The Digital Citizen 2.0 Reconsidering Issues of Digital Citizenship Education Daniel Becker Recently, ‘digital citizenship’ has become a dominant umbrella term for describing a dynamic set of competences and skills children and young adults need to acquire in order to successfully participate in today’s digital world. So far many current definitions of the concept have applied a purely instrumental perspective on the relationship between an individual and his/ her digital environment: the ideal digital subject (i.e. the ‘digital citizen’) is prominently seen as an autonomous user with a stable personal identity who acquires certain competences that allow him/ her to actively control the digital environment as a merely passive tool for self-enactment. Yet, this instrumental perspective falls short on explaining some of the more versatile interactions taking place in an increasingly complex digital sphere. For that reason, the present paper suggests a critical reconsideration of the digital citizenship concept. More specifically, the paper argues for a more integrative approach to digital citizenship that combines the already existing instrumental aspects with a more interactional perspective. In order to underline the proposed reconceptualisation, the paper will make exemplary didactic suggestions on how future digital citizens can develop an awareness of this new interactional dimension in the English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom with the help of Dave Eggers’ novel The Circle. 1. Introduction In recent years, digital citizenship has gained momentum as a prominent concept in educational discourse. Faced with the challenges and opportunities generated by new digital media and technologies, academics and educators alike have established digital citizenship as a “catch-all phrase to describe an ideal” (Ohler 2010: 40) for how children and young adults are supposed to act and behave in relation to an increasingly complex AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 44 (2019) · Heft 2 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen DOI 10.2357/ AAA-2019-0008 Daniel Becker 168 digital world. As such, digital citizenship represents an umbrella term for a dynamic set of competences and skills that young ‘citizens-in-themaking’ (Owen quoted in McCosker 2016: 24) must acquire to become digital citizens with “the ability to participate in society online” (Mossberger, Tolbert & McNeal 2007: 1) in a reasonable and respectful manner. The present paper will critically reconsider this set of competences and skills used by current approaches to digital citizenship. More to the point, it will be argued that definitions of digital citizenship so far have dominantly relied upon a strictly instrumental perspective on the relationship between an individual and his/ her digital environment: the digital citizen appears in the shape of the active and autonomous user, with a stable and singular identity, who acquires competences and skills to control digital media and technologies as merely passive tools for his/ her own purposes. Yet, as more recent sociological and cultural studies on digital identity show, this instrumental perspective disregards the complex interactions taking place when an individual encounters digital technology. In today’s digital age, individuals do not only shape their digital environment but are, in turn, also shaped and influenced by this very environment. As such, one might argue, a concept of digital citizenship exclusively relying on an instrumental point of view cannot adequately prepare young citizens for the complex digital world they experience daily. Given this conceptual deficit, the present paper is a first attempt to reconceptualise the concept of digital citizenship by shifting from an exclusively instrumental vision to a more integrative approach that combines instrumental aspects with a more interactional understanding of today’s digital society. Since “knowing how to use ICTs in an effective, efficient and safe way […] is no longer sufficient to be an effective citizen in a technology-rich society” (Council of Europe 2017: 39), the current instrumental ideal of the digital citizen needs to be enhanced by a more reflective component: it will be argued that next to being a competent user of technologies, the digital citizen also needs to develop a critical awareness of the interdependence between an individual’s personal identity formation and his/ her digital environment. In fact, this essential awareness of one’s own dynamic self in a digital environment becomes the very foundation for productively and responsibly engaging with others in the online world. With this goal in mind, the paper proceeds in three steps: first, current definitions of digital citizenship will be presented to show the dominance of the instrumental perspective and the ideal of the autonomous user. Then, in the second part, this narrow instrumental perspective will be challenged by discussing aspects of an alternative, interactional perspective and by addressing the question how this interactional paradigm can be used to revise current conceptualisations of digital citizenship in the form of a critical awareness of interdependence. Finally, the third part The Digital Citizen 2.0 169 makes more concrete suggestions on how this new critical awareness can be practically developed and fostered in the English as a foreign language (EFL) classroom by working with Dave Eggers’ best-selling novel The Circle (2013). 2. The Digital Citizen 1.0: The Instrumental Perspective and the Digital Citizen as Autonomous User As pointed out above, many current definitions of digital citizenship cater to the image of the digital citizen as a self-reliant subject who is independent from an environment of digital objects, merely serving as tools for self-expression. This section will take a closer look at this very notion of the digital citizen as an autonomous user and the idea of an instrumental relationship upon which it relies. For that purpose, first the historical development of digital citizenship as a concept will be sketched, especially in relation to the role the autonomous user played in this development. Then, on that basis, examples of current definitions of digital citizenship will be discussed to examine the forms in which this ideal becomes visible today. 2.1. Looking Back: The Pessimistic Discourse on Cyberspace In order to properly contextualize the current prominence of the autonomous user, one first needs to understand the social and educational contexts from which the concept of digital citizenship first originated. More concretely, the firm establishment of the autonomous user in current debates can be seen as the continuation of a long-lasting tradition that developed out of both a pessimistic and an optimistic discourse on digital technologies entering society during the mid-1990s to early 2000s: the figure of the autonomous user is both a reaction against the dangers of cyberspace and an expression of a new-found emancipation in cyberspace. From a pessimistic perspective, in its early days the internet and its technologies were seen as a potential threat that negatively affected children and young adults in various ways. Thus, as digital technologies gained a broader public attention, complaints about misuses of cyberspace started to rise in popular debates: The popular press is increasingly reporting a pattern of misuse and abuse related to technology in our schools, homes, and society in general […]. Some examples include using text messages or social networking sites to intimidate or threaten students (cyberbullying) […], downloading music illegally from the Internet […], using blogs or social networking sites such as Facebook to complain about teachers, or using cellular phones to text or play games during class time […]. (Ribble 2015: 14) Daniel Becker 170 At the beginning, the emergence of cyberspace was perceived as a step towards cultural ‘degeneration’ as it misguided and manipulated young people into practising irresponsible, anti-social behaviour. Especially in an educational context, this highly sceptical perception of the internet quickly led to a collective call for more rules and regulations to promote ‘cybersafety’ as a key concept against the dangers of the digital world. The advent of digital citizenship as a concept is closely linked to this call for cybersafety; or, as Third and Collins put it, “the emergence of digital citizenship in policy and popular discourse has been profoundly shaped by the risk and safety paradigm that has dominated mainstream debate about emergent technology practices since the mid-1990s” (Third & Collins 2016: 41-42). Digital citizenship started out as one possible response to the dangers of the new digital realm. As such, at its conceptual core, it harboured the same negative connotation of cyberspace that already informed the development of other initiatives at the time 1 : Vivienne, McCosker and Johns argue that “the notion of digital citizenship is invoked negatively to address problems” as a concept that relies on a negative basis, since it is “frequently anchored in anxieties about users’ vulnerability online” (Vivienne, McCosker & Johns 2016: 1); these are anxieties, which still somehow echo in definitions of digital citizenship today. It can be argued that it is out of this negative basis that the ideal of the digital citizen as an autonomous user first derived. Simply put, the establishment of the digital citizen as an autonomous user figure can be understood as a reaction against the negative implications associated with cyberspace: it becomes the conceptual ‘stronghold’ against the inherent dangers and pitfalls of the digital environment. From the perspective of the pessimistic discourse, the relationship between an individual and his/ her digital environment is not perceived as a relationship of mutual exchange but rather as one of conflict and friction, since, in this environment, the individual is in constant danger of being ‘tempted’ and misled into irresponsible behaviour. By (directly or indirectly) placing the individual in the role of the autonomous user, the concept of digital citizenship relies on a subject position from which the power dynamics of this uneasy relationship can be reversed: seen from this position, the relationship of conflict, in which an individual rather resembles a passive entity being manipulated, is transformed into a hierarchical relationship in which the individual becomes the active subject that controls and uses 1 The call for cybersafety was soon met internationally by a plethora of responses on different levels of education, including the introduction of various acceptable use policies (AUP) at individual schools, the development of the National Education Technology Standards (NETS), or the inception of official laws such as the Children’s Internet Protection Act (2000). The Digital Citizen 2.0 171 the digital environment, which is ultimately diminished to the status of a mere tool. 2.2. Looking Back: The Optimistic Discourse on Cyberspace Yet, this pessimistic discourse only describes one side of the autonomoususer-coin. Next to this negative perspective a more optimistic and positive discourse on the digital gradually developed around the same time. This discourse replaced the fears associated with cyberspace with the vision of the digital turn as a turn towards innovation, openness and individual emancipation. From this perspective, which is most famously expressed in John Perry Barlow’s Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace (1996), cyberspace is a realm of seemingly endless potentiality and “a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth” (Barlow 1996: par. 7). According to this more libertarian discourse, cyberspace offers a more open alternative to the social, ethnic and even physical restrictions of ‘real life’ by creating a space in which individuals can express themselves freely and thus find a voice of their own “without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity” (Barlow 1996: par. 8). In that sense, the digital is no longer a matter of danger but associated with personal empowerment, participation and a strong belief in individual agency; it becomes “a new ‘agora’ of free and democratic discussion” (Hintz, Dencik & Wahl- Jorgensen 2019: 28). This positive discourse on the digital also helped to shape the concept of digital citizenship at its beginning. Thus, digital citizenship not only developed as a response to a potential threat (see above) but also originated as an expression of a more positive outlook on the digital. Only one year after Barlow’s declaration, for instance, Katz was among the first to incorporate some aspects of a more optimistic agenda into his definition of the concept. For him, the digital citizen represents the values of openness and liberty who genuinely perceives cyberspace as “a force for good” (Katz 1997: n.p.), rather than a source of evil. In Katz’s account, digital citizenship becomes a synonym for individual self-realisation online. From this perspective, the ultimate goal of digital citizenship education is to train the digital citizen in how to use his/ her digital environment as a “tool for individual expression” (Katz 1997: n.p.) and as a device for online participation. Most importantly, although this perspective follows a different credo on the digital, these more optimistic conceptualisations of digital citizenship would also promote the autonomous user as a central ingredient in their agenda: here, the idea of an active and independent subject who enters a merely instrumental relationship with his/ her digital environment becomes the epitomic expression and conceptual manifestation of the empowered self in an open and benign digital sphere. The notion of Daniel Becker 172 the autonomous user who can act solely on his/ her own volition ideally mirrors the newly found sense of personal liberty in cyberspace: in this reading, the creation of a merely instrumental relationship between the individual as the user and the digital environment as the used advocates an individual’s agency and power to control his/ her digital surroundings for self-fulfilment and thus becomes a harbinger of a new form of emancipated individual that comes into being in the digital age. Seen from this historical perspective then, one can state that the ideal of the autonomous user is not a new phenomenon. Rather, the current prominence is the continuation of a historical development since the mid- 1990s, when, from the very beginning, the notion of the autonomous user gained a most important position in the conceptual genesis of digital citizenship. Historically, the dominant position of the autonomous user rests on the fact that it derived out of a dual tradition, with a firm foothold in two discursive spheres at once: at its foundation, the autonomous user is a hybrid figure that reflects both a negative and a positive stance towards the digital. As such, the autonomous user becomes the most central common denominator in which the two opposing discourses at the concept’s foundation meet and are united in the shared vision of an empowered subject in cyberspace. 2.3. The Autonomous User in Current Definitions of Digital Citizenship Current definitions of digital citizenship in the educational sector perpetuate this historical ‘legacy’: in their take on what it means to be a digital citizen, they also heavily rely on the existence of a self-reliant, independent subject and a purely instrumental understanding of the relationship between an individual and his/ her digital environment. More concretely, in more recent definitions of digital citizenship this prominent position of the autonomous user becomes visible on two different levels: first, on the level of how digital citizenship is defined in general, and second, on the level of the specific features that are usually ascribed to the figure of the digital citizen. First and foremost, the idea of the autonomous user actively using the digital environment as a tool permeates the very fabric of how the concept is described nowadays. Thus, in many current definitions an instrumental perspective on the digital becomes apparent in the fact that the notion of ‘use’ obtains a most central position when it comes to explaining what the concept of digital citizenship represents. In his monograph Digital Citizenship in Schools, Ribble, for instance, generally defines digital citizenship in terms of an individual’s “appropriate use of technology” and as an umbrella term for “the norms of appropriate, responsible behaviour with regard to technology use” (Ribble 2015: 15). For Bennet, Aguayo and Field digital citizenship is concerned with teaching children how to actively and successfully engage with the world The Digital Citizen 2.0 173 via “technological tools” (Bennet, Aguayo & Field 2016: 191). For that purpose, it is the educators’ task “to be good role models while using technologies” (Bennet, Aguayo & Field 2016: 191). Teachers become model users who serve as “diligent monitors of technology use and teach students the skills to use technology responsibly” (Bennet, Aguayo & Field: 2016: 192). As in Ribble’s study, here the digital environment is mostly reduced to the status of a neutral tool that one actively selects as a means to further a child’s knowledge of the world: “Educators can select technology to help students find a specific answer or let the child discover the world more broadly” (Bennet, Aguayo & Field 2016: 192). In summarizing many current definitions of digital citizenship, Hintz, Dencik and Wahl-Jorgensen also notice the trend towards a useorientation. As they point out, “digital citizenship is typically defined as the (self-)enactment of people’s role in society through the use of digital technologies” (Hintz, Dencik & Wahl-Jorgensen 2017: 731). This definition not only stresses the common use-theme but also highlights the fundamentally hierarchical active/ passive-binary structure underlying the instrumental relationship between the individual and the digital environment: from this perspective, digital citizenship is concerned with the citizen’s “empowerment derived from the use of digital tools” (Hintz, Dencik & Wahl-Jorgensen 2019: 15), where the digital environment is merely the passive