Can parental supervision affect

outcome of cyber world?

In my attempt to answer this question, first I will attempt and de-construct every possible term that
is explicated within, in order to make sense of it at the first place. In recent scholarship, it is usually
attempted to answer such questions without identifying the problems that are integral part of the
question in itself. In formulating any sort of question, it most important part to frame the question in
a way that understanding the nature of question helps one to get towards it’s answer. Answers
cannot be found in dichotomy, on the contrary questions helps us to understand the issue in the
particular aspect in which the question is formulated. Questions target particular set of variables in
our world which interact in a precise form which we try to understand and theorize within a
language structure or vocabulary that is available to us. The present question identifies has six
different parts and ends with a possibility of ‘can’. The following sections of this paper will attempt
to understand these different parts in relation to each other which will open up a possibility to
interact with these variables in much more active way than thinking of these factors in passive
structural form. Question can be divided as follows: 1. World 2. Cyber 3. Parental 4.Supervision 5.
Affect 6. Outcome. In remaining paper we will see that how do these factors in interact with each
other in order to get holistic sense of the issue at hand. In my effort to understand question, I will
philosophical tools that are available to us which ultimately gives us categories to deal with reality.

1. World:
While dealing with the questions of cyber-world, e-society, or Internet, we choose and interpret
these terms as separate, distinct part of our ordinary experience of ‘world’. In such contexts, we
tend to have premises on which we built onto, having particular sort of understanding about the
terms like these. In this case, the reason we tend separate ‘world’ from the ‘cyber-world’ is because
we presume that ‘world’ that is given prior to human existence is natural, and we ‘humans’ are born
‘in’ the given natural world. So the moment, we hear the word, ‘world’, what we actually are
referring to is the ‘natural world’. But the question that we need to ask here is that can we truly
distinguish between the natural world and world that is affected by the post-human civilization?
Does world have any ‘natural’ element in itself, without human beings referring to it as ‘natural’ in
particular state of affairs? Is not the very act of articulating world as ‘natural’ is already affected by
the human intervention?
It is a typical sort of question as to nature versus nurture or nature versus culture type of
dichotomies with which we understand particular set of principles. Firstly, we humans are not
actually born ‘in’ the world which is natural, but our very act of coming into the ‘natural world’ in
itself an activity ‘of’ the world. Human existence in itself is a natural existence in the natural world.
Therefore, human beings cannot really be separated from the natural world and have to understood
as a part and parcel of the whole process of the world. It important to identify human existence as
natural because, while dealing with cyber-world or e-society we have strong sense that it is that
aspect of ‘natural world’ which is unwarranted at the first place. But, we often forget that every
human activity in the ‘natural world’ itself is natural. But why is that then we often categorize
between man-made world and natural-world?
In such distinction it is more of an ethical distinction that is made explicit. Because, if human
existence is natural in the ‘natural world’, it might appear as if human beings are not responsible for
their actions in the ‘natural world’ because it might justify the ‘wrong’ as natural. For example, the
very fact that human beings can kill other human beings proves that it is natural capacity to act
according to one's will, but that does not justify the action itself. We have capacity to think and then
act according to will give legitimacy to our actions and are not completely random. We have some
basis on which tend to act. Same way, the reason we categorize world in natural and man-made
because we intend to have responsible behavior focusing on our capacity to think and then act
according to it. Therefore, when the words like cyber-world are coined they emphasize onto the
cyber part of it and impose a sense of ethics onto the aspect that is discussed over here in the
question.

