The present study uses texting interactions from different digital contexts to reconstruct the structural features of everyday digital interaction between young people in order to examine the socializing tendencies of growing up in the digital age. Secondly, it will be reflected which of these characteristics is cultivated by the structure of the digital communication platforms, that is, stimulated and encouraged by the architecture of the platforms. Third, in order to further differentiate this question, it is considered in a cultural-historical perspective which technically cultured structures of interaction build on and promote long-lasting cultural tendencies. Finally, all three focuses on the impact of these interaction structures and tendencies on the experience, attitude and development of adolescents.
DavisK. (2012). Friendship 2.0: Adolescents’ experience of belonging and self-disclosure online, Journal of Adolescence, Vol. 35, Issue 6, 1527-1536, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.02.013.
7.
DürscheidC., & FrickK. (2016). Schreiben digital. Wie das Internet unsere Alltagskom-munikation verändert. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag.
8.
ErdheimM. (1982). Die gesellschaftliche Produktion von Unbewusstheit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
9.
GarzD. (2008). Vorwort zur deutschen Ausgabe. In KeganR. (Ed.), Die Entwicklungs-stufen des Selbst. Fortschritte und Krisen im menschlichen Leben (pp. 9–11). München: Kindt.
10.
GarzD., & RavenU. (2015). Theorie der Lebenspraxis. Einführung in das Werk Ulrich Oevermanns. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
11.
GranovetterM. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. doi:10.1086/225469
12.
KeganR. (1982). The evolving self. Problem and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
13.
KönigJ. (1994). Kleine Schriften. Freiburg: Alber.
14.
LenhartA.PurcellK.SmithA.ZickuhrK. (2010). Social Media & Mobile Internet Use Among Teens ans Young Adults, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED525056.pdf.
15.
Lévi-StraussC. (1960). Strukturale Anthropologie ii. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
ParsonsT., & ShilsE. A. (1951). Values, motives and systems of action. In ParsonsT. & E. A. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 47–275). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674863507.c4.
23.
PiagetJ. (1983). Das moralische Urteil beim Kinde. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
24.
PiagetJ. (1986). Die moralische Entwicklung von Jugendlichen in primitiven und modernen Gesellschaften. In BertramH. (Ed.), Gesellschaftlicher Zwang und moralische Autonomie (pp. 118–125). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
25.
PlessnerH. (1999). The limits of community: A critique of social radicalism. Amherst, MA: Humanity Books.
26.
PlessnerH (2019). Levels of Organic Life and the Human: An Introduction to Philosophical Anthropology (Forms of Living), New York: Fordham University Press.
TurkleS. (2015). Reclaiming conversation. The power of talk in a digital age. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
32.
WernetA. (2014). Hermeneutics and objective hermeneutics. In FlickU. (Ed.), The sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 234–246). London: SAGE.
33.
ZizekB. (2012). Vollzug und Begründung, objektive und subjektive Daten - Eine Parallele?Sozialer Sinn, 1, 39–56.
34.
ZizekB. (2017). Digital Socialization? An Exploratory Sequential Analysis of Anonymous Adolescent Internet-Social Interaction. Human Development, 60, 203-232, doi:10.1159/000479082.
35.
ZizekB. (2018). Tendenzen und Desiderata aktueller Sozialisationsforschung zu Kind-heit und Jugend aus der Perspektive einer rekonstruktiven Sozialisationsforschung. In Kleeberg-NiepageA., & RademacherS. (Eds.), Kindheits-und Jugendforschung in der Kritik. 355–388. Wiesbaden: VS.
36.
ZizekB.AndermannH. Z. (2020). Analysis of Youth-Oriented Websites. An Introduction to the Qualitative Image-Analytical Methods of Objective Hermeneutics. Beijing International Review of Education, 2, 54-76, doi:10.1163/25902539-00201005.