foundation for the self-realisation of an active and autonomous subject. In the same vein, Furman defines digital citizenship as follows: “digital citizenship is a concept that involves the importance of teaching students about the responsible use of technology” (Furman 2015: 38). Once more, the definitional focus lies on the notion of use, with the teacher again being perceived in the position of the user role model: “teachers have a duty to talk to their students about the responsible use of technology, particularly if they are involved in using any type of technology with their students” (Furman 2015: 38). Students, as the soon-to-be digital citizens, are meant to follow this example of a technology-savvy user, as Furman underlines by additionally referring to the Standards for Students - devised by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) - which follow a similarly instrumental credo: ultimately, digital citizenship is about “advocat[ing] and practic[ing] the safe, legal and responsible use of information and technology” as well as developing “a positive attitude toward using technology” (Furman 2015: 38). As the ISTE student standards already imply, the dominance of the use aspect in general definitions of digital citizenship is not solely restricted to the academic realm. Rather, the instrumental perspective on the digital world also presents an essential factor in more popular and public approaches to digital citizenship. Thus, next to official statements such as Microsoft’s white paper on Fostering Digital Citizenship (2011), well-known public initiatives such as digitalcitizenship.net or Common Sense Media, to Daniel Becker 174 briefly name two examples here, likewise rely on the notion of use to explain their overall goal of educating digital citizens. In that sense, digitalcitizenship.net generally describes digital citizenship as “a concept which helps teachers, technology leaders and parents to understand what students/ children/ technology users should know to use technology appropriately” (digitalcitizenship.net 2017: par. 1). Common Sense Media particularly stresses the active nature of the user: digital citizenship is about “making safe, responsible, respectful choices online” (quoted in Jones & Mitchell 2016: 2064). The digital citizen is the one to make choices via technological tools, not the one who has also made choices for him/ her in interaction with the digital environment. 2.4. The Autonomous User and the Specific Features of the Digital Citizen Leaving the level of general definitions behind, the prominent idea of the autonomous user is furthermore reflected in the figure of the digital citizen him/ herself. More concretely, by taking a closer look at the specific features that usually characterize this ideal, it can be argued that the digital citizen is commonly perceived as a user-figure in two ways, as the following section will show. Although there is no unified, singular definition of the digital citizen in current debates, many recent approaches to digital citizenship nevertheless essentially share the conviction that the digital citizen’s overall “ability to participate in society online” rests upon two pillars: they define the digital citizen as an individual trained in 1) digital literacy and 2) digital etiquette. These two basic pillars correlate with two different facets of the user ideal: the digital citizen is both a competent user (related to digital literacy) and a responsible user (related to digital etiquette). Thus, on the one hand, the digital citizen must “develop[] the knowledge, skills, competencies, confidence and capabilities needed to use, interact with, communicate through, learn with, work with, and create with digital technologies” (White 2015: 10). These competencies and skills for “managing information and communication in the rapidly changing and increasingly digital world” (Summey 2013: 3) include the ability of “finding and identifying resources” online, using “social bookmarking, online document platforms, wikis, blogs, social networks” (Summey 2013: 5), or knowing how to “mashup and remix content from multiple online sources” (Summey 2013: 6). The digital citizen, in other words, first of all becomes a user of digital technology in the most functionalist and technical sense of the word: the digital citizen is someone who is able to understand and critically reflect upon how to operate digital media and devices on a technological and pragmatic level and who, on that basis, can safely and skilfully handle digital media as tools for individual and cooperative purposes. To that end, several publications (e.g. Gould 2018, The Digital Citizen 2.0 175 Ribble 2009) and public initiatives (e.g. digitalcitizenship.net, see above), concerned with digital citizenship in an educational context, focus on providing practical guidelines for developing specific technical skills, including the knowledge of how to work with internet browsers and search engines, the competencies necessary to select and filter information, or the skills to adjust security settings on social media profiles. On the other hand, since operating digital technologies is often an inherently social act, the digital citizen additionally needs to become a responsible user who is concerned with “suitable and accountable conducts in cyberspace” (Atif & Chou 2018: 152). In this context, ‘use’ gains a different connotation: it does not describe technical proficiency but rather the socially valuable and context-sensitive application of digital technologies. As such, the digital citizen becomes a user of digital technology in the sense of applying digital devices in alignment with specific norms and rules of online behaviour, which, according to Watanabe- Crockett and Churches (2018: 38), include respect for the self (i.e. not providing personal information that might harm one’s reputation), respect for others (i.e. actively challenging cyber-bullying and being respectful and tolerant in online interactions with others) and respect for property (i.e. respecting copyright restrictions and knowing about online plagiarism). Generally speaking then, on the level of defining the digital citizen, the dominant ideal of the autonomous user becomes a complex ideal incorporating two different facets of use: speaking about the autonomous user means speaking about a competent user and a responsible user at the same time and thus seeing the digital citizen as a complex figure using digital technologies on both an individual and collective level, as well as in a technical and social sense. 2.5. The Autonomous User and Personal Identity in Current Definitions Before moving towards a critical reconsideration of this currently dominant autonomous user ideal, a survey of the ‘state of the art’ in current approaches to digital citizenship must not end without mentioning that the idea of the digital citizen as a user correlates with a particular perception of the user’s personal sense of identity. More to the point, in recent instrumental approaches to digital citizenship, personal identity is (directly or indirectly) perceived as a stable, singular and consistent entity that just needs to be expressed through the digital environment. In that sense, White, for example, discusses the notion of identity in terms of “identity management”, which is concerned with “us[ing] data to your advantage” (White 2015: 90). An individual has to learn how to adjust personal information, connections to other people and group memberships on social media profiles in order to ‘transfer’ one’s fixed identity to the digital realm in the best and most advantageous way possible. In a similar vein, Daniel Becker 176 Ohler discusses online identities in relation to how ‘true’ they are to one’s offline identity. While Ohler admits that cyberspace indeed provides the opportunity to actively construct identities, as a playground for “try[ing] on new selves to see how they fit” (Ohler 2010: 49), in his study these online identities merely remain more or less accurate reflections of a stable offline self. In cyberspace, “we can outright lie or be more honest than we have ever been” in regards to who we ‘actually’ are. Online identities can “hide our RL (real life) identities” (Ohler 2010: 49), yet, in the end, they do not influence or shape them. Personal identity remains a stable entity with which one can ‘play around’ online, yet which is never actually altered through these online interactions. 