In the public discourse of the 21st century, resilience became a particularly popular concept when Americans became tangibly convinced on 11 September 2001 that the clash of civilisations was real and inevitable [Huntington 1997]. As a result of this and similar events and the increasing role of the media, more and more has been said and written about human endurance and the resilience of national communities. This theme returned with multiplied force and on an unprecedented scale after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic was/is exhausting, frightening and traumatic. Studies conducted during its initial waves, showed an increase in depression, anxiety and loneliness. Mental resilience, although defined in many ways, can in its simplest form be seen as the ability to survive and recover from the experience of adversity [Southwick, Dennis, DePierro 2024, pp. 2-9].
Another event that strongly influenced perceptions of resilience was the Russian Federation's divisive aggression on Ukrainian territory, which, in the form of a full-scale war, has been ongoing across our eastern border since February 2022. State resilience, seen as a country's ability to anticipate, prepare for, respond to and adapt to change, threats, crises and other major challenges, while preserving its core functions and structures [Boin, van Eten 2013], has become a special topic for those governing states bordering Ukraine and Russia. The novelty of the situation lay not in the fact that the technique of warfare had changed dramatically, but in the free access to information that came from the front. Disinformation, unconfirmed reports were the order of the day and all this was further watered down with a huge dose of war content coming from social media. In the first weeks and months of the war in Ukraine, interest in this topic translated into intensive use of digital tools by Ukrainians themselves, as well as by people living "near" the conflict in European and Middle Eastern countries.
In Poland, geopolitical motifs began to forcefully penetrate the discussion that had been going on for several years and, among other things, people began to talk about state resilience, cyber security, fake news, social adaptation. Maintaining the continuity of key state functions in the face of likely external threats became a key topic of public debate. Questions began to arise about strategic planning, crisis management, long-term planning, the protection of critical infrastructure. Examples from other countries began to be tested and calls were made for the application of these solutions to Polish conditions. The escalation of the war in Ukraine has shown anew that building state resilience is an ongoing process, requiring the involvement not only of the government, but also of the private sector, NGOs and society as a whole. An effective resilience strategy must be flexible and adaptive, able to evolve in response to changing threats and challenges [Bartosiak, Budzisz 2022]. Progressive digitisation has brought the problems of conflict outbreak, which were only the realm of contingency plans developed in the seclusion of the cabinets of those in charge of Poland, to the forefront of public debate. The free-movement media such as television, press and radio relied on modern media, available at the touch of a button.
In an era of increasing digitalisation, digital resilience has become a key challenge for modern societies. Awareness of this phenomenon among users of a variety of electronic devices, from smartwatches to laptops to smart TVs, is becoming increasingly important. The current scale of global availability of advanced technologies is unprecedented [Schwab 2017]. In this context, the lack of effective control over technology corporations that have built their power on creating and improving digital dependencies is increasingly raised [Zuboff 2019, Kreft 2022, Kreft 2023].
Younger generations, as well as many representatives of older generations who use digital technologies intensively, function, as it were, in an alternative, virtual reality [Twenge 2017]. This phenomenon can be vividly compared to living on a separate digital continent. The digital world increasingly permeates and shapes modern societies. A symptomatic example of the global reach of digitalisation is the situation observed during the migration crisis in Europe. In refugee camps, in addition to basic subsistence needs, phone chargers and access to electricity proved to be extremely important goods [Gillespie, Osseiran, Cheesman 2018]. Paradoxically, in many developing countries, despite deficiencies in basic infrastructure (schools, roads, health care), there has been rapid development of mobile and internet networks.
