Individualized Existence and Manifestations of Digital Emotional Practices in the Context of Risk Society

Authors

  • Yifei Zhao College of Literature and Journalism, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610065, China

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54097/fkhy4m19

Keywords:

Risk Society, Individualized Survival, Digital Emotional Practice, Modernity, The Youth Group

Abstract

In the context of the continuous deepening of social modernization, the domestic social structure and public life patterns have undergone continuous iterations, thereby reshaping the generation mechanism and evolution pattern of modern social risks. Under this background, the theory of risk society and the theory of modernity disengagement can effectively explain the survival situation and behavioral logic of contemporary young people during the social transformation process. The constraints of the traditional clan society gradually weakened, and the fixed individual development model was constantly dismantled. Contemporary young people are no longer subject to the traditional growth paradigm and mainly plan their personal development paths through autonomous choice and self-striving. With the comprehensive penetration of digital technology into social production and daily life, the behavioral patterns and emotional interaction methods of the youth group have undergone profound changes, giving rise to digital emotional interaction forms that are different from traditional face-to-face communication. Based on the current era context of accelerated social transformation and the continuous awakening of young people's subject consciousness, this study systematically examines the actual situation of contemporary young people's digital emotional practices, and explores the formation mechanism and core characteristics of their individualized lifestyle. Relevant research data indicate that the digital emotional interaction mode is highly compatible with the fast-paced life rhythm of young people, but it also gives rise to practical problems such as shallow emotional experience, weakened interpersonal connection, and utilitarianization of emotional demands. In response to this, this study constructs optimization paths from three dimensions: individual behavior adjustment, network platform regulation, and social environment optimization, clarifying the internal connections of various elements, and providing reliable theoretical support and practical references for the cultivation of young people's emotional literacy, the construction of mental health systems, and the governance of online emotional ecology in the new era.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Pittman, M., & Reich, B. (2016). Social media and loneliness: Why an Instagram picture may not leave you feeling connected. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(8), 1087–1106.

[2] Wilkinson, H. (2021). Individualised risk, precarity and young people’s mental health in late modernity. Journal of Youth Studies, 24(8), 1064–1081.

[3] Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A., Quattrociocchi, W., & Starnini, M. (2021). The echo chamber effect on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118.

[4] Nieborg, D., & Poell, T. (2018). The platformization of cultural production: Theorizing contingent cultural commodity circulation. New Media & Society, 20(11), 4275–4292.

[5] Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133.

[6] Vaterlaus, J. M., Tulane, S., Porter, B., & Beckert, T. (2019). Digital communication in emerging adults’ romantic relationships. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(3), 562–576.

[7] Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self expression. New Media & Society, 10(3), 393–411.

[8] Twenge, J. M. (2017). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population based study. Preventive Medicine Reports, 12, 271–283.

[9] Odgers, C. L. (2018). Smartphones are bad for some adolescents, not all. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(5), 324–331.

[10] Fenton, N. (2009). The internet and the public sphere. New Formations, 64, 101–118.

[11] Hobbs, R., & Mihailidis, P. (2020). Media literacy education in the digital age. Information, Communication & Society, 23(16), 2305–2321.

[12] Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(3), 220–228.

[13] Ermisch, J., & Siedler, T. (2020). Social connections, loneliness and digital media use among young adults. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 30(3), 289–304.

[14] Tranter, B. (2022). Young people, risk and mental distress. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(7), 1412–1426.

[15] Van Dijck, J. (2020). Platform society: How public value is constructed in algorithmic cultures. New Media & Society, 22(7), 1217–1234.

Downloads

Published

13 September 2026

Issue

Section

Articles