3. The Digital Citizen 2.0: Reconsidering the Autonomous User and the Instrumental Perspective And yet, this instrumental perspective and its conceptual figurehead of the autonomous user face some serious limitations, as they present a rather narrow and restrictive view on the interconnected digital world that many digital natives experience daily. In the context of a digitalized society, in which digital devices and media platforms increasingly permeate every nook and cranny of private and public life, and in which social media influencers, professional youtubers and subscriber numbers become signposts of a young generation’s lifestyle, the question arises if a concept of digital citizenship based on a purely instrumental perspective can adequately reflect and grasp the life many people live today or if this perspective of the autonomous user rather neglects some of the complexities of what it means to exist in a digital world. In their theory on the digital subject, Allert, Asmussen and Richter describe this problem of the autonomous user ideal as follows: Die Idee des autonomen Subjekts […] stilisiert das Individuum zu einem Heroen, der Kraft seiner Vernunft und Kreativität, die Bedingungen der digitalen Technologien erkennen, diese für sich nutzen oder sich von ihnen abgrenzen kann. Die Perspektive verkennt jedoch das Ausmaß, indem die gesellschaftlichen und technologischen Bedingungen unser Denken und Handeln mitbestimmen. (Allert, Asmussen & Richter 2017: 14) 2 The problem of the autonomous user ideal lies in the fact that it embodies a one-dimensional perspective on the digital, which utterly disregards the 2 “The idea of the autonomous subject […] defines the individual as a hero, who, through the power of his reason and creativity, recognizes the conditions of digital technologies, in order to use them for his/ her own purposes or to become independent from them. Yet, this perspective fails to recognize the extent to which social and technological paradigms influence our thoughts and actions.” The Digital Citizen 2.0 177 active nature and influence of the digital environment. It thus disregards the complex interrelations between individual and environment that characterize the contemporary digital climate and presents a simplified version of a world in which active and passive elements cannot always be clearly separated. Consequently, Allert, Asmussen and Richter argue that in increasingly complex digital settings, a simple active/ passive dichotomy of an independent user in a passive environment can no longer be maintained and needs to be challenged. They suggest that this notion of a solely instrumental relationship needs to be replaced by a relationship of entanglement (“Verstrickung”; Allert, Asmussen & Richter 2017: 9), meaning that the individual and his/ her digital environment are in constant and mutual interaction, where one constitutes the other and where definite distinctions between the controlling and the controlled become inevitably blurred. The present paper follows this conviction of entanglement and suggests that an interactional perspective on the digital world can become the foundation for reconsidering the concept of digital citizenship. For that purpose, first this interactional perspective on the relationship between the individual and his/ her digital environment will be described in general, before then turning to its specific implications for the concept of digital citizenship. 3.1. From Instrumental to Interactional Paradigm When taking a closer look at this alternative perspective, as it is prominently promoted in recent sociological and cultural studies on the digital, it is most important to notice that with a shift from an instrumental to an interactional paradigm both the role of the digital environment and the position of the individual and his/ her personal identity need to be radically reconsidered. Thus, first, in this new framework the digital environment can no longer be perceived in the role of a passive tool for selfexpression. As Hörning points out, while for a long time digital technologies were perceived as “Objekte, Instrumente, über die wir als aktive Handelnde verfügen” 3 , the current focus lies more on the question “was die Dinge mit uns tun, wie sie unser Denken und Handeln mitprägen” (Hörning 2017: 70) 4 . Representatives of an interactional perspective paint a more nuanced picture of the digital environment and define it as an active force in its own right, which possesses the potential to make individuals act (cf. Carstensen, Schachtner, Schelhowe & Beer 2014: 10). Digital technologies and media are perceived in the light of complex systems of signification, which play an integral role in the way an individual 3 “objects, instruments, that we control as active agents” 4 “what these things do with us, how they influence our thoughts and actions” Daniel Becker 178 constructs a meaningful relationship to the self and the world. Thus, far from being neutral transport vehicles (“neutrale Transportbehältnisse”; Fröhlich 2015: 100) for communication and self-representation, digital artefacts “materialisieren eine bestimmte Logik, bestimmte Normen, die wir als Botschaften empfangen und die in der Wechselwirkung mit dem menschlichen Subjekt Wirkkraft entfalten” (Carstensen, Schachtner, Schelhowe & Beer 2014: 12) 5 . The digital environment, in other words, is not the medium for expressing an already existing self but serves as a dynamic component for constructing the self in the first place. As such, Schachtner and Duller argue, digital technologies “greifen auch in die Persönlichkeitsentwicklung ein; ja sie werden oft zum Teil einer Persönlichkeit” (Schachtner & Duller 2014: 90) 6 . Secondly, this reconsideration of digital environments in a more active position correlates with a reconsideration of the hegemonic status of the individual. In an interactional framework, the individual must no longer be seen as a controlling and independent figure with a stable and singular personal identity but needs to be redefined in a more indeterminate position, which, according to Alkemeyer, is characterized by “Unvollständigkeit” (incompleteness) and liminality (Alkemeyer 2013: 34). In the relationship between the individual and his/ her digital surroundings, the individual is neither completely active, nor completely passive, but both at the same time: “Das Subjekt ist aber nicht nur Untertan, genauso wenig wie es nur souverän ist” (Schachtner & Duller 2014: 142) 7 . The relationship between individual and environment, therefore, is one of mutual interdependence, where the former hierarchy of the autonomous user and an instrumental relationship is replaced by a more balanced perspective on both sides, since digital practices and individual subjects constitute each other (cf. Alkemeyer 2013: 34). In this scenario of “Verstrickung”, the notion of the individual’s personal identity also changes accordingly. In contrast to the instrumental perspective, which shows personal identity to be a stable ‘offline’ entity that just needs to be expressed online, the interactional perspective follows a more dynamic understanding: since the individual is seen in constant negotiation with the digital environment, personal identity is no longer defined as an already existing state of being but as a continuous process of becoming (cf. Schneider & Friesinger 2017). Instead of a clear offline/ online distinction, the interactional perspective promotes the conviction that in the contemporary digital age, identity simply does not exist prior to and outside of the digital realm but is constructed and con- 5 “digital artefacts materialise a certain logic [and] certain norms that we receive as messages and that work in interaction with the human subject” 6 “intervene in the development of one’s personality; in fact, they often become part of our personality” 7 “the subject neither exclusively the servant nor the sovereign” The Digital Citizen 2.0 179 stantly negotiated in interaction with the digital environment; or, put differently, identity is a matter of “Interaktionsspiele […] die sich zwischen dem einzelnen Subjekt und seinem medial-technischen sowie seinem menschlichen Gegenüber entfalten” (Schachtner & Duller 2014: 134) 8 . In the end then, the notion of stability and of a genuine ‘real life’ identity as an autarkic entity is replaced by the paradigm of a transitory identity (cf. Schneider & Friesinger 2017), stressing the idea of a constantly evolving self in a constantly changing digital environment. 