Social researchers in the field of mental health and social development point to a correlation between the proliferation of smartphones and an increase in suicide rates and the emergence of new developmental dysfunctions, particularly evident since around 2012, especially in young people [Twenge, Joiner, Rogers, Martin 2018; Orben, Przybylski 2019]. Digital resilience seems to be a highly desirable skill, as disordered use of these systems affects productivity losses at work, problems in establishing relationships and is an obstacle to ordinary, everyday interactions. From the sociology of everyday life, from our praxis, we see that when an over daily event occurs in a social space, we reflexively pull out our smartphone to capture it, and only secondarily react the way most people would have reacted before the smartphone era. We have less and less of the imaginative reflexes learned and developed before the mobile phone era, and rely more and more on digital devices to consume our daily lives. We cannot stand for long without them, we demand their constant presence and they demand our response. That is, not them, but the applications programmed in such a way that we have a smartphone in sight, so that we do not lose confidence that we can use it at any time, and that it will not let us down, we will not run out of power, we will not be cut off from power and internet access.
Our resilience, our absent-mindedness online, information about what strengthens it and information about what is most effective in stopping the great masses of people on the digital continent is currently at a premium. Information about our digital resilience, what creates and destroys it is of interest to many institutions ranging from security to entertainment. Digital resilience, as a subject of study in the sociological sciences, is therefore gaining importance. This concept, initially associated mainly with IT and data security, has evolved to take on a broader sociological meaning [Choi, Glassman, Cristol 2017]. In this context, digital resilience refers to the ability of individuals, groups and societies to adapt, cope and prosper in the face of digital challenges and threats [Frau-Meigs, O'Neill, Soriani, Tomé, 2017].
A sociological perspective on digital resilience includes: resilience as a social resource - seen as a type of social capital to cope with the challenges of the digital world; resilience as a process - continually learning, adapting and responding to changing threats [Livingstone, Helsper, 2010]; resilience as an uneven phenomenon - unevenly distributed across society, leading to new forms of exclusion and marginalisation [van Deursen, Helsper, 2015]; and resilience as a policy issue - requiring action at individual, social and political levels [Dutta, Geiger, Lanvin, 2015].
Digital resilience can also be differentiated according to the research perspective. In media education, it can be the ability to cope with negative online or offline experiences using digital technologies. From a social perspective, it can be expressed in the ability of a society to maintain basic social, economic and political functions in the face of disruptions or attacks on digital infrastructure. From an educational perspective, it can be the ability to use digital technologies safely and responsibly, including the ability to critically evaluate online information and protect one's privacy. This variety of definitions reflects the complexity and multidimensionality of the phenomenon of digital resilience in a sociological context [Scheerder, van Deursen, van Dijk 2017].
The multidimensionality of the digital resilience phenomenon is evident in the lack of a uniform definition, which leads to a variety of interpretations depending on the research context. In the sociological sciences, the following regularities can be observed in research on digital resilience. First, it is closely linked to broader concepts of social and psychological resilience [Southwick, Bonanno, Masten, Panter-Brick, Yehuda 2014]. Second, there are significant disparities in levels of digital resilience between social groups, potentially exacerbating existing inequalities [Payton, Hague 2010]. Third, the development of digital resilience requires not only technical skills but also socio-emotional competencies and fourth, cultural context plays an important role in shaping individual and group digital resilience.
Research on digital resilience focuses mainly on children and young people and the role of those around them, such as teachers and parents [Livingstone, Third 2017]. Key elements of building digital resilience include communication about problems and a proactive approach to solving them. The EU Kids Online project (2010-2020) showed that levels of digital resilience increase with age, and that parental support and digital education play a key role in shaping it [Smahel, Machackova, Mascheroni, Dedkova, Staksrud, Ólafsson, Livingstone, Hasebrink 2020]. Researchers emphasise that technical skills alone are insufficient; critical thinking and the ability to evaluate information are essential for building digital resilience and social context and peer support are also important. Research shows that people with higher levels of digital resilience deal more effectively with cyberbullying [Hinduja, Patchin 2017]. The role of parents is crucial here: their active involvement in their children's digital activities enhances resilience, while excessive control may inhibit its development [Livingstone, Helsper 2008]. Researchers point to the need for deeper studies on digital resilience among adults, seniors and young adults [Schreurs, Quan-Haase, Martin 2017].
