon General sees enough concern and evidence to warrant action, labeling it a "meaningful risk." While most writers will agree that evidence points to the dangers for teenage girls, in particular, on social media, The Reason's writer contends, "The harmed group is a subset of a subset, and the problem is not widespread across all social media, but mostly confined to one specific website: Instagram." After walking through the data, Newport also points to teenage girls and an increased concern for their use of social media, but is less dismissive of how serious the issue is, presenting studies and quotes from researchers such as Jean Twenge and Jonathan Haidt, to support his concern.
Question of Action/Policy: This final stasis question asks us to consider what is to be done. What action should be taken and by whom? It strikes me that many of our discussions on many issues involve this final stasis question, in which we debate whether to take action and how to do it. Unfortunately, in many cases we get mired in earlier questions of stasis so as to never act, or we fail to recognize that we have agreement on the previous three questions because we only focus on disagreements, whether real or imagined. Newport wraps up his talk on the issue by noting that there is a coalescing around policy and action. An agreement that something needs to happen or at least that moving forward action is the point to discuss. However, where one stands on this stasis question may be impacted by previous questions. For example, Newport presents a popular call to action reflecting the defining of this issue as a serious public health issue: Treat it like smoking or drinking and place age limits. Currently, many argue that 16 is the appropriate age for teens to gain smartphones and social media access. He claims that babies of today may grow into a world where it is just accepted that teenagers get social media access when they get a drivers license--at 16 years of age. Essentially, Newport and others in this camp, are using legal policy as a means to enforce what parents will or won't do on their own. In Newport's words, when teenagers complain about not getting to use social media like their friends, parents can reply, well, that's the law. However, as The Reason writer notes, parents should be the ones making these decisions not politicians. Again, creating parallels with COVID policies, the writer does not want politicians and lawmakers to take parental rights away regarding how this issue should be handled. Obviously, this is why the writer would not want the digital dilemma labeled a public health crisis. Recent action taken by some schools takes a third approach and disallows smartphones in the school. Some argue that tech companies need to take action, arguing that Instagram should be responding to the issue. One might also ask if teenagers themselves self-report the negative aspects of using social media, why don't they take action themselves?
It seems that the conversation and debate around this issue is reaching a point of action, where some parties will act or demand action. For example, politicians in Montana chose to ban TikTok recently (although it may never take effect with legal challenges). Earlier this week, the Supreme Court chose not to act on Section 230, which is also an action, so to speak, from a stasis perspective. Regardless, I agree with Newport that there is a coalescing around the action question--what should we do? With so many people writing and talking about this issue, I find stasis theory can be a useful way to cut through the noise and gain perspective and clarity on how people are viewing and arguing in this space. If we continue down the road towards agreeing that this is a public healthy issue, it will be interesting to see what prevention and treatment programs are developed. For example, while drinking alcohol may be illegal in the U.S. to those under 21, we know teenagers drink and we therefore create prevention interventions. (I can still recite the PSA from my youth about our brains on drugs, with the tagline, "Any questions?") What might those prevention programs look like for social media and smartphone use and will tech companies face lawsuits for marketing to teenagers, like JUUL's recent settlement? Ultimately, stasis theory allows us to thoughtfully and reflectively engage in these discussions and decisions; unfortunately, such an approach may not generate many likes on social media.
Comments