3.2. Direct and Indirect Forms of Digital Interaction In the contemporary digital world, this interplay between the individual, environment and identity more concretely manifests in two forms: on the one hand, it becomes directly visible in online contexts in which identity formation and self-presentation are at the very centre of attention (e.g. social media platforms) and, on the other hand, it can be traced more indirectly in online settings in which individuals merely look for information and commerce (e.g. search engines, online retailers). Both forms will be briefly sketched below. By now it is a common place argument that new digital technologies and devices for communication have created new opportunities for individuals to connect with others. Social media platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, or Facebook have quickly become an essential part in the lives of many children and young adults (cf. JIM-study 2018) and have created thus far unprecedented possibilities for self-representations to a larger public (cf. Page 2012). Most importantly for the present context, these self-presentations on social media platforms rely on an intricate and complex interplay between an individual subject and the digital environment, which can be depicted as follows: 8 “interaction games […] that take place between the individual subject and his/ her digital as well as human counterparts” Daniel Becker 180 Figure 1: Interactional Dynamics on Social Media Platforms The interaction between the individual and his/ her digital environment is a twofold one. First, the individual interacts with the digital medium which is not just a passive tool, but an active part in the individual’s identity formation, as it allows some forms of self-representation while inhibiting others. Thus, in recent years, new media formats and genres to address biographical content have majorly contributed to the establishment of new identity discourses in youth culture: popular formats such as the Real Talk video and the Follow Me Around (FMA) vlog on YouTube or the Insta-Story on Instagram, for example, have helped to shape the image of the vulnerable and open self as an identity ideal, in the sense of individuals openly presenting their personal fears, emotions, inadequacies and desires to their audience/ followers. In this context, the medium is an important component in creating the cultural semiotics for expressing vulnerability, as when in Real Talk videos, many YouTubers show themselves in the intimate space of their bedroom to talk about personal matters. Linked to this first interaction, individuals on social media furthermore interact with other people on the platform. This happens in two ways: on the one hand, other people also represent themselves through particular media formats and thus serve as the social norm for an individual’s own identity formation. Many trending Instagram profiles, for example, feature pictures depicting full-body shots, fitness and workout sessions or close-ups of healthy food and thus advocate body positivity (cf. Wuri & Tambunan 2018) and physical attractiveness as central aspects of personal identity to which others should ‘live up’. On the other hand, other people directly or indirectly react to an individual’s selfpresentation via posts and comment sections, like/ dislike ratios or the number of subscribers/ followers, through which they can let an individu- The Digital Citizen 2.0 181 al know if the presented self is appealing and meets peer-group and societal expectations. Yet, this is only the tip of the interactional iceberg. Next to these more obvious dynamics on social media outlets, an interaction between the individual, digital environment and personal identity also becomes apparent in more indirect forms. Interactions, for examples, also take place when an individual simply searches for specific information on Google, or looks for new movies to watch on Netflix. In all these contexts, individuals encounter complex algorithms, which defy the label of a passive tool, as they actively and dynamically help to shape an individual’s view on self and society by selecting information and possible interests for the individual. The most mundane activity in the contemporary digital age, searching for information online, therefore, becomes a matter of constant interaction with the digital environment and its algorithms, as individuals are constantly faced with and react to an ‘algorithmic identity’ (cf. Cheney-Lippold 2011), which dynamically changes with the information they enter, accept or reject online. Seyfert and Roberge point out that nowadays algorithms are in fact so omnipresent in the digital sphere that there is hardly any realm of experience which is not somehow influenced by algorithms (cf. Roberge & Seifert 2017: 7), which has a long-lasting effect on how people perceive themselves and others around them. Algorithms often become normative ‘gatekeepers’ of culture and identity, as they might suggest some forms of culture and self-construction more often than others and thus actively contribute to shaping an individual’s sense of an ‘appropriate’ and acceptable personal identity (cf. Roberge & Seifert 2017: 22). In this overall environment, individuals live an ‘algorithmic life’ (Amoor & Piotukh 2016), in which, one can finally remark, a stable ‘offline’ identity does indeed not/ no longer exist. 3.3. Implications for the Concept of Digital Citizenship After discussing central aspects of an interactional perspective on the relationship between an individual and his/ her environment, one question remains: how are these considerations linked to the concept of digital citizenship? Simply put, as the brief analyses of social media and algorithms have shown, constant interactions with the digital environment - and, associated with it, a dynamic negotiation of personal identity - have become a quasi-omnipresent, daily phenomenon in the digital world many ‘digital-citizens-in-the-making’ experience today. Yet, current approaches to digital citizenship, with their instrumental hierarchies and dichotomies, have been utterly ill-equipped to capture and explain these complex entanglements. Consequently, the concept of digital citizenship needs to be reconsidered and the interactional perspective can become a good foundation for doing so. If digital citizenship education wants to teach children and Daniel Becker 182 teenagers how to responsibly and successfully move and participate in the present-day digital realm, it needs to be based on a firm understanding of that realm, especially its fundamentally interactional nature. This is necessary because it is no longer enough to only speak about the digital citizen in terms of a competent and responsible user. Responsible participation does not start with an individual’s knowledge of how to technically use digital devices or the knowledge of communicative rules and norms, but with the consideration of a more basic and existential aspect: it starts with an understanding of the individual subject itself in the digital framework. Only if digital citizens learn to understand the complexities and dynamics of how the self works in interaction with the digital environment, can they even begin to understand how to successfully interact with others within this environment. At its very core, therefore, a reconsidered concept of digital citizenship needs to be able to describe and reflect upon these basic individualenvironment dynamics and, for this matter, needs to incorporate aspects of an interactional paradigm in its conceptual design. This can be achieved by revisiting the foundations of the digital citizen figure. More concretely, the digital citizen’s two existing pillars (digital literacy and digital etiquette; see above) need to be complemented by a third one: while it is undoubtedly still important to know how to operate technologies and be tolerant and respectful in online communications, these pillars are not sufficient to adequately prepare children and young adults for a complex digital world, without a critical awareness of this digital world as a place of interdependence and entanglement. Based on the descriptions of the interactional perspective above, this awareness more specifically encompasses the following three interrelated dimensions: 1) Environmental Dimension This dimension refers to the digital citizen’s ability to understand the digital environment (with all its technologies and media formats) as an active component that can influence an individual’s thoughts and actions. In this context, and related to this ability, the digital citizen also needs to be able to perceive him/ herself in a passive position. 2) Identity-Related Dimension This second dimension is directly related to the first and refers to the digital citizen’s ability to perceive personal identity as a dynamic and transitory construct that is negotiated in interaction with the digital environment. For this ability, the digital citizen needs to be sensitized to the link between different technologies and media formats and the different self-conceptions they foster. In short, the digital citizen needs to be able The Digital Citizen 2.0 183 to differentiate between different digital genres and their implications for personal identity. 3) Affective Dimension The understanding of personal identity and the environment as dynamic and constantly changing can correlate with a feeling of ‘fluidity’: in today’s complex digital world, there appear to be no more fixed and stable foundations to rest upon; instead the default mode of being is one of repeated negotiation. In this context, the last dimension refers to the digital citizen’s emotional capacity to cope with the personal uncertainties resulting from a state of fluidity. Generally speaking, the digital citizen needs to tolerate and be open towards the unknown and, especially in the context of social media, needs to develop strategies to deal with negative personal experiences occasionally made in the process of negotiation. With this new pillar and its dimensions in mind, the revised model of the digital citizen can be summarized as follows: Figure 2: A Revised Model of the Digital Citizen In sum, the reconsidered composition of the digital citizen no longer exclusively relies on an instrumental basis but shifts towards a more integrative approach combining instrumental and interactional points of view on the digital. The ‘digital citizen 2.0’ rests upon a foundation of three pillars which constitute a perpetual interaction between a pragmatic component on the one, and a reflective component on the other hand. More specifically, the new conceptualisation no longer exclusively shows the figure of the digital citizen as an autonomous user but resets him/ her in the role of a more dynamic and reflective figure, whose actions in the Daniel Becker 184 digital realm entail five dimensions in total: the digital citizen 2.0 combines the knowledge how to technically operate digital technologies and how to adequately interact with others online (i.e. pragmatic component) with the ability to reflect upon the digital environment as an active influence, the ability to understand identity as a dynamic construct and the ability to cope with uncertainties (i.e. reflective component). 