Rodzina pozostaje kluczowym środowiskiem w kształtowaniu odporności cyfrowej dzieci. Choć fundamentalne zasady wychowania nie uległy zmianie, w ostatnich latach do procesu tego włączono narzędzia cyfrowe, takie jak tablety i smartfony [Marsh, Plowman, Yamada-Rice, Bishop, Scott 2016]. Badania pokazują, że dzieci bardzo szybko i intuicyjnie uczą się obsługi tych urządzeń, co może prowadzić do zmiany percepcji i interakcji z tradycyjnymi mediami. Powstaje pytanie o właściwe podejście do wychowania w erze cyfrowej. Czy nie zastępujemy tradycyjnego wychowania „cyfrowym”, gdzie urządzenia elektroniczne pełnią rolę „cyfrowych niań”? Zjawisko to, określane mianem „tata-tablet” lub „mama-tablet”, może prowadzić do wykształcenia się „homo tabletis” – dziecka, dla którego narzędzia cyfrowe zastępują interakcje z biologicznymi rodzicami [Kucirkova, Radesky 2017].
Najnowsze badania wskazują, że średnio dotykamy smartfona ponad 2000 razy na dobę, a czas spędzany przed ekranem wynosi średnio 8 godzin lub więcej. To rodzi pytania o jakość i częstotliwość fizycznych interakcji z bliskimi. Można zadać pytanie ile było takich interakcji i dotyku osób najbliższych przed erą telefonów komórkowych? Badacze alarmują, że nadmierne korzystanie z narzędzi cyfrowych może mieć negatywny wpływ na rozwój społeczny, prowadząc do szeregu schorzeń i zjawisk [Domingues‐Montanari 2017]. Są to między innymi:
• nieprawidłowa postawa ciała (tzw. „smartfonowa twarz” i „sms-owa szyja”);
• krótkowzroczność;
• nadwaga i otyłość;
• cukrzyca typu 2;
• nadciśnienie, zwiększające ryzyko zawałów i udarów;
• zaburzenia snu;
• wysoki poziom stresu;
• występowanie ryzykownych zachowań;
• demencja cyfrowa, dotykająca coraz młodsze osoby.
Te zjawiska podkreślają potrzebę świadomego i zrównoważonego podejścia do korzystania z technologii cyfrowych, szczególnie w kontekście wychowania i rozwoju młodego pokolenia [Spitzer 2012].
The phenomenon of digital socialisation requires an in-depth theoretical and practical analysis, especially in the context of its course and potential delay. Experts from various fields, including psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience and sociology, recommend a cautious approach to the introduction of digital technologies into children's lives. This is particularly important given that children now spend more than twice as much time in the digital media world as they do in school. The effects of overexposure to digital media can include disruptions in speech development, learning and concentration problems, increased stress levels, depression, and a growing readiness for physical violence [Rideout, Peebles, Mann, Robb 2021].
What is the recipe for preventing a total immersion into a mindless digital life? Manfred Spitzer writes that it is possible to cut oneself off completely (as during drug or alcohol addiction), it is possible to permanently talk, teach, raise awareness, and it is also possible to show by one's own example what an alternative to digital life looks like, i.e. what a return to reality without 24/7 availability, without giving oneself over to the web, can look like. The longer the disconnection, the offline life, the better the effects are [Spitzer 2016]. Children and young people are worth a special focus. The need is apparent for these two groups in particular, as they are the ones who will be deciding our world in a moment. They are the ones who are most exposed to the exposure of the digital world, which can take over their minds, their habits, and when this happens, even if they manage to cut this Gordian knot, the lost time in front of the screen will not be returned to them by anything and anyone.
