earticle

영어

By this contribution, we wish to pursue our investment on the digital sociability by presenting hollow and porosities of the effects of the disruption of the models in knowledges and economic grounds for the generation of “Y”, “Z” and “Alphas”. How do these youngs generations live this plural culture of the digital technology and how can transform the risks of nomadism and fragmentation into another identity shape of type collective intelligence? We shall put a theorical reflection with an exploratory ground on the deterritorialisation, the fragmentation and the detemporalisation which the digital technology contributes to feed not only in the economic plan , but also in the plan of the distribution of knowledge and the exchanges of knowledge. We shall think about the main possible challenge of these generations : the disengagement by excess of fluidity of networks and by the possible inconstancy of their behavior. Would have it not in these phenomena another possible perception that of inter cultures digital technology there or trans culture, revealing of a double ritual constraint that of a transitional rite of pssage having for base a dialectical opposition between individual or collective body and immaterial digital? It would be a question then for them of repositioning values as the hierarchy and the commitment, every type of values market by a too much saturated representation. The utopias of the co-territorial, the co-commitment under forms of life or style of life renewed ( the utopia of the hacking is symbolic there) and so appreciated by these generations undertake us to re question the concept of representation and thus localization. For that purpose, we reread with big care, Deleuze and Guattari about the concept of deterritorialisation but also Foucault for his anticipation of the evolution of an epistemology of the knowledge otherwise sized in human and social sciences in the XXIth century, and also Auray for his work on the digital culture and on the diet of commitment which it can pull. He named it “concept of curious exploration” without forgetting Schumpeter and his creative breaks.