2. Cyber:
In above section we saw that we cannot really distinguish and separate human existence from the
world and realized that human existence is part of the world that is being talked about here. We
even saw that human activity in the world has to responsible for which coin different world in order
to understand various phenomena that are experienced. The very word cyber refers to the computer,
computer network and most importantly ‘virtual reality’. These are pretty modern form of human
activity in the world. It is a form of technology which is completely different from any sort of tool.
It is important here to distinguish between the tools from technology. Simplistically stating, we can
can say that tools ‘help’ us in order to cope up with the wilderness of the natural world. In other
terms, the reason human beings are different from animals is that we humans can manufacture the
tools that helps our bodies to survive in the wilderness. Compared to other animals, humans beings
do not have any distinctive body feature than separates us from rest of the animal world. What truly
distinguishes us from animals is our capacity to use and construct new tools that would support our
vegetative state of being.
On the other hand, technology transforms the way in which we ‘perceive’ the reality. For example,
the use of fire and human ability to control the fire is extra-ordinary (in comparison to animals). In
hunting gathering societies, when one eats burnt meat from the forest-fire, human being is treating
fire just as a tool. But the moment human beings control fire and use it manufactures various
hunting tools, it is a technology. In twenty-first century we have transformed a lot. I would not call
this development, but it is just different way in which experienced our ‘world’. Vegetative survival
is completely different from the perception towards the survival itself. When we are considering
human existence, we are considering existence which is somewhat beyond vegetative survival and
has some sense of meaning with which we make some sense of the reality. This sense of reality,
which we call perception has been changing from the moment we trace back the human existence.
In case of Cyber-world, we are perceiving or experiencing the world through the digital instrument
that is manufactured by human beings. Cyber-world is different term with emphasize on the term
cyber, and cyber part of the world which is controlled by the digital medium that is what it is. If fire
had been introduced as ‘technology’ in our human-society today, then we would have referred to it
as fire-world or something that would resemble the fire aspect of our ‘world’. Cyber as technology
is no different from the fire in its absolute sense. Fire does have changed the world as we
experience it or perceive it. Can we imagine a world without controlling fire? Can we refer to our
current experience of the world without fire as a technology in it? Same way, Cyber-world is
another name for the experience of the world which is dominated by the computer part of it. We
refer to virtual reality as if we have complete sense of what ‘reality’ is in its absolute sense. Reality
is ultimately our experience of it. Virtual reality underscores the instrument of our experience, but
what ultimately are having is the experience. The very sense of our being is through experience, and
there is nothing beyond our experience with which we understand the reality.
This subject-object relationship, or treating world as object and human experience as subject is very
scientific logical positivist approach which cannot encompass the ethical questions at hand. What
we need to have post-structuralist Deridian or Foucaudian approach which interprets world in
phenomenological aspect of interpretation. These scholars refuse the very idea of categories or
labels with which understand the world and reality. They focus more onto the ‘being’ part of the
experience and existential phenomenology so to speak. If that is the case, then there is no reason to
distinguish virtual reality from ‘reality’ as some alien to experience. As any technology comes into
our medium of experiencing world that does affect our perception by some way or the other. It is
inevitable, the question is how do we treat these ‘different’ experiences. While considering
technology or cyber-world there is some sense of evolution or advancement that we have, if not that
then we tend to interpret that in completely conservative or paranoid way or reject it completely.
Whereas, in reality we need first of all embrace the possibility of having ‘different’ experiences and
the ways in which we interact in the world, with the world, by the world, because every part of our
experience is ‘world’.