These are suggestions for those who are already immersed in the digital world, but we should also bear in mind parents who want to consciously limit their children's contact with the media from an early age and thus shape their attitudes towards the use of technology. What is needed, is a kind of digital socialisation that allows the acquisition of competences, values and norms related to functioning in the virtual space and, at the same time, this process is accompanied by a gradual and controlled introduction of digital technologies, especially for children up to the age of 14 [Buckingham 2015]. A more restrictive approach here may be delayed digital socialisation. This is a more restrictive stance that involves consciously delaying the introduction of digital technologies into children's lives, often until the teenage years, in order to protect their natural psycho-physical and social development. A less assertive proposal is anticipatory digital resilience. It focuses on preparing the individual for the future challenges of the digital world, even before direct contact with it. It involves internalising the values, norms and skills necessary to function safely and effectively in the digital environment. The role of the most influential socialisers shows the importance of a conscious and controlled process of introducing children and young people in particular, to the digital world, taking into account their psychological, physical and social well-being.
Building on anticipatory digital socialisation, anticipatory digital resilience can be defined as the process of internalising values, norms, behavioural patterns and skills related to functioning safely and effectively in a digital environment to which the individual does not yet fully belong or with which he or she has no direct contact. In other words, the process of acquiring knowledge about potential digital risks and how to avoid them is important. The development of critical thinking and the formation of an attitude of responsible use of technology is certainly reinforcing here. This is the foundation for developing, building strategies for dealing with negative online experiences. The bonding element of building anticipatory digital resilience is developing adaptability to a rapidly changing digital environment [d'Haenens, Vandoninck, Donoso 2013; Helsper, Eynon 2013].
Delayed digital socialisation is the conscious and controlled process of introducing a child to the digital world. The protective period during which a child should not be exposed to electronic media is from birth to the age of four. Completely excluding the child from exposure to electronic media is a postulate that is difficult to achieve here. This is followed by an introductory period until around 11-12 years of age, where, through imitation of parents and teachers, the child learns digital technologies, gradual and controlled use [Livingstone, Third 2017]. Finally comes the period of conscious use, preferably under the watchful eye of parents, educators. The age of provision of children with smartphones is a few years lower, but during the period where more intensive digital education is envisaged in an ever-expanding framework of trust and knowledge acquisition must continue to be under parental supervision. This is when there is an opportunity to build digital resilience on the basis of parent-child cooperation and a strategy for coping with stress without resorting to electrical devices can develop [Przybylski, Weinstein 2017]. It is very important for the child to have preferably several alternative activities to develop creativity and social skills outside the digital world. It is not insignificant that parents need to constantly improve their skills in terms of digital tools, keep up to date with the latest developments so as not to lose touch with the most important functions and trends of interest to their wards. Ongoing education, lifelong learning, has another important aspect - parents should conduct regular monitoring, they should be able to assess the impact of technology on their child's development [Livingstone, Blum-Ross 2020]. In other words, delayed digital socialisation assumes that, through the controlled introduction of digital technologies, it is possible to develop greater resilience to digital addictions in young people, assuming that the young person has already reached a certain level of cognitive and emotional maturity.
Research indicates that excessive use of technology at a young age can lead to problems with sleep, concentration and even affect social and emotional development. For this reason, many experts advocate a later introduction of digital technologies, pointing to the age of 13-14 as the optimal time, as at this age young people already have developed critical thinking skills and the ability to make more informed decisions. They are also better equipped to deal with potential online dangers, such as cyberbullying, misinformation or technology addiction. Introducing technology only at this age allows for a more balanced use of technology, where technology becomes a tool to support development rather than a hindrance to it. Of course, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and the decision to introduce a child to the digital world should be made on an individual basis, taking into account the child's maturity and needs. Nevertheless, it is worth considering the arguments for introducing technology later to ensure children have a safe and healthy childhood in the digital age [Orben, Przybylski 2019].