4. Practical Considerations: Developing Critical Awareness in the EFL Classroom with The Circle As with the other two pillars of the digital citizen, the third pillar (critical awareness) does not come naturally. Rather, children and young adults need to actively develop and foster it and, for doing so, they need didactic and pedagogical assistance. However, while there already exist some practical guidelines and frameworks for the development of a child’s more pragmatic user-skills and competences, practical considerations on how a more reflective component of digital citizenship can be fostered have been sparse so far. The last part of this paper can be regarded as a first attempt to change this practical imbalance by providing some didactic suggestions on how higher-level learners of English (Oberstufe) can develop a critical awareness in the EFL classroom with the help of Dave Eggers’ novel The Circle. 4.1. The Didactic Potential of The Circle Given the on-going debates in foreign language research about the sorts of literary texts and topics that should be discussed in contemporary language classrooms (cf. Fehrmann & Klein 2001, Fäcke 2009, Surkamp 2017), the first and most pressing question that arises in relation to The Circle is why this particular novel should be selected to foster EFL students’ critical awareness in a digital world. It will be argued that there are four reasons why this novel might be particularly relevant for that purpose: 1) Plot To begin with, the interaction between the individual and the digital environment is at the very centre of the novel’s plot: The Circle focuses on Mae Holland and her journey into the highly digitalized world of the Circle, the most influential software company in the near future. During this journey, Mae, as a new employee at the prestigious Circle campus, encounters many different digital technologies (e.g. the ‘SeeChange’ cameras), social media formats (e.g. the TruYou account) and algorithms (e.g. algorithms for calculating physical and mental health), which have a The Digital Citizen 2.0 185 long-lasting effect on her self-perception, thoughts and actions. As such, the novel provides a wide variety of examples of both direct and indirect forms of digital interactions (see section 3) that can be analysed with learners regarding their underlying structures and identity-related aspects. 2) Dramatization These various interactions are shown in a ‘dramatized’ fashion (cf. Bredella 2008): as many literary texts, The Circle addresses a mundane and familiar aspect of the reader’s everyday life (here: the daily interactions on social media and the omnipresence of digital technologies) and presents it in a slightly exaggerated and unfamiliar way. The novel takes the all-toofamiliar digital world “out of its ordinary context so that we as spectators can watch it, respond to it and comment on it” (Bredella 2008: 14). Eggers’ text puts today’s digital realm on a literary stage to foreground and make visible all the structures and dynamisms of the digital that are otherwise quickly overlooked in daily routines (including the active nature of the environment). Reading The Circle, therefore, becomes an experience of estrangement that ‘forces’ the reader to become aware anew of the digital world he/ she experiences daily, by considering it from a fresh perspective. This offers a perfect setting for the development of critical awareness: as banal as it may sound, in order to be able to reflect on the interactional nature of the contemporary digital society, soon-to-be digital citizens first need to learn to see these interactions and The Circle, by way of literary dramatization, can provide a fruitful starting point to foster this ability. 3) Narrative Perspective Next to being presented in a dramatized manner, the numerous interactions and their consequences are furthermore portrayed from a single narrative point of view, namely the figural perspective of Mae. The narrator grants the reader a detailed glance into Mae’s thoughts, emotions and fears and thus establishes the protagonist as a highly relatable and accessible figure. Regarding the development of critical awareness, this is important for three reasons: first, in contrast to a constantly changing narrative situation with multiple perspectives, the use of a stable perspective portraying the subjective impressions of only one of the characters can facilitate the reader’s “sympathy for and empathy with the protagonist” (Habermas 2019: 153), which, in turn, can generate a deeper immersion into the story world and a deeper understanding of the interactions Mae witnesses. Second, and related to the first aspect, the detailed internal perspective on Mae allows the reader to witness the affective dimension of interacting in a digital world, as the novel shows Mae’s changing sense Daniel Becker 186 of self, but also doubts and uncertainties upon being faced with complex and active digital environments. Finally, being confronted with such a fully-fledged, relatable individual and her subjective experiences in the digital world, the reader can perceive Mae as an exemplary point of comparison for his/ her own subjective experiences in the digital realm. Thus, an analysis of Mae’s transformation in the digital world can be used as a ‘stepping stone’ to discuss the transformative component in the learner’s own life. 4) Adaptation Another aspect of the novel’s didactic potential lies in the fact that the discussion of the novel can be combined with and enhanced by a discussion of the film version of The Circle (2017). The addition of audio-visual stimuli in the form of film not only broadens the spectrum of learning opportunities for different learner types (cf. Chilla & Vogt 2017) and helps to develop learners’ visual and media literacies (cf. Viebrock 2016); the film can also be more specifically used to deepen the learners’ understanding of the digital interactions portrayed in the novel by discussing similarities and differences of their representation in the film version. This comparison may range from using the film poster as a point of comparison (cf. Fisch & Viebrock 2013), which shows the symbol of the Circle with its interconnected lines - as a metaphor for the constant interrelations taking place in the digital world - to more complex comparisons of Mae’s identity formation in the digital framework of the campus. In any way, learners are required to once more deal with certain aspects of the novel in greater detail and, ultimately, must acquire a general understanding that different media formats (here: novel vs. film) can present the same content in different ways; the latter, as pointed out above, is an essential way of thinking in the digital age to understand how different digital formats can allow different forms of personal identity representation. 4.2. Approaches to Developing Critical Awareness with The Circle After generally sketching the didactic potential of The Circle as a learning material for digital citizens, this paper ends with some more concrete suggestions on how to approach the novel in the EFL classroom in order to foster higher-level students’ critical awareness of interdependence. To begin with, a teaching unit that aims at the development of critical awareness through The Circle must deal with all three dimensions of this awareness (i.e. environmental, identity-related, affective) to fully nurture a reflective stance in young digital citizens. While these dimensions constantly interact throughout the novel, The Circle offers particular passages in which one dimension becomes more prevalent and visible, and there- The Digital Citizen 2.0 187 fore easier to analyse, than the other two. With this in mind, the development of critical awareness through The Circle can best be implemented in the classroom by using what Thaler labels a ‘sandwich approach’ to the novel (cf. Thaler 2008: 105): after students have read the novel in their own pace at home, to gain a global understanding of the novel’s plot and characters, concrete tasks and activities in the classroom only focus on these specific passages of the text in which one of the three dimensions is clearly foregrounded, while other parts are merely presented in the form of summaries, provided by either the teacher or the students. In that way all three dimensions can be analysed in detail separately - though this separation must remain artificial - while still maintaining an awareness of their interrelation in the overall context of the novel as a whole. Furthermore, this fragmented approach generates opportunities for more open and cooperative learning arrangements. Thus, individual passages can either be discussed by different groups, who present the results of their task-based discussion to each other, or students can get the chance to individualize their learning process by working on pre-selected passages in their own terms and order (e.g. in the form of learning stations or week-plan activities). Below, three exemplary passages from the novel will be mentioned, with each stressing a different dimension. 