3. Parental:
While considering the parental supervision in order to affect the outcome of cyber-world, it is
presupposed that parents ‘know’ something more than the children and parents can ‘save’ them
from apparent danger. It is fundamentally important to understand the role of ‘parent’ and their
responsibility in the growing years of a kid, when he or she is not used to the ‘possibility’ of having
different experiences. As a parent, one can and should first and foremost thing has to ensure is the
vegetative survival of the child. Once child’s vegetative needs are met, the act of learning and
education comes into picture. The learning and education is not restricted to any particular age,
because the fundamentals of the educations focuses more on the adaptation, and in order to adapt
one has to fist experience the reality in complete sense. The language, words, connotations with
which they are used, everything depends upon the fact that how experiences are interpreted by his
surroundings and respond according to the people around that kid. It is mostly dependent on the
copying behaviors of the other which helps them to respond back to the experiences that they have.
This response to the surroundings or world is what helps them to create a sense of reality. Reality is
not objective. Again, reality is not some phenomena of the world that exists independently of
experiencing it. Reality is what one experience. In that sense, what we are dealing here with the
multiple realities. Realities are dangerous only if they harm anyone physically includes the self.
Because maintaining the vegetative survival and that to all human beings is the fundamental
principle of human existence. In addition to that what matters to human existence is free will. Free
will to interpret experiences differently, free will to self-educate, free will to learn. Therefore when
we are discussing the role of a parent in an individual’s life, it is limited only to ensuring the
vegetative survival of a kid, along with cultivating his or potential to learn and educate that is to
cultivate tendencies which will allow them to adapt various experiences that they have in their life.
Said that, if world and cyber-world are not exclusively different, and are part of the same reality that
is experienced by the individual then the role of parent is no different in case of cyber world as well.
It is more about educating children with virtual reality, help them to cope up with various
experiences that they have is the only role that parent has and it cannot be separately allocated in
case of cyber-world and non-cyber world. Because if cyber-world is not there, fire-world is there
and as a parent, at large, their duty remains to be same. The problem is that we still consider cyber-
world alien to our sense of reality as its pretty recent invention and would definitely take some time
for parents themselves to adapt to the technology that is guiding their own life in very different
ways. Therefore, before thinking about children and their response to the cyber-world parents
themselves should first be aware of the nature of technology that they are dealing with and make
sense of it at least for themselves at the first.

4. Supervision:
Dictionary meaning of supervision is: management by overseeing the performance or operation of a
person or group. From supervision, it is expected to ‘manage’ children. Hypothesis is that, children
can be ‘managed’. First of all, children are not some objects to be managed. They are human beings
as any parent is. The matter of fact is that parents have ‘more’ experiences than a kid has. More
experience means more sense of the reality. But having quantitatively more experiences does not
guarantee the qualitative understanding of the reality or the world. The very notion that parents are
in some sense superior to kids itself is a problematic approach in itself.
We often forget that the children have their own sense of reality, and have some interpretation of
reality by themselves by very fact that they are born in the world and have started experiencing. As
they gather more experiences, they get varied sense of reality in various contexts. Already kids are
born in a particular era, in particular socio-cultural setting by which their nature of experiences are
already very limited and habituated within the context in which they live all their lives. In some
sense they are already governed with some normative behavior that is already adapted by the
societies by in large. These normative and prescriptive behaviors already control the behavior of an
individual and does not need to have more ‘supervision’ in that sense.
But if it is concerned about the crime, and accidental exposure to the unwarranted, non-regularized
experiences through Cyber-world or ‘normal world’, then as said before it is no different for Cyber
world. In our so called normal world, we often refuse to have some liberal conversations with kids
even about their sexuality, career choices or even neuro-atypical behavior, on the contrary we label
them to be abnormal in blunt fashion. Parents often tend to have dogmatic expectations from their
children to pursue what they want kids to do, or even just expect complaint to the social norms only
because they do not want to face complications. In all these processes children are not given any
priority for their own existence as an individual being and always superimposed by some norm or
the other. In such scenarios, if there is any problem with the Cyber-world at large, it has to be dealt
socially and form different social institutions that can deal with such problems at large. For
example, in our normal world if there are crimes then we have police institutions to take care of
that, if we have consumer complaints we have courts, in the similar fashion Cyber-world should be
dealt with on a larger scale of the matter. On individual scale, parents can have open dialogue with
their kids and that is the only way by which they can cultivate the nature of inquiry within
themselves which will help them to deal with all sorts of technologies which can emerge in future
as well.