In summary, building resilience in the context of delayed digital socialisation requires a holistic approach, combining the development of emotional, social and cognitive skills. Experts agree that it is crucial to build a strong foundation of mental resilience before the full introduction of digital technologies, which can significantly reduce the risk of addiction and the negative effects of excessive use of electronic media. In an era of increasing digitalisation, digital resilience is becoming a key challenge for societies. Younger generations make intensive use of technology, operating in a virtual reality. Research points to the negative effects of excessive use of digital devices, especially in young people. In this context, delayed digital socialisation, which involves consciously deferring the introduction of technology into children's lives, is gaining importance. Researchers emphasise the importance of building mental resilience and developing social skills before full immersion in the digital world. It is crucial to introduce children to the world of technology in a conscious and controlled way, taking into account their wellbeing. Only such an approach can ensure a safe and healthy childhood in the digital age. Family and education play a fundamental role in this process.
Dr Jakub Koper
Polish Digital Society
Footnotes:
1. Huntington, Samuel. Zderzenie cywilizacji. Warszawa: Muza, 1997.
2. Southwick, Steven i Charney DePierro. Odporność psychiczna. Warszawa: PWN, 2024.
3. Boin, Arjen i Michel J. G. van Eeten. „The Resilient Organization.” Public Management Review 15, nr 3 (2013): 429-45.
4. Bartosiak, Jacek i Marek Budzisz. Armia Nowego Wzoru. Warszawa: Zona Zero, 2022.
5. Twenge, Jean M. iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy–and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood–and What That Means for the Rest of Us. Nowy Jork: Simon and Schuster, 2017.
6. Gillespie, Marie, Syntia Osseiran i Melissa Cheesman. „Syrian Refugees and the Digital Passage to Europe: Smartphone Infrastructures and Affordances.” Social Media + Society 4, nr 1 (2018): 2056305118764440.
7. Twenge, Jean M., Thomas E. Joiner, Megan L. Rogers i Gabrielle N. Martin. „Increases in Depressive Symptoms, Suicide-Related Outcomes, and Suicide Rates Among US Adolescents After 2010 and Links to Increased New Media Screen Time.” Clinical Psychological Science 6, nr 1 (2018): 3-17.
8. Orben, Amy i Andrew K. Przybylski. „The Association Between Adolescent Well-Being and Digital Technology Use.” Nature Human Behaviour 3, nr 2 (2019): 173-82.
9. Choi, Minha, Matthew Glassman i Debra Cristol. „What It Means to Be a Citizen in the Internet Age: Development of a Reliable and Valid Digital Citizenship Scale.” Computers & Education 107 (2017): 100-12.
10. Frau-Meigs, Divina, Brian O’Neill, Allesandra Soriani i Valentina Tomé. Digital Citizenship Education: Overview and New Perspectives. Strasburg: Rada Europy, 2017.
11. Livingstone, Sonia i Ellen Helsper. „Balancing Opportunities and Risks in Teenagers’ Use of the Internet: The Role of Online Skills and Internet Self-Efficacy.” New Media & Society 12, nr 2 (2010): 309-29.
12. van Deursen, Alexander J. A. i Ellen J. Helsper. „The Third-Level Digital Divide: Who Benefits Most from Being Online?” Communication and Information Technologies Annual (Studies in Media and Communications, Volume 10). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2015, 29-52.
13. Dutta, Soumitra, Thierry Geiger i Bruno Lanvin. The Global Information Technology Report 2015. Genewa: World Economic Forum, 2015.
14. Scheerder, Annelies, Alexander van Deursen i Jan van Dijk. „Determinants of Internet skills, Uses and Outcomes. A Systematic Review of the Second-and Third-Level Digital Divide.” Telematics and Informatics 34, nr 8 (2017): 1607-24.
15. Southwick, Steven M., George A. Bonanno, Ann S. Masten, Catherine Panter-Brick i Rachel Yehuda. „Resilience Definitions, Theory, and Challenges: Interdisciplinary Perspectives.” European Journal of Psychotraumatology 5, nr 1 (2014): 25338. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4185134/ (dostęp: 27 sierpnia 2024).