4.3. Discussing the Environmental Dimension A student’s understanding of the active nature of the digital environment can be nurtured with a passage right at the beginning of the novel (cf. Eggers 2013: 1-15). When Mae first enters the Circle-campus, she quickly notices that most buildings are made of glass. She is especially fascinated by the on-campus glass cafeteria (cf. 15), where she can watch people eat from every possible angle, since even the floors and ceilings are glass constructions. This description of the cafeteria provides a metaphorical image foreshadowing a dominant theme in the novel: in the digital world of the Circle, every detail of life, even the most private and mundane aspects, becomes visible and can be seen by other people at all times, as if the self existed in a glass house. As such, the spectators in the cafeteria, looking at other customers, can easily be perceived as a representation of an anonymous mass watching someone’s self-presentation on social media profiles, which makes this metaphorical image ideal for sensitizing learners for the constant presence of the social other in the digital realm. Thus, before talking about genuinely digital elements in the novel in more detail, this initial passage can be used to discuss the general basis of a self-other interaction on social media and how this interaction with the social other influences an individual’s behaviour. In that sense, students may for example work on the following production-oriented task: Imagine you have the chance to eat at the Glass Cafeteria, where people can watch you eat from each side of the building, even from above and below. Create a daily Daniel Becker 188 vlog about your experience in which you describe your feelings in this situation. Was your behaviour different in comparison to a normal cafeteria? If yes, in what way? 4.4. Discussing the Identity-Related Dimension In order to discuss the process nature of personal identity in interaction with digital environments, it is best to focus on the protagonist Mae and the development of her self-perception in the course of the novel. Didactically, this development can best be shown when asking students to compare two scenes, one taken from the first half, the other from the second half of the text. More specifically, as a first scene, one can use her first day in customer service (cf. 48-54), when she is first introduced to the digital technologies of the company, while the second scene depicts her as one of the most popular live streamers towards the end of the novel (e.g. the passage when she visits her parents with a SeeChange camera, cf. 361-366). Students may first work in small groups, with each group only analysing one of the scenes individually, according to how digital technologies and Mae’s character are depicted. For that purpose, and in order to bring the interdependence between self-perception and digital environment into focus, the teacher can provide each group with a poster showing a silhouette of Mae’s head. The students’ task is to collect key words from the text that describe the digital environment (which are written around Mae’s head on the poster) and words describing Mae’s feelings and thoughts in this situation (which are noted down inside her silhouette head). In that way, students are able to visualize the fact that one’s self-perception is always embedded in a particular contextual surrounding. After the small groups have thus completed their poster, new groups can be formed, consisting of ‘experts’ for each of the two scenes who can present their results to each other. In this comparison students can ultimately trace Mae’s development over time (from an insecure person with seemingly nothing to tell, to a confident person often defining herself through her digital followers) and can recognize that her increasing involvement in digital interactions has a clear effect on her own identity formation. 4.5. Discussing the Affective Dimension As a dystopian novel, The Circle offers a broad variety of passages in which the feeling of uncertainty and fluidity, as well as the pressure of being constantly present in digital interactions become most visible. Just to name one example, these aspects can be seen in a passage when Mae is caught by the idea of improving her on-campus social ranking by becoming more active on different social media apps (cf. 190-195). In comparison to the other chapters, in this passage a change of narrative style The Digital Citizen 2.0 189 quickly becomes apparent: the narrator focuses more on numerical values by repeatedly referring to statistics and rank numbers, thus imitating Mae’s increasingly algorithmic perception of her own identity. This ‘algorithmic identity’ can be interpreted as something highly unstable, as Mae constantly feels the need to become ‘better’ and to be ranked higher by posting different facets of her own personality in different online contexts. The scene can be used as a stepping stone to make learners reflect on their own unstable self in digital interactions. Especially the need to be constantly present in order to generate more followers and subscribers is a phenomenon many digital natives might relate to in the context of their own Instagram or YouTube accounts. Raising students’ awareness of their own contextualized performance online, and thus of the inherent instability of the self, can be achieved by the following task: first, in a plenary discussion, students can brainstorm different contexts in which one usually posts personal information (e.g. personal profile, interest groups, job-related/ professional etc.). On that basis, and with the help of an Instagram post-generator - which allows students to write quasi-posts without actually posting them online - students are then requested to create appropriate posts about themselves for these different online contexts 9 . The most important aspect in this process is the students’ reflection on how their own ‘performance’ of the self changes from context to context, which can be achieved with a writing diary, in which students can capture their posting experiences, if necessary guided by simple wh-questions such as What sort of information do you provide in context x? Why do you provide this information in this context and not in context y? etc. In that way, students track their own changing personality online and can be made conscious of their own contextsensitive choices that establish their self-presentation in different situations. The results of their reflection can be presented in class (e.g. in the form of a slide show of their various posts), or, if students consent, can be published collectively on the school homepage as a class project on digital identities. 5. Conclusion and Further Considerations This paper attempted to showed that current conceptualisations of digital citizenship rely on an exclusively instrumental perspective on the digital world and thus need to be reconsidered. More to the point, it was argued that the prominent interpretation of the digital citizen as an autonomous 9 Here one might additionally discuss the specific narrative strategies being used by the writer/ narrator to get the relevant information across in a persuasive way in the different contexts. In other words, the textual properties of the individual posts can be analysed, thus sensitizing students’ awareness of how different texts allow different forms of identity representation even more. Daniel Becker 190 user fails to capture and explain some of the complexities of today’s digital realm, since living in the current digital sphere is a matter of complex interactions, in which both the individual and the digital environment are equally active and passive and in which personal identity must be perceived as a dynamic and transitory process. Based on these considerations, a new model of the digital citizen was suggested which combines instrumental and interactional approaches to the digital with each other: the digital citizen is not just a user figure, but also needs to develop a critical awareness of the interdependence between the individual subject and the digital environment. This awareness entails an environmental, an identity-related and an affective dimension. The contemporary digital realm is dynamic and constantly changing. If digital citizenship education wants to prepare children and young adults for this digital world, the concept of digital citizenship needs to adapt to these changes accordingly. The present paper merely suggested one possible adaption. Yet, this suggestion is far from being a holistic solution to a larger issue. Especially when considering the practical implications of digital citizenship in different educational settings and institutions, much more research needs to be conducted. The German Dagstuhl Agreement (2016) states that preparing children and young adults for a complex digital world is a shared duty of all school subjects and educational institutions. As such, all subjects and their underlying academic disciplines are requested to consider and analyse their own practical contributions to digital citizenship education. However, so far not many practical suggestions on how to implement a more dynamic and versatile understanding of digital citizenship in schools have been presented, and although the present paper ended with a reflection on potential learning opportunities in the EFL classroom, it is only a very first step in bringing a more complex digital world into the digital natives’ classrooms. Works Cited Alkemeyer, Thomas (2013). “Subjektivierung in sozialen Praktiken: Umrisse einer praxeologischen Analytik”. In: Selbst-Bildungen: Soziale und kulturelle Praktiken der Subjektivierung. Eds. Thomas Alkemeyer, Gunilla Budde and Dagmar Freist. Bielefeld: Transcript. 