5. Affect:
While considering the responsibility of parents, in their nurturing their own children it is assumed
that families or parents have power to control behavior of their children or even control the
circumstances to which they are subjected to, but in reality, family is very small limited unit of the
society that cannot have absolute power on their children. Children by in large learn and educate
themselves from society as a whole. Even if parents try to cultivate protective environment for their
children upto certain age, kids are ultimately face the larger reality of the world by their own. In
reality, kids are nurtured in a way that they could be responsible citizen after a age of maturity.
Problem is that, kids at their young age are citizens of their own surround and society from their
birth itself. Kids are treated as if they cannot think or understand much about the reality. But it is
often forgot as mentioned previously that kids do have some experiences from their birth and its not
completely new for them to experience something new after the age of maturation. It is the matter
of change and circumstances that makes them to interpret their experiences in different ways
depending on the nature of community that they are subjected to. After all, community is no
different from group of individuals and yet they learn to form community from the community
itself.
It is quite paradoxical in nature, the way societies are formed and change their structure over a
period of time. There is no way to know any direct affect to particular behavior or control any
individual from any perspective. Individuals have their own nature of being in existence by which
they relate to all other existing phenomena around them. No one aspect of society can define or
contribute in forming a society completely. In case of kids and the environment that they are
subjected to it, it is more of a collective responsibility of the community and various ways needs to
employed in order to cultivate human nature in those individuals. It can be a state, government,
schools, relatives, or religious institutions, which shapes individual nature in holistic manner. If
thats the nature of reality of our own society then some policies has to developed in order to create a
space that would be safe for every citizen.
Such approach can be cultivated in Cyber-world as well where all different institutions contribute in
developing digital platform which would be just and safe for everyone. We first have stop
distinguishing different forms of realities or different realities and come on common grounds to
define the structure of the technology in democratic way which would be the real effort to cultivate
an environment which would help future generations to learn and educate themselves in good
atmosphere. It is like a see which has to grow into a tree. Only water or only soil or only fertilizer
that would help a seed to grow, but we need everything for good nourishment.

6. Outcome:
In our above analogy of seed, I talked about the tree that would grow after proper nourishment, but
we do not nourish the seed only because we want a tree as an outcome. For example, we are not
thinking about nurturing kids in proper way only because they will be adults later. We should
treating kids in respecting manner only because they are born and are able to experience. We cant
think of cause and effect relationship in humanities or effect of technology or cyber-world on
human society. It is much more complicated than that. The laws that are applied to material sciences
cannot be appropriated directly in humanities because it does not capture the importance of
perception or experience in our ordinary interaction within the world.
Therefore, thinking of one institution or one aspect of whole system as an instrumental in
cultivating human nature in children. While thinking about human response to the world, we always
have to consider inter-disciplinary factors that are involved in the process and identify the
limitations of the one institution and replacing it with other. It is whole process of negotiation and
can not simply be reduced down to the cause and effect relationship thinking about the outcome at
the center. Human actions are not directed towards goals or outcomes all the time.
Ethical principles and moral behavior cannot be understood in the terms of consequential approach
all the time, but there is something more fundamental to our existence which integrity and respect
for other existent being. It is not only utility based that we think about other human being or as
someone who would be contributing something back to the society. The reason we care for other
person and specifically children is because somewhere or the other parents experience their own
existence through their children and that is why they feel proud when children succeed or pain when
they fail. This sense of empathy towards other person goes beyond judging some action on the basis
of consequences, as these consequences are not the driving force of an individual existence, but
they very fact that they exist make them to interact with all sorts of existent beings. And this
interaction cultivates the sense of commune with other people, of which one becomes an
indistinguishable part in return.
In conclusion, we saw the presuppositions behind various theses in the question and derived an
understanding that goes beyond subject-object model of logical positivist in physical sciences. We
cannot distinguish clearly between virtual reality and reality in absolute sense. We even saw that
technology should be treated as a part of human existence and consequence of the very fact that
they existed allows them to experience world in different ways. We should restrain ourselves from
labeling anything in concrete manner and understand the dynamic relation with which one interact.
While answering to the question: Can parental supervision affect outcome of cyber world? We saw
that even if parents try to cultivate necessary grounds to grow for their kids, it can so happen that in
future these kids might be traumatized facing world that is beyond family control. We even saw that
such responsibility cannot be limited to family only, but it's a responsibility of community as whole.
Parents are after-all limited beings and cannot know everything that is necessary for their kids to
grow and interact in world in meaningful way. Cyber-world after all is an extension of our ordinary
non-cyber world. What we have here in Cyber-world is a possibility that would change the way we
think of reality and our existence. It should be treated same way as any other possible technology.
We are in early stage of understanding cyber-world. As we converse more and open up an honest
dialogue at large on all levels of social reality, we might get some insights from kids as well who
are already part of the society as human being.