16. van Dijk, Jan A. G. M. „Digital Divide: Impact of Access.” The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. 2017, 1-11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314732108_Digital_Divide_Impact_of_Access (dostęp: 27 sierpnia 2024).
17. Payton, Sara i Christine Hague. Digital Literacy Across the Curriculum. York: Futurelab, 2010. https://www.nfer.ac.uk/media/jnhety2n/futl06.pdf (dostęp: 24 sierpnia 2024).
18. Livingstone, Sonia i Alicia Blum-Ross. Parenting for a Digital Future: How Hopes and Fears about Technology Shape Children’s Lives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.
19. Smahel, David, Hana Machackova, Gianluca Mascheroni, Lenka Dedkova, Elisabeth Staksrud, Kjartan Ólafsson i inni. EU Kids Online 2020: Survey Results from 19 Countries. 2020. https://www.eukidsonline.ch/files/Eu-kids-online-2020-international-report.pdf (dostęp: 23 sierpnia 2024).
20. Hinduja, Sameer i Justin W. Patchin. „Cultivating Youth Resilience to Prevent Bullying and Cyberbullying Victimization.” Child Abuse & Neglect 73 (2017): 51-62.
21. Livingstone, Sonia i Ellen J. Helsper. „Parental Mediation of Children’s Internet Use.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 52, nr 4 (2008): 581-99.
22. Schreurs, Karine, Anabel Quan-Haase i Kim Martin. „Problematizing the Digital Literacy Paradox in the Context of Older Adults’ ICT Use: Aging, Media Discourse, and Self-Determination.” Canadian Journal of Communication 42, nr 2 (2017).
23. Marsh, Jackie, Lydia Plowman, Dixie Yamada-Rice, Jennifer C. Bishop i Faith Scott. „Digital Play: A New Classification.” Early Years 36, nr 3 (2016): 242-53.
24. Kucirkova, Natalia i Jenny Radesky. „Digital Media and Young Children’s Learning: How Early Is Too Early and Why?” Review of Research in Education 41, nr 1 (2017): 239-57.
25. Domingues-Montanari, Suzana. „Clinical and Psychological Effects of Excessive Screen Time on Children.” Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 53, nr 4 (2017): 333-38.
26. Spitzer, Manfred. Cyfrowa demencja. W jaki sposób pozbawiamy rozumu siebie i swoje dzieci. Słupsk, 2013.
27. Rideout, Vicky J. i Michael B. Robb. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and Teens. San Francisco: Common Sense Media, 2021. [invalid URL removed]
28. Spitzer, Manfred. Cyberchoroby. Jak cyfrowe życie rujnuje nasze zdrowie. Słupsk, 2016.
29. Buckingham, David. „Defining Digital Literacy—What Do Young People Need to Know about Digital Media?” Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy 10 (2015): 21-35.
30. d’Haenens, Leen, Sofie Vandoninck i Veronica Donoso. How to Cope and Build Online Resilience? EU Kids Online, 2013.
31. Helsper, Ellen J. i Rebecca Eynon. „Distinct Skill Pathways to Digital Engagement.” European Journal of Communication 28, nr 6 (2013): 696-713.
32. Livingstone, Sonia i Aleksandra Third. „Children and Young People’s Rights in the Digital Age: An Emerging Agenda.” New Media & Society 19, nr 5 (2017): 657-70.
33. Przybylski, Andrew K. i Netta Weinstein. „A Large-Scale Test of the Goldilocks Hypothesis: Quantifying the Relations between Digital-Screen Use and the Mental Well-Being of Adolescents.” Psychological Science 28, nr 2 (2017): 204-15.
34. Orben, Amy i Andrew K. Przybylski. „The Association Between Adolescent Well-Being and Digital Technology Use.” Nature Human Behaviour 3, nr 2 (2019): 173-82.
EN 
PL