33-68. Allert, Heidrun, Michael Asmussen & Christoph Richter (2017). “Digitalität und Selbst: Einleitung”. In: Digitalität und Selbst: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf Subjektivierungs- und Bildungsprozesse. Ed. Heidrun Allert, Michael Asmussen & Christoph Richter. Bielefeld: Transcript. 9-26. Amoore, Louise & Volha Piothuk (2006). Algorithmic Life: Calculative Devices in the Age of Big Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Atif, Yasine & Chien Chou (2018). “Digital Citizenship: Innovation in Education, Practice and Pedagogy”. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 21.1: 152- 154. The Digital Citizen 2.0 191 Barlow, John Perry (1996). Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace. [online] https: / / www.eff.org/ de/ cyberspace-independence [2019, May 28]. Bredella, Lothar (2008). “What Makes Reading Literary Texts Pleasurable and Educational Significant? ”. FLuL 37: 12-26. Carstensen, Tanja, Christina Schachtner, Heidi Schelhowe & Raphael Beer (2014). “Subjektkonstruktionen im Kontext digitaler Medien”. In: Digitale Subjekte: Praktiken der Subjektivierung im Medienumbruch der Gegenwart. Ed. Tanja Carstensen, Christina Schachtner, Heidi Schelhowe & Raphael Beer. Bielefeld: Transcript. 9-28. Cheney-Lippold, John (2011). “A New Algorithmic Identity: Soft Biopolitics and the Modulation of Control”. Theory, Culture & Society 28.6: 164-181. Chilla, Solveig & Karin Vogt (2017). “Englischunterricht mit heterogenen Gruppen: eine interdisziplinäre Perspektive”. In: Heterogenität und Diversität im Englischunterricht: Fachdidaktische Perspektiven. Ed. Solveig Chilla & Karin Vogt. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 55-82. Council of Europe (2017). Digital Citizenship Education: Overview and New Perspectives (Vol. 1). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Eggers, Dave (2013). The Circle. London: Penguin. Fäcke, Christiane (2009). “Literarische Texte im Zentrum und in der Peripherie: Literaturdidaktik und literarischer Kanon im Französischunterricht”. Französisch Heute 3: 103-110. Fehrmann, Georg & Erwin Klein (2001). Literarischer Kanon und Fremdsprachenunterricht. Berlin: Beck. Fisch, Jonas & Britta Viebrock (2013). “Between Visual Literacy and Film Literacy: Working With Film Posters in the EFL Classroom”. Films, Graphic Novels & Visuals. Ed. Daniela Elsner, Sissy Helff & Britta Viebrock. Münster: LIT. 121- 140. Fröhlich, Vincent (2015). Der Cliffhanger und die serielle Narration: Analyse einer transmedialen Erzähltechnik. Bielefeld: Transcript. Furman, Robert L. (2015). Technology, Reading, and Digital Literacy: Strategies to Engage the Reluctant Reader. Eugene: ISTE. Gesellschaft für Informatik (2016). Dagstuhl-Erklärung: Bildung in der digitalen vernetzten Welt. [online] https: / / gi.de/ fileadmin/ GI/ Hauptseite/ Themen/ Dagstuhl-Erkla__rung_2016-03-23.pdf [2019, May 28]. Gould, Sloane (2018). Online Rights and Responsibilities: Digital Citizenship. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. Habermas, Tilmann (2019). Emotion and Narrative: Perspectives in Autobiographical Storytelling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hintz, Arne, Lina Dencik & Karin Whal-Jorgensen (2017). “Digital Citizenship and Surveillance Society”. International Journal of Communication 11: 731-739. Hintz, Arne, Lina Dencik & Karin Wahl-Jorgensen (2019). Digital Citizenship in a Datafied Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hörning, Karl Heinz (2017). “Wissen in digitale Zeiten”. In: Digitalität und Selbst: Interdisziplinäre Perspektiven auf Subjektivierungs- und Bildungsprozesse Ed. Heidrun Allert, Michael Asmussen & Christoph Richter. Bielefeld: Transcript. 69-86. Jones, Lisa M. & Kimberley J. Mitchell (2016). “Defining Youth Digital Citizenship”. New Media & Society 18.9: 2063-2079. Katz, John (1997). “The Digital Citizen”. Wired, 12 January. [online] www.wired.com./ 1997/ 12/ netizen-29/ [2019, May 28]. Daniel Becker 192 McCosker, Anthony (2016). “Managing Cyberbullying: The Three Layers of Control in Digital Citizenship”. In: Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture. Ed. Anthony McCosker, Sonja Vivienne & Amelia Johns. London: Rowman & Littlefield. 21-40. Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest (2018). JIM-Studie. [online] https: / / www.mpfs.de/ studien/ jim-studie/ 2018/ [2019, May 28]. Microsoft (2011). Fostering Digital Citizenship. [online] https: / / go.microsoft.com/ ? linkid=9781980 [2019, May 28]. Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J. Tolbert & Ramona S. McNeal (2007). Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society and Participation. Cambridge (MA.): The MIT Press. Ohler, Jason (2010). Digital Community, Digital Citizen. Thousand Oaks: Corwin. Page, Ruth E. (2012). Stories and Social Media: Identities and Interaction. New York: Routledge. Ribble, Mike (2009). Raising a Digital Child. A Digital Citizenship Handbook for Parents. Eugene: ISTE. Ribble, Mike (2015). Digital Citizenship in Schools. 3rd ed. Eugene: ISTE. Ribble, Mike (2017). Digital Citizenship: Using Technology Appropriately. [online] http: / / www.digitalcitizenship.net/ home.html [2019, May 28]. Roberge, Jonathan & Robert Seyfert (2017). “Was sind Algorithmuskulturen? ” In: Algorithmuskulturen: Über die rechnerische Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Ed. Robert Seyfert & Jonathan Roberge. Bielefeld: Transcript. 7-40. Schachtner, Christina & Nicole Dul ler (2014). “Kommunikationsort Internet: Digitale Praktiken und Subjektwerdung”. In: Digitale Subjekte: Praktiken der Subjektivierung im Medienumbruch der Gegenwart. Ed. Tanja Carstensen, Christina Schachtner, Heidi Schelhowe & Raphael Beer. Bielefeld: Transcript. 81-154. Schneider, Frank & Günther Friesinger (2017). “Identität im digitalen Zeitalter”. In: Id/ entity: Entwürfe - Erzählungen - Perspektiven. Ed. Günther Friesinger, Thomas Ballhausen & Judith Schoßböck. Wien: monochrom. 15-32. Summey, Dustin C. (2013). Developing Digital Literacies: A Framework for Professional Learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin. Surkamp, Carola (2017). “On the History of the Canons of English Literature at German Schools”. The Institution of English Literature: Formation and Mediation. Ed. Barbara Schaff, Johannes Schlegel & Carola Surkamp. Göttingen: v&r unipress. 257-273. Thaler, Engelbert (2008). Teaching English Literature. 2nd ed. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. Third, Amanda & Phillipa Collin (2016). “Rethinking (Children’s and Young People’s) Citzenship Through Dialogues on Digital Practice”. In: Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture. Ed. Anthony McCosker, Sonja Vivienne & Amelia Johns. London: Rowman & Littlefield. 41-60. Watanabe Crockett, Lee & Andrew Churches (2018). Growing Digital Citizens: Better Practices That Build Better Learners. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press. White, Jonathan (2015). Digital Literacy Skills for FE Teachers. London: Sage. Wuri, D.M. & S.M. G. Tambunam (2018). “Positive Body Image Activism in Collective (@effyourbeautystandards) and Individual (@yourstruelymelly) Instagram Accounts: Challenging American Idenalized Beauty Construction”. In: Cultural Dynamics in a Globalized World. Ed. Melanie Budianta, Anneke Budiman, Abidin Kusno & Mikihiro Moriyama. London: Routledge. 297-302. The Digital Citizen 2.0 193 Viebrock, Britta (2016). “Fostering Film Literacy in English Language Teaching”. In: Feature Films in English Language Teaching. Ed. Britta Viebrock. Tübingen: Narr Francke. 13-30. Vivienne, Sonja, Anthony McCosker & Amelia Johns (2016). “Digital Citizenship as Fluid Interface: Between Control, Contest and Culture”. In: Negotiating Digital Citizenship: Control, Contest and Culture. Ed. Anthony McCosker, Sonja Vivienne & Amelia Johns. London: Rowman & Littlefield. 1-18. Daniel Becker English Department WWU Münster Germany